EKSpecial

Resident Members
  • Content count

    85
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

6 Neutral

About EKSpecial

  • Rank
    Getting There

Previous Fields

  • Police Force
    Metropolitan Police Service

Recent Profile Visitors

103 profile views
  1. As I said, The security guards had already told us what had happened. according to S.35 you can disperse if: "the constable has reasonable grounds to suspect that the behaviour of the person in the locality has contributed or is likely to contribute to— (a)members of the public in the locality being harassed, alarmed or distressed, or (b)the occurrence in the locality of crime or disorder." I had all those things. so yes I dispersed them. and because they had disregarded what we told them not once, but twice we arrested them. proportionate, legal, accountable and necessary.
  2. oh well maybe this is just the Met then, but If we talk to someone and ask them to account for their being in a specific place, get their details etc we write that down and we call it a stop and account. I'm not talking about just having a chat with someone but specifically asking them to account for something. there are no separate powers to do this, and none needed. the person is of course allowed to refuse details, the same as with a stop and search (presuming we don't find anything on them during the S&S) Think about this as a formal chat to someone when your Police Issue 'something doesn't feel right' sense comes into play, but you can't figure out what it is. quite often you'l find grounds to search someone, but if you don't then ah well, you tried.
  3. you have got grounds to Stop and Account because of the smell of cannabis from their vicinity. You're asking questions to see if you have further grounds to search or if there's a valid reason to search them. If that person had said "Oh well a group of lads just walked past here about 2 mins ago and they were all smoking weed" then fair enough, presuming you have no reason to doubt his account you can take it at face value. however if he can not only not satisfactorily account for the smell or weed, but also what he's doing in that area, then I'd say that definitely gives you grounds to search him, especially if he and the woman are the only two in the area. he is absolutely allowed to exercise his right to remain silent, but remember the caution says that they "do not have to say anything, but that it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned, something which you later rely on in court." I know they haven't been cautioned for this offence, but what reason do they have to just, essentially, ignore a police officer when they're asking a perfectly valid reason? then we are absolutely allowed to exercise our right to search a person where we have established grounds to do so.
  4. Ok, this iswhat would happen... as other posters have said, the officer's grounds to search are his own, you aren't searching him so you don't need to have your own grounds. if you are assisting the officer in detaining him physically (whether it's taking hold, placing in handcuffs or whatever) you'd be acting on good faith that your colleague was in the right, because you don't know what they have seen to bring them to this conclusion. You're well covered by your use of force powers under Common Law and S.3 of the criminal Law Act (but not 117 of PACE because you're not searching using PACE) and if it later came to light that this officer was performing an illegal search or had made up grounds to search the guy then you'd go and talk to your supervisor pretty sharpish.
  5. Prompt And Effective, to find out in *why* when they were given the S.35 notice they didn't leave the prohibited area ,they've also made false statements when they (presumably) said they'd leave the area after receiving the S.35 (otherwise you would just nick them straight away) potentially you can also have prevention of harm to the public or prevent further loss or damage to property, but of course that entirely depends on what ASB they've done. I had a case once where two cousins were fighting each other 'playfully' in a night club, now we possibly could have done them for affray but the bouncers just wanted to get them out and didn't want to make a statement about it so no evidence. we chose the dispersal option because the evidence we needed was much less and it was an effective disposal method. we then had to arrest them later as they breached the dispersal notice, and one of the necessities was Prevention of harm. Also Murtaugh, if you've already given them a Dispersal Notice and they still haven't left, it doesn't matter how calm and compliant they are, they should be coming in. unless you physically march them to a train stop or bus stop and watch them get on, what's to stop them doing exactly the same thing again and again?
  6. I can't speak for their Mortgage service, but when I looked at getting Car Insurance it was almost a Grand, which is over double the cheapest similar cover from comparison websites. I know they don't all offer exactly the same cover and one or two hundred deviation is expected, but almost six hundred extra? it just seems a bit ridiculous! Oh, and I'm an ex special now regular!
  7. Section 3 allows you to use reasonable force. This being reasonable force is suspect. Section 117 cannot he used alone but has to be used with other legislation, usually section 17 of PACE. But that can only be used for an indictable offence. Which Disqual Driving isn't. So I still fail to see how this is a legal entry. Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
  8. Why does he have to use force? What power does he have to enter the car? We've discussed this in my class and we're pretty much all in agreement that he has no power enter the car, and no power to use force.
  9. Regardless... after looking at the video it looks like the officer has lost control, and is angry bordering on rage. whether he has the power to enter the car or not, he has lost control.
