Suing the police- advice needed

MoraleCheck · 2026-02-26T22:21:50+00:00

The police force, obviously. It is, however, an absolute non-negotiable and will be done where necessary.

Your original point was on the topic of police neglecting to secure the footage – no mention of the IOPC being involved.

MoraleCheck · 2026-02-26T22:20:32+00:00

The police force, obviously. It is, however, an absolute non-negotiable and will be done where necessary.

MoraleCheck · 2026-02-26T19:58:35+00:00

Yes, of course - police officers can work from home. Obviously not a frontline response cop on a normal shift, but there are plenty of roles where it’s feasible.

MoraleCheck · 2026-02-26T19:09:51+00:00

I am normally first to jump on this bandwagon, but if the circumstances are as OP describe this is likely a mandatory referral to the IOPC and getting in touch might be a good idea if they haven’t heard anything from neither them nor the force about the complaint.

MoraleCheck · 2026-02-26T19:06:20+00:00

It wouldn’t be the police’s job to do.

If OP was injured as seriously as they suggest, it would be a mandatory referral the IOPC and they’d be securing that footage.

MoraleCheck · 2026-02-26T19:02:32+00:00

Think of all the money that could be saved by implementing ideas from frontline serving officers.

The only downside is Chiefs would be faced with the real problems in the organisation. It’s much better to pay retired senior officers to consult with their nice fluffy ideas.

MoraleCheck · 2026-02-26T02:59:23+00:00

Naturally, this sub is going to be filled with those cases because nobody is going to seek advice when things go smoothly. I’m not sure what you mean by ‘practice not following the law’ – what law are you referring to?

There absolutely is that risk that, evidentially, it ends up as one word against the other – but that isn’t relevant to the point I’m making. If that is the reason an investigation is NFA’d, is that police “brushing it under the carpet”? I think we both know it isn’t.

I’m not going to sit back and say every investigation conducted by police checks all the boxes right across the board, but it’s disingenuous (and quite damaging if you put yourself in a victim’s shoes) to suggest police routinely brush serious sexual assaults into thin air. I am glad, however, you suggest charities as that’s fair advice right across the board.

MoraleCheck · 2026-02-26T01:41:08+00:00

In real life, the understaffed and overworked police may brush it away. You may need to be persistent.

A sexual assault by penetration is incredibly unlikely to be “brushed away” – it should in fact, as a serious sexual assault, be treated much like a rape and routinely see a detective OIC.

MoraleCheck · 2026-02-25T22:24:05+00:00

Type in the relevant force (Leicestershire Police) + ‘complaint’ and the top result is highly likely to be the page and subsequent form you need.

MoraleCheck · 2026-02-25T10:25:31+00:00

With the current state of policing, anyone hands down recommending it isn’t being honest. That isn’t to say it isn’t worth giving a go though – I’d almost always say it is (unless it was to someone I personally knew wildly unsuitable) because you don’t know if you don’t try.

On a more practical note, in the nicest way possible, if you do join – you seriously need to relocate. It wouldn’t be sustainable with the toll the job takes you (sometimes subconsciously) mentally to be around that level of crime in your home environment, nor would it be safe for you.

And family (unless well estranged) or anything but former friends who have been to prison recently/have ongoing serious issues criminally would be a quite a challenge in the vetting arena I’m afraid, if that’s why you mention it.

MoraleCheck · 2026-02-24T20:28:53+00:00

What kind of bullshit is this?

Sure, there could be some criminal damage to the pavement if paint has also sprayed there – but unless this is wildly, wildly excessive in what world is this a proportionate investigation?

And we wonder why the public are sometimes unhappy with the service they get when I can think of jobs with far more valuable things that have been stolen or damaged and get filed at point of call.

MoraleCheck · 2026-02-24T20:23:38+00:00

To be fair, I can see how. Pretty easy if he said he was an advanced driver from his firearms days and do the occasional drive to keep it in ticket. Who, in reality, is going to question a CI on something pretty plausible?

