police car problems

[JOSH_IOU]

Heres a one for ya if ya make bogus calls to the police you get charged for risking the public's life.

 

But if a government office sends a wodd of paper work and keeps the bobby in an office doing a clerks job, the bobby cant even shake a finger these days.

[patdavies]

emergency services may go through red lights.

 

 

Only if the TRO says so - it is NOT an automatic right and a drafting error by a council may well mean that it would be illegal

[JOSH_IOU]

if you read my post.

 

If there is no risk to the public and they are saving lives then they may use there siren's to pass a red light.

[CMJAG42]

I'm happy with the idea that people shouldn't comment on things they don't know about, but I absolutely disagree that they should "keep their noses out". The police - and indeed the population at large - must be open to scrutiny, and it is not unreasonable for part of that scrutiny to be the alert eyes of the general public going about their everyday business and observing the police and others without crossing the line to harassment, intrusion and so on.

 

After all, the police will often act on a suspicion formed by observing behaviour which is or may be criminal or otherwise against the rules. Why shouldn't the general public form similar conclusions and suspicions from observing the police? And if somebody says "why are you restraining this man in this way" you should explain it to them, not resent them.

 

 

Hear Hear!!!!!

 

the Police are not above the law. Reading this thread back I note that there are a few 'serving' (maybe!) officers commenting, and I aplaud this as it all adds to a structured and balanced debate.

 

The point I was making by my earlier post was that Some not all Police officers, especially in my area of the world have a slight disregard for obeying the rules when it suits them.

 

In the current climate of 'Revenue' Policing of the motorist, my feelings are such that I want to pull up to the officer when parked next time and ask him why he was flouting the traffic laws to just pull up 3 miles down the road and sit there (still there 20mins later as I'd returned down the other carrigeway) chatting to his colleague sat next to him.

 

I know the Police have a hard job and beaurocracy within the Police for the officers is rediculous but my comments were made about an incident involving a traffic car not a local officer caught up with a burgalry, attack, robbery, etc.

 

Maybe if more people started to ask questions the minority of officers who do break the law would decrease.

 

Regards

 

Chris:)

[emsgeorge]

Just to clarify, as some posters seem to think i'm police - im not. Im security. I have no affiliation to the police, nor do I have much time for some of their officers.

 

I'm simply trying to make the point that the only person who knew the situation, was that officer. Be it fight, robbery, doughnut delivery etc, we dont know. Could of been anything.

 

The point I was making by my earlier post was that Some not all Police officers, especially in my area of the world have a slight disregard for obeying the rules when it suits them.

 

And thats right -EVERYONE disregards / bends the rules sometimes. If you get caught, then you dont do it again. If you think theres loyalty in officers, you have got it wrong. Its no longer a boys club. Officers are regularly checked on, and theres an ongoing case in my local area of a bobby who was doing 50 through a 30. Hes had his police permit / licence revoked, and is looking forward to court - where im sure he will meet with a magistrate who will make an example out of him.

 

Dont forget, most of the 'camera partnerships' that operate the speed kit are not police. They will process NIP's against officers as much as public, if theres no reason for the speed. Theres no skin off their nose, as they aren't paid for or controlled by the police.

 

As I have said, I have had negative reactions from members of the public SIMPLY because they didnt know what was going on. In cases I have been involved in, once explained to, the member of public is apologetic, and sees whats gone on.

 

Get BOTH sides of the story before making comment !. HOW do you know that its not a cancelled call, waiting for 'bandit' car to come past etc etc.

[JOSH_IOU]

I am not saying that officer's don't break the law.

 

 

In fact I know of several occasions where thats happened.

 

Running a red light to make a meeting is obviously you against the law.

 

However Like i am saying if you've understood there are times when its acceptable to run a red light. But proven it is "really" difficult.

 

This would rely on an officer owning up to his mistake and for something as minor as crossing a red light when there was only one car there i doubt it will happen.

[JonCris]

Could you provide a reference/link to that case please.

 

There is nothing specific in law about emergency vehicles having any priority whatsoever, and I have had this confirmed by Class 1 police drivers.

 

And it is a absolute statement of truth, that no driver is permitted to break the law to allow priority to an emergency vehicel. Look at the people being prosecuted for crossing red lights.