  10. A former counter-terrorism officer has claimed the Metropolitan Police ignored evidence of extremism among its officers for fear of being labelled “Islamophobic”. Javaria Saeed, a practising Muslim, said she had complained to her bosses after hearing a fellow Muslim officer say FGM should not be criminalised because it was a “clean and honourable practice”. She said the same officer also said female Muslim victims of domestic violence should go to local Sharia courts rather than the police for help except in the “serious violent cases”. But when she raised her concerns with managers they refused to take action because they were afraid of appearing racist. Ms Saeed, who worked for Scotland Yard for 10 years, told The Sunday Times she had been demonised by some of her fellow Muslim officers for not wearing the veil and was told she was “better off at home looking after her husband”. The 35-year-old said she resigned in March from the force’s Muslim Contact Unit (MCU) after being fed up of the “political correctness” which allowed an “us and them” culture to develop among the 600 Muslim officers. She claimed the Met applied a different standard wheninvestigating allegations of racist by Muslim officers than non-Muslim ones. She said: “Racism in the Met is not from white officers in my case, but from Muslim officers who the service refused to properly investigate because they were afraid of being called Islamophobic and racist. “My experiences were that it was Muslim officers being racist towards my individual views; also in private, holding racist views against white officers, and sexist views against females. “If such views were held and expressed by white officers, they would be fired.” She said she had joined the force in 2005 in the wake of the 7/7 bombings because she wanted to help bridge the division between the Muslim community and the authorities. Ms Saeed said she had been warned by friends and family that she was likely to suffer discrimination and racism from white officers but instead she was warned not to raise complaints about her fellow Muslims because it would “hinder” her career progression. A spokesman for Scotland Yard told The Independent that the officer who made the comments about FGM had been subject to a “management action” – a procedure for minor infractions which usually involves a training course. He said: “The Met is aware of concerns raised by ex Sergeant Javaira Saeed in June 2013. “At that time and on a number of occasions prior to her leaving to the Met, the full range of options for dealing with her concerns was explained to her, ranging from an internal fairness at work procedure through to a full investigation. Each time she was asked if she wanted to document her complaint so that it could be investigated, she declined. “Despite Ms Saeed declining to formally record her information as a complaint a full review of the Muslim Contact Unit (MCU) was carried out in 2013, which resulted in a number of recommendations being made. Most of these have been implemented. Since 2013 there have been no further issues or complaints made about the conduct of the officers within the MCU. “We are also committed to increasing the diversity of our own workforce, and making sure that all our staff feel valued and able to speak out if they come across wrongdoing. “Our Directorate of Professional Standards investigates all allegations; examines all intelligence and supports reporters of wrong doing. “Where officers fall below the high standards we will take action. This is vital for public confidence and the confidence of all the men and women of the Met who work to keep London safe.” Interesting article. on the one hand, I don't like correcting someone of BME when they say Racism is in a specific place, especially when they witness it first hand, but surely she should have put pen to paper so that people could actually be disciplined? Seems to me that the chap who got Management Action for the FGM comment could potentially have had worse done to him if she had written a witness statement.
  11. in the Met it's Patrol Trousers, White Shirt, name badge and epaulettes and Tie. shouldn't be any need to take your helmet or stab proof vest, but I guess it depends on the court? best to ask a local officer as they may be more knowledgeable about that!
  12. What are the grounds of the S32 search? Yes, in practice it is a "de facto" operating procedure, but it does have a legal requirement. A S32 search is there to search a subject for items which are classed as "D.I.E" - Dangerous articles, implements used in escape or evidential property. From what you have said, I don't see any grounds. Searching for identification is certainly not any of the criteria of the search - And if is up to them to choose to refuse to give you that information. However, in similar situations (with better grounds), I would keep them under arrest until all reasonable at-scene enquiries have been conducted (PNC checks etc). I would then convey them myself to custody and have other officers hold the scene if practicable. It is possible to do an arrest handover to another officer, but there is always a lot lost in translation and I'd rather book in my own prisoner. Sounds like a typical tourist. I live near a large railway hub and there are always spotters and enthusiasts there filming. Just having photos, to me, does not sound like appropriate grounds - I must be on many cameras out there as I have attended public events which attract tourists in popular cities with lots of landmarks. I would not class them as terrorists. In short, I think this is a non-case and I am sure the custody sergeant would be highly concerned at the actions. There would have to be something very substantial for me to go down TAct route, and there are really no other grounds here as they are within their right to film within the public view. I don't think anything mentioned took it to a questionable level. Grounds for search would be that I suspect he is a terrorist and he is wearing a rucksack. He may be carrying a bomb inside and I want to find out whether he is or not for certain. I would also have a power under section 43 of the Terrorism Act to search him. Finding his ID would be a coincidence. In short, the grounds are not enough. this scenario is fanciful at best, and if you *were* to search someone just because they thought they might be a terrorist and with no other information or grounds YOU WOULD BE IN TROUBLE.
  13. no need to make it complicated, if you really wanted to arrest him (if he definitely wasn't going to calm down) you'd arrest him for S.5 of the Public Order act, as he's been using language that can cause Harassment Distress or Alarm to a person of reasonable firmness. You could also possibly Arrest him for Breach of the Peace though I'm not as certain about the law there.
  14. another quick one... often in legislation that will define a Public Place it will be defined as somewhere "the public have access to, upon payment or otherwise" or words to that effect. this would describe a lot of places that whilst technically not public places, with regards to the legislation it would be. Places this could include are Public houses, Museums and art galleries (let's presume they aren't Nationalised for the purposes of this} and even places like train stations, regardless of which side of the ticket barriers they are on!