Thread: THe Rozzers - What Are They Good For?

Originally Posted by ottar

Possibly. But it's equally possible that he didn't know what he was agreeing to.
It is common knowledge that the police use cautions when they know there is no chance of a conviction in court, relying on people's ignorance to accept them. Which is why I would always take single instances like this with a very large pinch of salt. If there was a history of cautions, however, that's different.

Personally, I don't believe the police shouldn't have them as an option. They're a lazy way of increasing detection statistics at the expense of centuries of judicial practice. Innocent people end up with a criminal record and guilty persistent offenders get nothing more than a criminal record.

Spot on.

Every copper I know and work with has the same advice.

GET A LAWYER IMMEDIATELY.

Admit nothing, say nothing, get a lawyer, let him/her talk for you.

Happened to me when I was lifted at a football match for basically being at a football match. Went from being "offered" a caution to being released with no charge and a (sort of) apology.

Like I said in my previous post, most of the OB I know are decent blokes, but they do have their w*nkers and even the decent ones get pressure from above to get "results", sometimes against their own judgement.

At that point you need to use the system against itself. Take the offer of the free lawyer, even if you know you are 100% innocent. Legal Aid lawyers in this country are generally really good at what they do, they are NOT the dross that the public think they are.

All of the above is straight from the gee gee's mouth. Every copper I speak to can't be wrong.

There's an ex rozzer here(and a senior one) who may be in a spot of bother:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010...s-fraud-claims

Originally Posted by Aunty Stella

Originally Posted by ottar

Possibly. But it's equally possible that he didn't know what he was agreeing to.
It is common knowledge that the police use cautions when they know there is no chance of a conviction in court, relying on people's ignorance to accept them. Which is why I would always take single instances like this with a very large pinch of salt. If there was a history of cautions, however, that's different.

Personally, I don't believe the police shouldn't have them as an option. They're a lazy way of increasing detection statistics at the expense of centuries of judicial practice. Innocent people end up with a criminal record and guilty persistent offenders get nothing more than a criminal record.

Spot on.

Every copper I know and work with has the same advice.

GET A LAWYER IMMEDIATELY.

Admit nothing, say nothing, get a lawyer, let him/her talk for you.

Happened to me when I was lifted at a football match for basically being at a football match. Went from being "offered" a caution to being released with no charge and a (sort of) apology.

Like I said in my previous post, most of the OB I know are decent blokes, but they do have their w*nkers and even the decent ones get pressure from above to get "results", sometimes against their own judgement.

At that point you need to use the system against itself. Take the offer of the free lawyer, even if you know you are 100% innocent. Legal Aid lawyers in this country are generally really good at what they do, they are NOT the dross that the public think they are.

All of the above is straight from the gee gee's mouth. Every copper I speak to can't be wrong.

Sometimes a caution can be a good outcome.

But only if you know you did it and know there's enough to charge you.

You'd best take legal advice and pay close attention to what the police have said they have (and make a note of it). Good interviewers will always give a written pre-interview brief to the solicitor (and if you don't have a solicitor, you should have one yourself).

Personally, if I hadn't done it and knew I hadn't done it and the plod weren't listening to me....

Become very sick and very tired quickly. You'll have to be medically declared fit for interview (and it burns up custody time).

Develop a sudden interest in the codes of practice. If you don't have a lawyer, why should you be interviewed prior to reading the rule book? Sounds a bit unlawful doesn't it? Then decide you don't understand it and better have a lawyer.

Burn up loads of custody of time, 'cos if it's a minor offence there's only 24 hours they can have keep you (unless a Superintendent authorises further time).

Try to run things to after 5pm when CPS direct (lawyer on the end of a phone line) as this take further time.

If you haven't done it, know you haven't done it simply say absolutely FUCK ALL. The legal words for this are “No comment�, it is your right. It's very rare to have inference from silence drawn at court anyway, so why make things easy?

But if you did it, know you did it and try trying to be a cock? That's OK, because just as a good copper knows how to get around the laws; there's more than one way I can fuck you over in custody perfectly lawfully. I just don't do it unless the suspect has thoroughly failed the attitude test.

Originally Posted by Aunty Stella

Originally Posted by ottar

Possibly. But it's equally possible that he didn't know what he was agreeing to.
It is common knowledge that the police use cautions when they know there is no chance of a conviction in court, relying on people's ignorance to accept them. Which is why I would always take single instances like this with a very large pinch of salt. If there was a history of cautions, however, that's different.

Personally, I don't believe the police shouldn't have them as an option. They're a lazy way of increasing detection statistics at the expense of centuries of judicial practice. Innocent people end up with a criminal record and guilty persistent offenders get nothing more than a criminal record.

Spot on.

Every copper I know and work with has the same advice.

GET A LAWYER IMMEDIATELY.

Admit nothing, say nothing, get a lawyer, let him/her talk for you.

Happened to me when I was lifted at a football match for basically being at a football match. Went from being "offered" a caution to being released with no charge and a (sort of) apology.