 

Your correct there isn't any specific requirement in law but if you willfully delay an emergency vehicle you can be prosecuted for obstruction particularly in the case of a police officer.

2.2.5 Section 89 of the Police Act, 1996

This creates an offence of willfully obstructing a police constable in the execution of duty.

 

Also even though there is no statutory requirement to cross a red light when obstructing an emergency vehicle IF directed by a police officer to do so then the instruction of the officer must be complied with.

 

People ,wrongly in my view but correctly as the law stands are being prosecuted because they are acting of their own volition & not under the instruction of a police officer

[patdavies]

Your correct there isn't any specific requirement in law but if you willfully delay an emergency vehicle you can be prosecuted for obstruction particularly in the case of a police officer.

2.2.5 Section 89 of the Police Act, 1996

This creates an offence of willfully obstructing a police constable in the execution of duty.

 

This offence cannot stretch to ambulances, etc. only Police vehicles. Refusing to undertake an illegal act is, by no stretch of the imagination, wilful. Anyway, to convict requires mens rea (ie any act of obstruction in itelf does not meet the burden of proof required; it must be shown that it was wilfully intended)

Also even though there is no statutory requirement to cross a red light when obstructing an emergency vehicle IF directed by a police officer to do so then the instruction of the officer must be complied with.

Any instruction of this nature would require to be given verbally, or by an Officer directing traffic, a mere waving forward by the driver of a police vehicle is insufficient, since the signalling is possibly ambigous and not of a prescribed nature for directing traffic.

 

People ,wrongly in my view but correctly as the law stands are being prosecuted because they are acting of their own volition & not under the instruction of a police officer

They are also being prosecuted for doing this for non-police emergrncy vehicles

[JOSH_IOU]

Are you talking about citizen arrests?

 

I believe these are the powers pcso's hold.

[patdavies]

Are you talking about citizen arrests?

 

I believe these are the powers pcso's hold.

 

Er, No

 

PCSOs have an authority to detain for up to 30 minutes, above and beyond their power of arrest as a citizen. They do not have the power of arrest that a constable has.

[JGJ]

patdavies.

ER NO!! Not in Northumbria ,Durham, Tyne/ wear areas they dont.Anyone can make a citizens arrest. P.C.S.Os. "CANNOT" make a POLICE ARREST.

[JOSH_IOU]

there are pcso's in castle morpeth and newcastle.

 

Where do you get your info from?

[JOSH_IOU]

Er, No

 

PCSOs have an authority to detain for up to 30 minutes, above and beyond their power of arrest as a citizen. They do not have the power of arrest that a constable has.

 

 

 

Basically what i said.

[JGJ]

jamesrap

Basically is no good, P.C.Sos do not have a 30 min window over and above the citizens power of arrest, If they did do you not think they would arrest Offenders and then take them to a Police station, instead of calling for a warranted officer to deal with an incident??

[JOSH_IOU]

it sounded like evryone was in for an argument so i just said basically.

[JGJ]

jamesrap

Basically! Factually! I know which word I prefer. We have an extremely powerful person in our area who deals in "FACT" and is in fact the Chief Constable.

[patdavies]

jamesrap

Basically is no good, P.C.Sos do not have a 30 min window over and above the citizens power of arrest, If they did do you not think they would arrest Offenders and then take them to a Police station, instead of calling for a warranted officer to deal with an incident??

 

They have no extra power of arrest - they can detain, not arrest

 

Police Reform Act 2002 Sched.4 S.2

 

Power to detain etc.

 

2 (1) This paragraph applies if a designation applies it to any person.

(2) Where that person has reason to believe that another person has committed a relevant offence in the relevant police area, he may require that other person to give him his name and address.

(3) Where, in a case in which a requirement under sub-paragraph (2) has been imposed on another person—

(a) that other person fails to comply with the requirement, or

(b) the person who imposed the requirement has reasonable grounds for suspecting that the other person has given him a name or address that is false or inaccurate,

the person who imposed the requirement may require the other person to wait with him, for a period not exceeding thirty minutes, for the arrival of a constable.

(4) A person who has been required under sub-paragraph (3) to wait with a person to whom this Part of this Schedule applies may, if requested to do so, elect that (instead of waiting) he will accompany the person imposing the requirement to a police station in the relevant police area.