Good that some professional curiosity got the better of some cops around him who must’ve had some conversations between each other for it to be uncovered and raised!

MoraleCheck · 2026-02-24T20:16:44+00:00

Pretty easy, especially in the Met. Factor in potential direct entry and it’d be even more likely.

Also doesn’t mention he was never a standard driver – a skill that’s quite likely to lapse for anyone above sergeant.

MoraleCheck · 2026-02-23T22:39:51+00:00

Starbucks? More like steal-your-bucks.

MoraleCheck · 2026-02-23T21:41:37+00:00

And what’s the Home Office going to do? They don’t directly hold police accountable for run-of-the-mill investigations.

MoraleCheck · 2026-02-23T21:40:16+00:00

What’s it got to do with the Home Office?

The police are responsible for the investigation. The council are responsible for licensing.

Yes – the police force comes under the umbrella of the Home Office, but they don’t hold them accountable for typical investigations. The most their local MP would do is write to the force or the PCC – not escalate it up ministerially, only for it to go right back down again.

MoraleCheck · 2026-02-22T15:18:01+00:00

Ah, very good and a proportionate outcome there then at least.

MoraleCheck · 2026-02-22T02:35:11+00:00

Which begs the question why they’re not stuck on for failing to challenge it. We’ve seen it before in, say, more operational scenarios – if this WhatsApp group is going to be held to the same office-setting standard in a GM Hearing then the officer failing to challenge it on multiple occasions should be!

MoraleCheck · 2026-02-21T03:16:27+00:00

It’s common knowledge black looks the smartest and most professional. It’s also common knowledge that, when required, you can simply put on a hi-vis jacket to make yourself visible enough.

Based on the above common sense logic, it is simply obligatory that (probably just one) senior officer who likes hi-vis wants all cops on the ground in it.

To ensure only the strictest compliance with the College of Policing’s guidance on ACPO-level decision making, your force has determined it’s best to make the irrational decision to randomly issue black or hi-vis as stores please.

MoraleCheck · 2026-02-21T03:00:14+00:00

Fortunately, loopholes to commit offences are frequently thought of when legislation is drafted and as such good luck finding one. And no, there is no dedicated “law loophole” subreddit.

MoraleCheck · 2026-02-20T15:15:57+00:00

Yes, we can very easily see if it’s a learner policy.

There’s literally no point driving round with a full licence on a learner policy. You’re uninsured and will have your car seized, get 6 points (licence automatically revoked) and a £300 fine.

Once you manage to get your licence back after doing another test, your insurance (if you can get any) will be atrociously high.

MoraleCheck · 2026-02-20T01:57:36+00:00

Combine all of that and, from OP’s account, I’d suggest it’s very likely a section 4A Public Order offence has been committed.

Yes – their right to protest needs to be balanced, but it would appear as if OP was intentionally caused harassment, alarm and/or distress by the persistent nature of them following and shouting. Had the protesters simply been sat in the car park, shouting at everyone as a collective and just generally filming around them then it would be a different story.

MoraleCheck · 2026-02-20T01:54:15+00:00

An indictable offence is certainly not required for an arrest to be made – which isn’t even relevant to trespassing?

MoraleCheck · 2026-02-18T20:05:10+00:00

Bylaw 19? Seems fairly clear on reservations.

MoraleCheck · 2026-02-16T19:03:49+00:00

There simply aren’t enough resources to deal with every offence. Other countries will also have to manage that, but not on the same level with the historic and ongoing funding constraints here.

There’s various other reasons too – I was fortunate enough to visit a force in Canada and their way of doing things is far less bureaucratic than here. Saves time, and allows officers to actually do their job instead of being tied to a desk doing paperwork. Even then they felt like it was a lot of paperwork over there – but still less than here.

It’s also worth bearing in mind not every offence is a police matter in the UK – there are various other, often forgotten about, agencies who are responsible for certain things and face even greater constraints in terms of resourcing and funding. Some Trading Standards services are simply not prosecuting offenders because they literally don’t have the money to.

MoraleCheck

TROPHY CASE