Like I said in my previous post, most of the OB I know are decent blokes, but they do have their w*nkers and even the decent ones get pressure from above to get "results", sometimes against their own judgement.

At that point you need to use the system against itself. Take the offer of the free lawyer, even if you know you are 100% innocent. Legal Aid lawyers in this country are generally really good at what they do, they are NOT the dross that the public think they are.

All of the above is straight from the gee gee's mouth. Every copper I speak to can't be wrong.

Pretty much everything you have said is accurate and my advice to anyone who finds themselves under arrest is to comply where possible with Police requests. They should offer no resistance as this still means alot to the individual bobbies who are only human and have been known to take to people and try and help them out. They should however ask for a legal rep at the earliest oppurtunity and keep their gobs shut until they have spoken to that rep.

What I would say though is sometimes a caution is the best option and is offered/encouraged so that a decent member of the public doesn't have to go to court, be treated like "A Proper criminal" and risk being found guilty and getting a fine/suspended sentence or whatever.

Needle Point:

I'm not going to insult you but I am going to say I think some of your advice is bad.

Where I am sickness means hospital and hospital means the clock stops. Hence you'll just be detained at hospital or in extreme circumstances bailed (I've never seen this yet just for illness alone and I've locked up people with HIV suffering from flu).

Reading codes of practice: Your welcome to. Its one of your three rights and you can do it in your cell whilst you wait for your brief. The bobby will just finish his paperwork then go and lock someone else up. Then the custody inspector will complete your review and suggest if its late you get "Bedded down" or in day time get dealt with by a prisoner processing team (Normally expert interviewers who better understand legal loop holes and the CPS hoops that the police have to jump through).

CPS Direct is notoriously easier to get a charge out of than local CPS. For starters the bobby can go and eat a cake whilst they make the decision based on his written account and his summary of the incident. Local CPS know the offenders and know the area. They know they're going to have to deal. The CPS who live in a country village do not know the offenders, know they're not going to have to fight it in court "in their own name" (Important considering they are governed by PI's too) and are often shocked by what us big city types see as minor violent crime. Hence local CPS are often a criminals best friend (Not through their own choice I might add I have now realised). Hence reserving themselves the nickname "The Criminal Protection Service."

Originally Posted by Needle_Point

...there's more than one way I can * you over in custody perfectly lawfully. I just don't do it unless the suspect has thoroughly failed the attitude test.

I find the idea that you have some form of "attitude test" & then use the result of it to decide whether to "* you over in custody" deeply, deeply worrying.

Originally Posted by CaptainPlume

Originally Posted by Needle_Point

...there's more than one way I can * you over in custody perfectly lawfully. I just don't do it unless the suspect has thoroughly failed the attitude test.

I find the idea that you have some form of "attitude test" & then use the result of it to decide whether to "* you over in custody" deeply, deeply worrying.

"Is this person going to benefit from a formal warning?" That is the "attitude test" and when put like that is perfectly lawful. Especially when put in writing to The CPS to avoid any suggestion of the police trying to shaft people they just don't like. That kind of behaviour I disagree with entirely because its not what the police are supposed to be about.

If they are clearly being as obstructive as possible (That doesn't mean denying the offence) then the answer is no and they have to be dealt with by other means.

I have locked people up who I have seen commit the offence. They have then denied it from start to finish but been polite and co-operative. As such they have been treated with dignity and respect and we have got on fine. No low ballers were put in their way and why should they be.

Somebody who comes in having punched the arresting officer, pretended to have a heart condition, refused to so much as answer their name until they have spoken to a solicitor (Their only reply to 'any' question being "GET ME A BRIEF") is not the type of person who is sorry for their actions or who genuinely believes they have done nothing wrong. Why should the arresting officer fall over themselves to try and argue with the custody sergeant and evidence review officer to get them let off with a caution or refused charge (Both things that get done for the clearly innocent and/or clear apologetic everyday).

Ah, the good old attitude test. That's the first drift from Policing to corruption.

Originally Posted by western

Ah, the good old attitude test. That's the first drift from Policing to corruption.

Define the attitude test - There are perfectly legal ways of deciding that a persons behaviour doesn't lend itself to the officer using the tiny bit of discretion they have left.

Then their is the other side of it which I think you are alluding to where bobbies just decide they don't like someone.

What I would say is that the second type of attitude test can't happen in custody. Everything is documented and everything is recorded audibly and with CCTV.

Can't disagree with you too much.

Thanks, Closet_Jibber, as usual you supply sensible answers to questions about an area of which I know nothing (thank God) except a speeding fine for doing 35 in a 30 zone!

Ultimately I think pretty much all decent people in this country are behind the Old Bill. The problem is that a few bad apples can taint the barrel, for example the fella at the G8 protests who'd "forgotten" his collar number; Dizaei; and a few gobby little devils that I've met who think that because they are wearing a stab vest & bat-belt they can be downright condescending to the public.