(5) A person who—

(a) fails to comply with a requirement under sub-paragraph (2),

(b) makes off while subject to a requirement under sub-paragraph (3), or

© makes off while accompanying a person to a police station in accordance with an election under sub-paragraph (4),

is guilty of an offence and shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

(6) In this paragraph “relevant offence”, in relation to a person to whom this paragraph applies, means any offence which is—

(a) a relevant fixed penalty offence for the purposes of the application of paragraph 1 to that person; or

(b) an offence the commission of which appears to that person to have caused—

(i) injury, alarm or distress to any other person; or

(ii) the loss of, or any damage to, any other person’s property;

but a designation applying this paragraph to any person may provide that an offence is not to be treated as a relevant offence by virtue of paragraph (b) unless it satisfies such other conditions as may be specified in the designation.

 

[JGJ]

patdavies

Thank you for your post #42# The act highlights the reasons why we need Warranted officers to do Police work. MAY and REQUIRE are not sufficient enough when dealing with offenders who do not want to give up their personal details or hang around to await a warranted officers arrival or to voluntarily accompany that person to a police station to deal with an incident. Power of arrest is a powerful tool to use with offenders who do not want to co-operate. Power to detain,Power to arrest not on "all fours" with each other.

[Gentle_Giant]

If you hold up an emergency vehicle when on a shout then you CAN be charged with obstruction & in the case of the Police obstructing a police officer in the performance of his/her duties.

 

Some years ago in the North East a motorist refused to allow an ambulance past causing delay & was reported by the crew, arrested, charged & convicted of causing an obstruction

 

One thing that I refuse to do is to drive up on to the pavement to allow an emergency vehicle past - that is AFAIK illegal - and I do not see why I should risk my tyres etc. I will however move over, but only when it is safe and legal to do so. if that means driving half a mile, then so be it.

 

However what annoys me is when police and fire brigade (especially) use their vehicles to go shopping or put up signs advertising a car wash etc. Many a time have I seen a fire engine parked in the taxi rank, only for the occupants to visit the local shop for a takeway.

[JOSH_IOU]

That Monty Python Programme is coming back to haunt us again.

 

YouTube - Monty Python - Argument Clinic

[JOSH_IOU]

Just for arguments sake yes it is

[JOSH_IOU]

One thing that I refuse to do is to drive up on to the pavement to allow an emergency vehicle past - that is AFAIK illegal - and I do not see why I should risk my tyres etc. I will however move over, but only when it is safe and legal to do so. if that means driving half a mile, then so be it.

 

However what annoys me is when police and fire brigade (especially) use their vehicles to go shopping or put up signs advertising a car wash etc. Many a time have I seen a fire engine parked in the taxi rank, only for the occupants to visit the local shop for a takeway.

 

 

Never used that one before lol

[JGJ]

jamesrap

No it isnt and Yes you have!!

 

Monty Python Brilliant. :D

[Hungrydoug]

Only if the TRO says so - it is NOT an automatic right and a drafting error by a council may well mean that it would be illegal

 

Wrong!

 

It is an automatic right. Nothing to do with a TRO, it's an inclusion in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions:

 

Significance of light signals prescribed by regulations 33 to 35 36. - (1) The significance of the light signals prescribed by regulations 33, 34 and 35 shall be as follows - (a) subject to sub-paragraph (b) and, where the red signal is shown at the same time as the green arrow signal, to sub-paragraphs (f) and (g), the red signal shall convey the prohibition that vehicular traffic shall not proceed beyond the stop line; (b) when a vehicle is being used for fire brigade, ambulance, bomb or explosive disposal, national blood service or police purposes and the observance of the prohibition conveyed by the red signal in accordance with sub-paragraph (a) would be likely to hinder the use of that vehicle for the purpose for which it is being used, then sub-paragraph (a) shall not apply to the vehicle, and the red signal shall convey the prohibition that that vehicle shall not proceed beyond the stop line in a manner or at a time likely to endanger any person or to cause the driver of any vehicle proceeding in accordance with the indications of light signals operating in association with the signals displaying the red signal to change its speed or course in order to avoid an accident;