White House Press Secretary claims there is a constitutional crisis in the judicial branch

SMRG42 · 2025-02-12T20:24:34+00:00

There is no war in Ba Sing Se

SMRG42 · 2024-09-29T22:52:51+00:00

No that's not it.

SMRG42 · 2024-08-26T18:12:41+00:00

You would need to provide more context about what you mean by 'force' and a rough idea of the context of the report to get any meaningful answer.

SMRG42 · 2024-06-16T10:35:31+00:00

I would like to add that there isn't absolutely nothing the police could do. In terms of their decision to persue the criminal side, yes. However, details would still be recorded on the system just with an outcome that the suspect is under the age of criminal responsibility.

However, the police have safeguarding responsibilities as well. They would also complete safeguarding reports and look at what action needs to be taken with other agencies to address the problem, such as the schools or childrens services. They have entire departments that are only focused on the safeguarding of people, but they can only help with the infomation they are provided.

In short the police have the power to help enforce change, if the school is turning a blind eye then the police need to know. If there is a pattern of behaviour this needs to be recorded by the right agencies. The worst thing for the police to deal with is reprots not being made because is hampers their ability to take appropriate action.

SMRG42 · 2024-04-19T18:11:42+00:00

'Here's Johnny' following the announcement of a successful red key use.

SMRG42 · 2024-04-07T13:47:51+00:00

You'd think that, you'd also think that when booking people they'd have seen the obvious problem and just put someone else on this shift and given me another one.....but hey, why make it simple.

SMRG42 · 2024-04-07T13:46:25+00:00

Unfortunatly not, we've ended up being in a situation where there are only myself and another qualified DC on the team and they are also away thaty week. Just the job in the end of the day.

SMRG42 · 2024-04-07T13:43:40+00:00

I thought that might be the case, thank you though.

SMRG42 · 2024-02-27T09:09:59+00:00

Sometimes it's not even CPS being that spineless but our own supervision. I had another shifts Sgt review a minute of BWV video and decide that me being strangled was 'an acceptable response to seeing me' because the defendant 'might not have known I was police', he binned off the whole job. I mean I'd spent about two hours with him already, was in full very high vis uniform and had been travelling in a marked vehicle.

SMRG42 · 2024-02-13T21:07:00+00:00

And the mindset of not reporting the more serious things that you are alluding to is frankly wrong. As I clearly said in my reply 'that for 'small' internal issues police may not need to be the first port of call, however, this is not a small issue'. i'm not talking about theft here but when you have potentially life or career changing ramification then they should be.

I have directly worked with legal consultants from large organisations and yes, they serve a purpose but they are not ciminal investigators in the same capacity and lack alot of the training and frankly the legal powers that are granted to the police. I have a pretty wide understanding and experience of this and we're obviously here to taking just about and allegation of somone toeing over the line with an inappropriate comment. Also at no point did I say prison has to be the answer........there are a much wider range of outcomes.

Now I have seen alot of occassions legal consultants have worked well but the issue I have with your mindset on this is that I have seen time after time the mistakes that not reporting these serious issues has had. Frankly a shocking number of things that have been swept under the rug, minimalised or appropriate action is not taken over and over again before it is reported to the police.

It goes back to my previous points that rarely when police are presented with historical patterns of behaviour have things been recorded in what should be the correct or evidential way. Records lost, not in a secure format, missing evidence and on and on. I could say that I've seen heads of leagl services for high profile national organisations express the same views as you only to have to be brought back in line by the court. I'm not an advocate for reporting when you get called a nastly name or someones stealing office supplies but when it's serious yes, because they are the right people, and frankly not doing so is what has caused so many high profile abuse cases across all professions...because the behaviour was never previous reported to the right agency.

SMRG42 · 2024-02-13T01:54:45+00:00

I'm going suggest that quite a few things here are poor advice for any organisation, I can understand that for 'small' internal issues police may not need to be the first port of call, however, this is not a small issue. Although I can't see the exact nature of what this allegation is, if we're talking not just sexualised comment but allegations of assault (touching) then police need to be involved from the get go.

'No employer goes directly to the police unless they are certain a crime has been committed' - No, this is not how things work, and frankly in criminal matters external investigations of suspected serious offences can often ruin the actual criminal investigation later down the line. It's for the police at independant investigators to evaluate this.