I'd far rather have a sworn Officer dealing with any potential misdeed that I may have committed than some oik from a council who has a little clipboard, hat & badge & the power to hand out fixed penalty notices. It is here that the principle of "guilty until proven innocent" is making its pernicious way into our legal system, the more so since parties who try to fight such penalties are denied the reimbursement of their costs in proving themselves innocent & thus could bankrupt themselves.

Someone once said never enter litigation with someone who buys their ink by the gallon. To that I'd add don't try to fight anyone who advertises job vacancies int eh Guardian

Light hearted plod

http://www.policeoracle.com/cops_capers/index.html

Originally Posted by CaptainPlume

Originally Posted by Needle_Point

...there's more than one way I can * you over in custody perfectly lawfully. I just don't do it unless the suspect has thoroughly failed the attitude test.

I find the idea that you have some form of "attitude test" & then use the result of it to decide whether to "* you over in custody" deeply, deeply worrying.

Oh come on!

Two true examples spring to mind.

Serial burglar politely telling me over a cigarette in custody yard "Sorry mate, it's going to be a no comment". No problem. Charged and remanded anyway.

Serial burglar refusing to open door on my polite knocks (and I did knock prior to putting the door through, honest), trying to hide a knife under a duvet, lying blatantly throughout interview. Fail attitude test.

Remand and enjoy watching the heroin addicted wretch climb the cell walls. Ensure at court next morning further remand to custody. Take her lack of co-operation as reason not to TIC anything and gate arrest her for everything that has cropped up which she did not admit to. Put her straight back inside; or if bailed, I get curfew checks done on her every night until she inevitably breaches them and back inside.

Net result, two burglars inside. Both have learnt not to get caught (unless anyone here really thinks that reform is going to happen overnight) and one not to mess the CID about.

Homes not broken into whilst they are in custody.

Result.

I'm not talking about getting the happy bag out and playing lucky dip, those days are long gone.

Nor am I talking about being a “jobsworth� with Mr and Mrs Average.

Just treating career criminals in the appropriate manner.

Doesn't seem that out of order to me, but may be I've gone a bit wrong over the years? I genuinely can't tell anymore.

My mistake was obviously to say it!

There's some mixed advice on here regarding No comment, Caution and Legal representation.

I see it as follows. It is your right to have legal advice and not to answer questions. I would always have representation but solicitors and legal reps are not some mythical beast and any half decent interviewer is not going to give a monkeys if you have one or not, Infact on some jobs I would rather the suspect did. They have guidlines and can't take the piss. Most will happily go along with what the police are doing as long as they don't think the police are taking the piss, that rarely happens because it not worth losing a perfectly good case for a breach of PACE.

Not answering question or givng a No comment interview is not always the best option.( I sould'nt but I still see it as a sign of guilt) I know legal reps who will always give me a no comment unless thier client has an innocent explanation. If you hav'nt committed the offence it is usually worth saying so. If I'm given an explanation in interview and other evidence suggest that the person is innocent I will tell my DS that I think the person is innocent and suggest we release them from custody sharpish. Contrary to popular belief we are not here to stictch people up and gain easy detections, infact there is some of the rubbish spouted regarding "easy target" detections. Most of the quoted offences(trafffic, drunk and dishorderly etc) dont count on the detection rates antway. You would be suprised what is not counted as a " detection". I personally could'nt care less about the sanction detection rate as it is the Chief Superintendant that gets paid a bonus for it and not me.
So if you are innocent say so. If you tell a legal rep you are innocent they will probably tell you to give your account.

The Prosecution stand a far better chance of getting an inference drawn at court from a no comment interview if the officer asks the right questions. A decent interviewer will.

As previously stated a caution is the best course of action in many cases. It is not an easy option and they investigation is the same up to the point of dispoal anyway. The extra work comes with the casefile. If a caution is available most legal reps will tell thier client to take it. The conversation with the legal rep whilst giving disclosure will go as follows.
NT - Your client has been arrested on suspicion of assault last night outside of the blue oyster bar, there is CCTV and four witnesses have made statements.
LR "-Any injuries?
NT - No, its comon assault
LR - Any previous?
NT - No, this seems to be completely out of character
LR - Is a caution available in this case?
NT - You know I can't promise a caution but if an admission is made in interview I will be strongly suggesting to the custody sergeant that it is the best course of action.

Technically a caution should not be given unless there is enough admissable evidence to take a case to court, the person admits the offence, understands the implications of accepting a caution and they are willing to accept a caution.
If you did it and get offered a caution. Take it.
If you did it but think you can get away with it. Take your chances at court.
If you did'nt do it. Don't accept a caution. If you are charged the system will hopefully work and you'll get found not guilty.


This is the way I see it for people who do not see being nicked and taken to custody as an occupational hazard(noone on here I'm sure). Sadly people who's line of work is thievery, robbing, burgling drug dealing,ripping people off and getting pissed up before attacking innocent law abiding members of the public know what they are doing anyway. These are the kind of people I hate and I do my best to lock up as many as possible. But It's done the right way. I don't try and stitch them up so the chances of me doing it to someone who has made a one off f*ck up are zero. There are not that many coppers who would.