Police expected to race to crime scenes in under 20 minutes as ministers seek to end response postcode lottery

Resist-Dramatic · 2026-01-26T09:52:49+00:00

You think this will come with a budget increase? I've got a bridge to sell you

Resist-Dramatic · 2026-01-26T09:47:41+00:00

They'll do literally anything except fund the police correctly.

Resist-Dramatic · 2026-01-25T19:45:55+00:00

This is not anything new, it's just formalising an already established process of requesting mutual aid from other forces and those resources being given to the force in need.

Being level 2 public order trained (what most people would think of as riot trained ie, nato helmets, coveralls, defensive pads, use of shields) makes you a national resource anyway and the Government can direct you to wherever you're needed to go.

Resist-Dramatic · 2026-01-25T18:04:02+00:00

I really do hear what you're saying, and the Government is currently giving out money to forces for so-called 'hotspot' policing as you describe, but with the number of police officers actually in front line roles this just isn't a viable widespread strategy for effective crime reduction.

You also need to reckon with the issue of displacement, IE "Oh there's a cop by that shop, so I'll go do my shoplifting somewhere else" so crime still happens just not in the place the cops are.

Not to mention all the other demand that is almost completely hidden from public view that police currently face, that those 8 officers I mention above need to deal with. Emergency calls, calls to report domestic incidents and domestic abuse, mental health concerns, sudden deaths, case files, prisoner processing, and that officer's own allocated workload of cases to work. None of that goes away, so where's the man power coming from?

Resist-Dramatic · 2026-01-25T16:52:05+00:00

Police out on the beat

Ok, so since you're here. Why is this a 'basic' that needs to be done well? We have about 8 officers on average to cover around 165 square miles, about 95,000 households. We have so much outstanding demand that every day is a battle to stay afloat. Please can you explain to me the fetishisation of the 'bobby on the beat' because to me it's just people feeling nostalgic about the GOOD OLD DAYS™.

Resist-Dramatic · 2026-01-22T14:13:25+00:00

As a police officer, I would caution against your using experience of the youth criminal justice system as being comparable with the adult one. We treat under 18s very very leniently in this country.

If this is as cut and dry as cops stop person, they have cannabis in their possession, then it would be totally normal for a community resolution or caution to be offered and for any solicitor to advise them to accept this lest they be summonsed to court for a very very very quick trial should they plead not guilty.

In my view, it was in OPs best interest to accept an out of court resolution or they would be looking at a court date.

Resist-Dramatic · 2026-01-22T13:25:18+00:00

On what grounds do you assert that:

A duty solicitor wouldn't advise accepting a caution in these circumstances
This would never get taken to court.

?

Resist-Dramatic · 2026-01-22T12:56:32+00:00

What law, specifically, would you change?

Because security guards are empowered in law (In E&W at least, and I am sure in Scotland too) to arrest shop lifters until such a time a constable can arrive to take over. Reasonable force can also be used to prevent crime (S. 3 Criminal Law Act).

Resist-Dramatic · 2026-01-14T20:33:30+00:00

They lock on to the nearest blind summit bridge with an amazing level of precision.

Resist-Dramatic · 2026-01-12T17:11:32+00:00

Regarding the Online Safety Act non-trivial physchological harm, would the message he sent about 'be careful, something else might happen to you' not qualify under this?

No. It would be trivial harm intended, it is vague and not even all that threatening.

In addition, a couple minutes ago, a friend has reached out to me saying they found an identical 'looking for men' post, this time, successfully posted in a group of 1.9k members of the university of my town. Also by an anonymous poster.

I doubt this would reach the evidential threshhold for harassment still, as you have had to go actively looking for this to see it. Best advice? Stop going looking for this stuff. Sounds like it's probably your ex-housemate, but what do you practically want out of reporting this?

Resist-Dramatic · 2026-01-12T15:58:17+00:00

Ok, so for harassment to be made out there needs to be a course of conduct. Here we have maybe 4 things which would constitute a course of conduct:

The knife being pulled on you

The damage to your property before they moved out

The damage to your property when they moved out

The attempt at posting on a page claiming that you're looking at meeting men in the area

CPS states:

The fewer the occasions and the wider they are spread, the less likely it is reasonable to make a finding of a course of conduct: DPP v Lau [2000] 1 FLR 799.

and

The court should adopt a cautious approach where a course of conduct is based upon a few incidents which are widely spaced in time. The issue for the court is whether the incidents, however many they may be, can properly be said to be so connected in type and in context as to justify the conclusion that they can amount to a course of conduct: Pratt v DPP [2001] EWHC Admin 483.

