Resident Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

19 Good

1 Follower

About Proteus

  • Rank
    Getting There
  • Birthday 29/11/84

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    City of London
  1. Standard Motorcycle Course

    I can confirm the first and last parts of this. I can't speak to the relative timings.
  2. Public's reaction to Specials

    I've always told SCs to refer to themselves as "Constable [surname]". And that's what's going on our name badges when we introduce them shortly ("Constable [surname]", "Sergeant [surname]", etc., for both regulars and specials), so the force seems to agree with me!
  3. right for a appeal

    You may find this recent case helpful: Essentially, the force seems to have run a "he's only a special - we can do what we want" defence, and the court was having none of it.
  4. Police Bail

    It applies to police bail as well - see the (rather counter-intuitive) definition of "criminal proceedings" under section 1(1), particularly section 1(1)(b), and the provisions of the Act that apply specifically to police bail. I've seen people charged with (and convicted of) the absconding offence under section 6 in respect of police bail, albeit somewhat rarely.
  5. Low Value Shoplifting

    No, it doesn't do that - new section 22A(2) preserves the right to elect Crown Court trial for adult defendants. From a glance at the Hansard debates, it seems that the intention was to allow low-value shoplifting to be dealt with under the more efficient court procedures applicable only to summary-only offences (like guilty pleas entered by post).
  6. If you (and others) are just going to descend to insults, I don't see any point in continuing this discussion.
  7. You've misread what I wrote - "14% of White British people live in London" is not the same as "14% of people living in London are White British". As I said, a policy being "based on" something that is not a protected characteristic does not mean that it does not affect people differently based on their protected characteristics, and therefore does not necessarily mean it is lawful. Just consider all the policies that would be blatantly unlawful because they adversely affect people of different races, sexes, etc., but which aren't overtly based on those factors - "we will only hire people over 5 foot 10" (adversely affecting women), "we will only hire clean-shaven people" (adversely affecting Muslims), "we will only hire people with short hair" (adversely affecting Sikhs), "we will only hire people for whom English is a first language" (adversely affecting people from ethnic minorities), and many more. The fact that they are "based on" height, facial hair, hair length and language rather than sex, race, etc., doesn't mean they're lawful. I'm reluctant to repeat myself, but why?
  8. Discrimination can be either direct or indirect. Direct discrimination is overtly based on a protected characteristic (race, sex, sexual orientation, etc.), for example "we will only hire white men". Indirect discrimination is something that isn't overtly based on a protected characteristic, but that adversely affects those with a particular protected characteristic more than those without it. For example, a policy saying "we will only hire people over 5 foot 10" is indirectly discriminatory on the grounds of sex because, although overtly it is based on height, which is not a protected characteristic, it is likely to affect women more than men (as women are shorter on average and so fewer women than men are likely to qualify). It is therefore only legal if you can show it is "a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim". This policy is therefore indirectly discriminatory against white people as the average white person is significantly less likely to live in London than the average non-white person (by my reading of the statistics, for example, over 70% of people in the UK classing themselves as Black British live in London, whereas only 14% of those classing themselves as White British do), and it is therefore unlawful unless it can be justified. As I said above, I'd be fascinated to see the legal advice the Met received on this, as it's very difficult to see how, even if the objectives stated in the article are a "legitimate aim", this policy is a "proportionate means" of achieving that.
  9. "Those behind the scheme believe it will survive any legal challenge." I'd love to see the legal advice behind this. It's clearly indirectly discriminatory (indeed it's designed to be indirectly discriminatory!), so it has to be objectively justified (shown to be a "proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim", in the language of section 19 of the Equality Act). I think they'd have a pretty hard time doing that, for a start because of the obvious less extreme ways of achieving the aim they have set out: e.g. if officers need to have "a good understanding of the diverse communities they serve", why not simply ask questions to test that in interview? To suggest you have to live in London to understand diverse communities is patently absurd. (I should point out that I live in London and have no desire to join the Met, in case that's a factor.)
  10. I don't see why not. In a professional environment, I expect people's opinions to be reasoned and logical, not based on conclusions jumped to on insufficient evidence. That's all the more important in the police, where officers are expected to be experts in analysing and assessing evidence and the absence of evidence. If an opinion does not conform to those expectations, I consider it not to be a professional opinion. (For what it's worth, Google tells me "unprofessional" means "below or contrary to the standards expected in a particular profession".) You seem to have missed my point - I explictly accepted that there may be underperforming Chief Officers, or even Chief Officers who are having a negative influence on their force. (I've only been in one force, so I can't say that there are, just that there may be.) My complaint is that going from that to saying that all Chief Officers are useless, or that the office/rank of Chief Officer is universally unnecessary or a negative influence, as some have done, is not a reasonable conclusion (and indeed is demonstrably incorrect). In a way, I'm actually being more critical of any useless Chief Officers that do exist - as I refuse to accept that the position has to be meaningless or ineffectual, they must come up with another reason for any underperformance, rather than relying on the supposition that it is their office that is to blame, not them or their force.
  11. If some people have had bad experiences with Chief Officers and special supervisors, whilst others have had good experiences, it's pretty obvious that the fault in the former category lies with either with the particular Chief Officers and/or supervisors they have encountered or with the force culture and systems in which they have operated (or both), rather than with the very concept of Chief Officers or special supervisors in general. People shouldn't be so quick to jump to conclusions - no one in their right mind would say "our Chief Constable is awful, so we should abolish the office of Chief Constable", yet that is the equivalent of what a lot of people (some presumably with experience of only a single force) seem to be saying. My force has an outstanding Chief Officer, who is invaluable both in leading the Special Constabulary and in representing our interests at ACPO level, which brings huge benefits to the way the Special Constabulary is treated. Hardly any, if at all, of the positive developments we have experienced over the last few years would have been achieved without him. The suggestion that we would be better off without him, or even that he has made no difference, would be treated as ludicrous by any special in my force. As a mid-level special supervisor, I'm also conscious that a lot of what he and his senior team do would not be visible to SCs. And yet some people here seem happy to dismiss both him and his role without any knowledge of either. I find that very unprofessional.
  12. It appears from that thread that Sussex has no ranks higher than SC, and that Wiltshire no longer has a Chief Officer (although I assume that's your force).
  13. Assault or assault on police?

    I agree. It's evident from case law that the courts generally assume that officers are in the execution of their duty unless acting unlawfully (e.g. by carrying out a search they have no power to carry out). In any event, any officer on foot patrol is clearly carrying out their common law duty to prevent and detect crime (see, e.g., Lord Parker CJ in Rice v Connolly: "it is part of the obligations and duties of a police constable to take all steps which appear to him necessary for keeping the peace, for preventing crime or for protecting property from criminal injury. There is no exhaustive definition of the powers and obligations of the police, but they are at least those, and they would further include the duty to detect crime and to bring an offender to justice.").
  14. £60 Victim Surcharge for death by careless driving

    The thread title also refers to the wrong offence - the article makes clear that it was death by careless driving, not death by dangerous driving.