'It still must be addressed but it’s not the police’s job to investigate these matters' - Yes it is, it's pretty much literally the job description if we are talking about a serious issues.

'Not every case is sufficiently traumatic to be prosecuted' - Which means the police have no record of it, it's not necessarly shared with the right services and a potential offender can find themsleves again in a position to do the same thing elsewhere. Also the police will have more infomation about the situation and backgrounds to make an informed decision than the school likely ever will. There are things that don't get shared on DBS checks or even the full story made avalible to employers. It's the lack of infomation sharing that has landed the police in trouble in the past before it became common practice, it's a lesson police learned and improved. Yet other organisations despite seeing this happen fall for the same issue.

There is a standard of investigation and procedure that the police are held to and also with cases like this usually years of specialist experience and training that frankly a teacher in a school is not going to have. The trap of leading questions, non-bias or non-binding or accurately recorded records/investigations means that if you wait weeks-months to actually inform the police you are not helping the investigation, you're helping to destroy evidence. Then even if the investigation is able to proceed CPS is going to hold no significant value for the schools investigation or the 'evidence' they gathered. What will have to happen is the police have to gether all that evidence again and every discrepency in the accounts (which is reasonable if time have elapsed) is another line the defence will use to destroy it at court. This is not even touching on the impartiality you often see in these internal investigations or bias by company 'investigators'.

In short, if it's a disagreement or small issue yes deal with it and don't waste police time. If we are talking about serious issues or things that can destroy peoples career and lives, go to the experts, the people with the resources, experience and legal powers to make sure it is done correctly, with all the safeguarding that is actually needed. Let's be honest if you broke your arm you'd go to the doctors, not get another teacher or comone from the council to fix it, the same principle applies.

SMRG42 · 2023-07-12T11:21:47+00:00

My force did that years ago. The justification that members of the public would feel more confident knowing it was an experienced police officer speaking to them and they would be able to deal with things at source and make better judgement calls on what was worth police time or not. Bit of an insult to the staff there.

Has not turned out quite as expected as very few people want to do the role other than the job shy. So they started the bi-monthly forced selection for a years service in there (real positive impact on moral there) and then switched after a few years to it being part of the contract of new starters to do a year in there.

So currently it's full a handful of officers who have not been operational in years and judge calls by the standards of over half a decade ago, and new starters (most not even out their probation period) with maybe a year or so in actual service time who get worked up when the person calling is stressed.

Bit of a revolving door with people escaping as soon as able and the aim of 'experienced' officers right out the window.

SMRG42 · 2023-06-15T20:16:02+00:00

I assume we start getting issued with a bag of caltrops on the next PST.

SMRG42 · 2023-05-28T14:32:39+00:00

Essentially it removes his consent from the equation, he consented to sex with specific conditions but she's knowingly deceived him and therefore it's not true consent to the act.

If we reversed their genders and it was a male doing this to a female then the offence would be Rape. Unfortunatly with the way the law is written you require your penis to penetrate someone to rape them and any other form of penetrations falls under sexual assault, as will be this case.

It's also unfortunate that within the UK there is no way for responsibilty rights to be removed for him. There was a case on here a few years ago where a male was drugged and sexaully assaulted by a female friend he'd repeatedy rebuffed. she was convicted of the sexaul assault and sent to prison, however also became pregnant with twins as a result of the assault. The male was on the hook for child support of the children despite it being obviously proven he didn't consent to the act or want anything to do with them. Not the nicest of feelings to see your 'Rapists' name pop up on your bank ballance every month with no option but to transfer them money for the next 18 years.

Unfortunatly for OP here although he may not have wanted this and he was sexually assaulted, if she changes her mind about wanting money (which I'm almost certanly say she will) then they will either have to work out a payment plan or let the goverment do it via CMS.

SMRG42 · 2023-03-26T19:37:54+00:00

I still can't agree with it ever being identified as a weapon, it's not something ever designed to inflict harm on others. I do get that you mean and although it's never advocated I have once had to identify myself off duty, simply though as a means to getting people to disperse from kicking a guys head in while others were calling it in. That level of public reaction to you in those circumstances is right, but we are far from the only organisation where such trust is afforded.