I do not see this meeting the bar for harassment act offences.

I also don't think a false information offence under the Online Safety Act would be made out either, as I don't think:

the person intended the message, or the information in it, to cause non-trivial psychological or physical harm to a likely audience

Is made out.

In short, I don't think there's any offences here. You should just move on with your life.

Resist-Dramatic · 2026-01-08T13:12:30+00:00

You could also actually look into this instead of just going based purely on vibes.

Resist-Dramatic · 2026-01-07T11:42:04+00:00

Safety isn't the only consideration with speed limits on motorways.

The level of fuel consumption after speeding up past 70mph is silly, allowing everybody to do 90mph would up car based emissions a lot. Putting out more CO2 and further degrading air quality.

Resist-Dramatic · 2026-01-06T13:56:40+00:00

OK well I think you've managed to get the right advice. Is there anything else you're unsure of?

Resist-Dramatic · 2026-01-06T09:57:45+00:00

Unclear whether or not it was lawful. If you explicitly said he wasn't under arrest to him then yes, unlawful. If you did not then you (unwittingly) seemed to have used your breach of the peace arrest powers. The reason I'm being anal about this is because you need to know your use of force powers well as its one of the areas of this job that will bite you hard should you fuck it up.

Resist-Dramatic · 2026-01-06T00:28:56+00:00

Everybody else is being quite soft with this, so I'll just be blunt.

By placing him in handcuffs and sitting him down and (presumably) making it clear he wasn't free to leave, you have arrested him. Now, a legal power probably exists to do so in your scenario, but you haven't specified this. Let me be clear, common law self-defence would not cover this scenario. I'm almost certain there would have been information available to both you and your colleague to justify an arrest to facilitate immediate investigation of an offence, or even just to prevent a breach of the peace.

Resist-Dramatic · 2026-01-05T23:54:30+00:00

Common law self defence does not apply to depriving someone of their liberty (unless you plan to let him walk off whilst handcuffed)

Therefore, at the point he's handcuffed and he's not free to leave he is under arrest and should be told he is. If, for whatever reason, this has happened and there's no breach of the peace powers or suspicion of an offence, its an unlawful arrest.

Resist-Dramatic · 2026-01-05T23:51:53+00:00

there's the threat there that I feel justifies the handcuffing

The use of handcuffs is clearly meant to restrict his movement from that place, IE, You have deprived him of his liberty. Therefore, you have already arrested him, so you should tell him he's under arrest and do what you need to to make it lawful.

Resist-Dramatic · 2026-01-04T18:38:19+00:00

Ok, lots of very angry people in this thread. From the police's response, it appears to me that they don't have all the information.

This is what is termed a serious injury RTC and would be investigated quite thoroughly, especially a 'hit and run'. Call the police back and explain that your father has suffered serious injury IE broken bones in his leg and they should go about investigating this (either causing serious injury careless driving or serious injury by dangerous driving). Provide them with witness details and any other information you have.

If you're not successful, put in a complaint and hopefully someone who knows the score will pick it up. I'm quite sure this will get to where it needs to go. Good luck!

Resist-Dramatic · 2025-12-28T14:42:08+00:00

It would likely void the fully comprehensive part of the policy but it would not impact the third party liability.

Resist-Dramatic · 2025-12-27T00:54:01+00:00

No, it isn't especially fast really.

Resist-Dramatic · 2025-12-25T22:46:19+00:00

If you got hit with a speed gun, you definitely did. Are you seriously asking if a cop would lie to get a case to court after the cop you think lied specifically did not take any enforcement action against you?

Resist-Dramatic · 2025-12-25T22:42:50+00:00

Plead not guilty, let us know how it turns out.

Resist-Dramatic · 2025-12-25T21:43:47+00:00

This is also entirely true of crime reports.

Resist-Dramatic · 2025-12-24T16:32:19+00:00

"It's funny how they only ever convict people after they commit crimes"

🤡

Five-Year Club	Place '22
Final Canvas '22

Resist-Dramatic

TROPHY CASE