Stripe

Resident Members
  • Content count

    324
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

Stripe last won the day on February 3

Stripe had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

77 Proven

About Stripe

  • Rank
    Training
  • Birthday 12/06/97

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Oxford, UK

Previous Fields

  • Police Force
    Thames Valley

Recent Profile Visitors

231 profile views
  1. Section 50's are a good tool in your kit. However, they are very much determined by what local orders are in place eg. Public Spaces Protection - to prevent antisocial behaviour.. whatever that is. If there was an order against drinking along the canal, then alcohol can't be consumed there, simple as. It becomes an offence so they are required to provide name and address if the PCSO requests it, or they can just leave (having surrendered their alcohol - though I think may be a point stipulated in local orders). As for the homeless individual, the PCSO could have construed this to be begging, which, again may have a local order to prevent it. As such, the above applies again, minus the alcohol of course. Personally, I've not used a section 50 - ever - and I know that many colleagues are the same. To be honest, in both scenarios I would have just left the men alone, rather than antagonising them. Of course, if they were doing anything particularly out of order, then that may change things. My opinion is that section 50s are very much a PCSO 'power' to give them some kind of authority to request details from a person. Please feel free to correct me if anything is wrong, I'm not best clued up about section 50s.
  2. From what I can gather, the point of the exercise was to gain said intel. Presumably they didn't have it before.
  3. Khan only cares about the Met, he couldn't care less about any other force. So, the government is essentially saying, 'You give us more money, and we'll give you more money'.. I'm not entirely sure about that one, seems a bit dodgy to me.
  4. Ah I see where you're coming from - my misunderstanding there. I don't know about not being able to pull off the cape though! Taking offensive weapon literally, then yes. Materially, an offensive weapon remains as such no matter where it is - it's just a point of law whether or not you can be prosecuted - exactly as you say.
  5. You cannot have an offensive weapon in your own home. Legislation stipulates that the item must be held in a public place. As such, I see no issues. Just don't go whacking people with the truncheons and you'll be fine! I don't quite understand your last part, but please don't use your grandfathers kit on duty...
  6. I have conducted a number of interviews. Mainly for fairly simple jobs like shoplifting, but I have also done two for domestic assaults.
  7. No, they can't view them if they're on Private - that would be a breach of data protection. There are however, some tricks to see photos even if set to private, but I'm not sure what they are. Just make sure any photos/posts that could cause any issues are removed. Yes, they're still on Facebook's system (they're actually never removed - scary!), but best to have them out of view. In relation to your second question. Have you had your day 1 of training for PC? If so, it won't be an issue. If you've still got more of the application to go, then I might get in touch with HR and see what they say.
  8. Oh undoubtedly I've been fortunate. I'm sure you're correct about specials being crewed together being alone. If I was in this situation I wouldn't even know who to turn to for help - my special sergeant is never in! For my force, overall welfare responsibility of Specials is for the Special sergeants and above - though we do have a specific welfare department which can be used if needed.
  9. To be honest, I didn't give it any thought before my first complaint. And, quite frankly, there's no reason to. If you went around worrying about whether or not you could get a complaint from what you're dealing with, you'd be completely ineffective. In terms of support, I do not feel I have anyone with heavier shoulders that can fight in my corner. In all honesty, the only reason my last complaint was dealt with appropriately was because I was crewed with a regular who had support from his line manager. I had no one. It's this, for me, that seems to be a recurring theme. I have been subject to 3 complaints, all of which I have been crewed with a regular for, and it's me on every occasion that ends up getting it in the neck since I have little to no supervisory support.
  10. If you believe the male standing in front of you is the driver, then he has a duty to provide info under the RTA. If he fails to do so you could arrest for obstruct Police, or the initial offence. If you don't believe it's that male, but believe the driver is in the house then you have a power of entry under s.17 - obviously, justification for this is on an officers own merits. Additionally, you can seize the vehicle for being used in crime.
  11. Did we get a description of the driver?
  12. Initially offensive weapon, yes. However, after that close inspection then no. Even though CJA bans it, since it's a training aid I'm not sure if it would still apply? Just as you can carry a knife for ceremonial purposes presumably you could carry training nunchuka. He'd be getting arrested for public order s.4, and I'd seize the 'weapon' for being used in crime. You could go for common assault as well, but considering it's being used on a group there's no single victim so that would be a bit more difficult to get home.
  13. My understanding is that the test is simply there to check you can actually drive. For us, it focuses on periods of driving both with and without directions being given to you. Obviously, there's no extra skills given on top. A competent and confident approach would be fine + lots of observations!
  14. Tip 1. Don't call it cop blocking. Tip 2. Get permission from your local force. Tip 3. Don't Americanise too much. You'll lose who you are before you know what's hit you.
  15. While I don't have particular issue with this, I'd like to know there reasoning behind the continuation of the ban. Certainly, on my team around about half of the PCs are still in probation, and of those that aren't only two carry taser. It maybe just seems that we're excluding a significant proportion of our officers from taser.