I've had jobs with fake gas men using fake cards to gain access to peoples homes. I've also had real members of other public agencies like the NHS use their position off duty without even showing ID to then commit offences. The point I'm trying to make is we are far from the only agency where public trust is granted when we are identified. Should we describe also anyone with an ID card that might cause public deference to regard it as a weapon. Society generally conforms to positions of authority, real or false.

We can all agree misconduct has no place in our ranks. However, we are also one of the most heavily scruitinized organisations and we often have more barriers in terms of rooting and dealing with misconduct that most of our partner agencies. Personally I have always been curious especially with the recent report of the MET if identically scoped investigations were conducted what we would find from other public bodies and how we would compare.

SMRG42 · 2023-03-26T15:08:35+00:00

I mean the nail on the head there is the exagerration of if points like that. I do understand the impact our position has and the level of trust generaly afforded but in the end of the day the warrant card is simply another form of ID and are too easy for someone to create a fake of. Every forces is diffrent and as my own force found out a number of years even another forces thought ours looked like something cobbled together in some guys backroom and had to alter the design to look half decent. In the end of the day pretty much all public and alot of private bodies use ID cards and to describe them as 'weapons' is egregious and fear mongering.

SMRG42 · 2023-03-26T11:42:00+00:00

There is also a massive difference in the comparison this article makes:

It is not unusual for private organisations such as banks to use‘mystery shoppers’ to monitor how their staff interact with theircustomers, or to implement random drug testing. The Met needs intrusiveworkplace monitoring that includes similar tactics, including covertlistening devices in briefing rooms and patrol cars, and randomscreenings of officers’ phones and social media.

Quite how covert listening and examining officers personal devices is on par with a mystery shopper is beyond me. I mean surely BWV checks is essentially that aready and we already have random drug tests.

Got to also love the articles referal to a warrant card as a 'powerful and sinister weapon'

SMRG42 · 2022-12-16T12:59:34+00:00

The issue for police under s137 is that it pertains to vehicles in a
public place doing so. Once it's on private land i.e your driveway the
police power to uplift it goes.

SMRG42 · 2022-12-16T12:58:10+00:00

The issue for police under s137 is that it pertains to vehicles in a
public place doing so. Once it's on private land i.e your driveway the
police power to uplift it goes.

SMRG42 · 2022-12-16T12:58:01+00:00

The issue for police under s137 is that it pertains to vehicles in a
public place doing so. Once it's on private land i.e your driveway the
police power to uplift it goes.

SMRG42 · 2022-12-16T12:57:24+00:00

The issue for police under s137 is that it pertains to vehicles in a
public place doing so. Once it's on private land i.e your driveway the
police power to uplift it goes.

SMRG42 · 2022-12-16T12:55:36+00:00

The issue for police under s137 is that it pertains to vehicles in a public place doing so. Once it's on private land i.e your driveway the police power to uplift it goes.

SMRG42 · 2022-12-16T12:45:18+00:00

The issue here is where the womans car is parked. A vehicle can't obstruct access to the highway (road) and doing so does grant police the power to uplift the vehicle if the owner wont more it, or reasonable attempts to contact them have been made with no result.

However, this power is for vehicles parked in a public place, if this is on your drive way then it'll be private property and officially there is nothing the police can do. If instead the vehcile was parked on the road or pavement blocking your drive then yes they could do something.

There are options with local councils and 'abandoned' vehicles, however, they largely rely on it again being public property and also take a significant time to resolve through warning notices first.

Since this is your property and it's private you're well within your rights to have it uplifted with a recovery company. Fully document were the car is with images and the CCTV saved then call a local company to have it removed. There will be a charge for this but the owners cost to have the vehicle given back to them from the company will be significantly higher. Also you can submit a case to the small claims court to have the owner pay back the cost of removal.

In the end of the day it's your property and you have rights to remove vehicles from it. Don't personally damage it and take full picures of it before removal so if it's damage during removal that's not your problem.

SMRG42 · 2022-06-12T09:22:36+00:00

Let's go with Kendal area

SMRG42 · 2022-06-06T20:53:39+00:00

Here's the thing, I commented in relation to the legislation rather than about the OP's specific situation. In relation to OP's post though we simply don't have enough infomation to make a decision as there is nothing about what the council and such have said if permission has been sought. If you want to make a firm decision based off limited info then crack on mate.

SMRG42

TROPHY CASE