Proteus

Resident Members
  • Content count

    77
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

19 Good

1 Follower

About Proteus

  • Rank
    Getting There
  • Birthday 29/11/84

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • 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. City Police recruiting SCs

    The City of London Police are recruiting new Special Constables: http://www.cityoflondon.police.uk/careers/current-vacancies/Pages/Special-Constables-Recruitment-Campaign.aspx The closing date is 4 September 2015, with Assessment Centres in mid-October and training starting in February 2016. The application form, eligibility criteria and an "FAQs" document are available at the above link. Good luck to all applying!
  3. 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!
  4. The City of London Police have two barristers, a solicitor and a pupil barrister as specials. There are obviously protocols for preventing conflicts (like not acting in cases involving the force you're an officer in), but there's certainly no prohibition.
  5. right for a appeal

    You may find this recent case helpful: http://www.ukpolicelawblog.com/2013/05/07/monger-misconduct-procedure-must-be-used-for-misconduct-matters/ 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.
  6. Recruitment Information

    We regularly authorise taxis for officers who get stuck out late (any special supervisor can authorise them). The recruitment email address is colprecruitment@city-of-london.pnn.police.uk. And although the formal campaign is closed, applications from transferees are welcomed at any time.
  7. The City of London Police are recruiting transferee Specials at the ranks of Special Constable, Special Sergeant and Special Inspector: https://www.cityoflondon.police.uk/careers/current-vacancies/Pages/Special-Constabulary-Recruitment.aspx The vacancies are in the Uniformed Policing Directorate, which is embarking on an expansion programme, and officers would be performing response duties. Applicants must have Independent Patrol Status and be meeting their duty expectations. Vacancies at the ranks of Special Sergeant and Special Inspector are open to officers holding the same or equivalent rank, and are subject to applicants passing the City's Specials promotion process (OSPRE-style exam and boards). The link above contains more information on the organisation, the roles and the application process, as well as a job description for each rank and this "FAQs" document on the City of London Special Constabulary: https://www.cityoflondon.police.uk/careers/current-vacancies/Documents/Special%20constabulary%20recruitment/FAQs.pdf The application form is available online, and the closing date is 20 March 2015 at 5pm.
  8. Time to resign?

    The City Police are also open to applications for transferees, and I understand we're about to start a recruitment campaign specifically for them. I'd definitely agree with this. We'd never criticise an officer who was doing more than the requirement (and the vast majority of our officers have full-time jobs so are in the same situation). Incidentally, in the City the requirement is calculated as 50 hours a quarter, rather than 16 hours every month, so averaging out your hours over several months if you have busy periods at work is perfectly acceptable. I've never heard of anything like this. Our operations etc. are open to everyone unless there is a specific operational requirement (e.g. IPS officers only).
  9. PC to MSC... Yes, you read right...

    I can only speak for one force, but City of London Police policy is that you can join as a Special within 12 months of leaving as a regular (from any Home Office force or the BTP) without having to redo initial training and with automatic independent patrol status. The only training that needs to be done is conversion training for force systems and practices, as you suggest. Again, can only speak for the City, but we allow any qualification to be carried across. We have an ex-regular Special Inspector who's a hostage negotiator, for instance (and regularly performs duties as such), because he trained as one as a regular. He also kept his response driving permit. We have no policies prohibiting Specials from having particular skills or qualifications, so it'd make no sense not to recognise something that an officer can bring across from previous service.
  10. 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.
  11. 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).
  12. If you (and others) are just going to descend to insults, I don't see any point in continuing this discussion.
  13. 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?
  14. 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.