HMService

Resident Members
  • Content count

    349
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    26

HMService last won the day on October 18

HMService had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

179 Excellent

1 Follower

About HMService

  • Rank
    Training

Previous Fields

  • Police Force
    Herts

Recent Profile Visitors

509 profile views
  1. Drugs and buyers - who to stop

    For the OP. Under the circumstances you describe you would not have a power to search either of the males.
  2. Self Defence Against a Home Intruder

    Not an easy situation I agree. The problem is....He tries to slap you or push you over or makes a grab for the hand with the knife in it....What do you do? Slash? Stab somewhere hopefully non vital? punch with the other hand against his two? It isn't going to end well. Personally if you don't know what the level of the threat is, a deadly weapon should not be in play until it can be justified. I'm assuming having just jumped out of bed you didn't have a pocket to put it in, so personally I would have left it behind. If he had a weapon then I would have retreated and armed myself and called the Police. I would have stayed out of any confrontation until it was forced. Another factor that will stand you in good stead if you find yourself charged with manslaughter. All easy to say in hindsight and assuming you aren't instantly attacked I know but stabbing some mentally ill intruder to death is an end result that will not leave your life unchanged either. I have a Nidan in Jiu-Jitsu and am a self defence instructor and have been training to defend myself against knives for over twenty five years. I know enough to be seriously afraid. There is an old amusing but accurate adage that the loser of a knife fight dies at the scene while the winner dies in the ambulance. Just don't is my advice. If you get backed into a corner then all rules are off but that's not what you did. Glad it all turned out ok for you though! HMS
  3. Self Defence Against a Home Intruder

    Am I missing something here? He was inside a dwelling in bed. He hears that there is an intruder inside the house and feels threatened. He arms himself and confronts the intruder who makes off. This absolutely was instant arming I'd suggest and the law in relation to carrying bladed articles or offensive weapons does not apply inside private places like this. There are lots of concerns I have about choosing a knife to arm yourself with...If he had used it I am doubtful the level of force would have been deemed proportionate by a jury. But he didn't use it. So my answer is..Yes, what you did was lawful and reasonable under the circumstances. I am not so sure it was wise however. Knives kill very easily. Not what you want used on you or to be using on anyone else unless your life is clearly immediately under threat. HMS
  4. This criminal has besmirched the reputation of all of us. I hope he does the maximum possible time and I despair that this truly reprehensible person was ever a Police Officer. Utter human trash. HMS
  5. Jim Gamble, former head of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, said: "Personally, I can't envisage circumstances where I would have authorised payment to someone convicted of rape. "I can't imagine how you could have control mechanisms in place with an informant of that type that you were going to task that would give reassurance that they still didn't represent a risk to young and vulnerable women." No doubt Mr Gamble. But should you ever find yourself out of that ivory tower and doing some Police work in that space that exists between the Devil and the deep you may see things more clearly.
  6. Police pension question (Met)

    It is between 12 and 15% not 10%. Payments were increased significantly and it's value significantly decreased. You will also need to work significantly longer to get it. Potentially much longer than you could credibly continue as a Police officer. HMS
  7. As I said elsewhere in another thread- if you don't understand the foundations of a thing and are motivated by emotional ire ..... None of these posts of yours are about Policing... They are all about you, your grievances, your bike, your case, your habits. I don't mind talking about the Police or why we do things to someone who has a genuine interest in the subjective issues, but you are all about you. You are aggrieved and seem to fuel that grievance with issues that disrupt you and your personal sense of fairness for you without thought of anyone else. I could go on about road safety, priority crime or collateral public intrusion when utilising stop search tactics.But it doesn't matter- essentially I'm thinking about what's best for the wider community, and you are thinking about what's inconvenient or best for you. We are on different planes objectively. I hope you will understand why I don't bother trying to answer you much more. It's not why I'm here.
  8. Next you will be complaining about other tactical uses of resources at strategic times- perhaps you could complain about the yearly Xmas drink drive campaign? I'm guessing that like the surge of motorcycle deaths in hot weather, the alcohol related deaths over public holidays should not be accounted for or combatted? We have limited resources, we have to tactically redeploy then as demand changes.... Can you please try to switch some thought on in your critiques. Right now it's just so knee jerky and simplistic it's no use to anyone... Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  9. And again....pontifications without thought or evidence.... You are just snapping up any perceived opportunity to criticise the Police in the furtherance of your own grievances. Pursuing helmetless criminals frequently gets them killed. The public and media have been very clear they don't want us doing this- it gets portrayed as 16 year old boy chased to his death by Police etc. Then the officer gets personally prosecuted and convicted. Someone has rationalised that motorists killing pedal cyclists leads to a lot more deaths than helmetless muggers cause which are fraught with risks that the public have forbidden us from taking. In other words don't complain at the Police when political interference is the issue.
  10. Nope. That's someone commenting who once again is doing so without any background knowledge of what they are commenting on.
  11. Ran away.Tried to swallow something. Racist murdering police. Same old same old. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  12. His arguments are borne of anger toward the judiciary rather than evidence based- in reality it's his own case he's protesting about because he feels aggrieved. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  13. As I keep saying if you don't know how the law works...... The legislation makes no distinction between photos and words it just says "a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character." The case law which is DPP V Collins 2006 which I cite above lays out guidelines as to how "a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character" is to be tested, i.e. in context. It doesn't differentiate between words and pictures and indeed it can't because that would indicate that Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 would have to be repealed or amended to deal with different methods of communicating grossly offensive messages. In other words it would all have to be re-written, presumably to explain that the courts were to treat words in context to the wider situation but not photographs which should be treated objectively. It is of course utter nonsense and you just hanging onto the last ditch desperate hope that you can salvage some sort of "I was right" out of this. It's not just me saying this.....The whole point of this is it's just been tested in Court and you don't like the result. But if you knew what you were talking about I wouldn't have to explain this......
  14. ........... Just can't admit it can you. Let it go.
  15. This is getting boring...First you wanted the Act and section of the case now you want relevant case law....Ok but after this I'm done- I don't think you are even a special anymore so I'm trying to teach someone who just wants ammunition to disparage the Police with anyway but I digress.... From DPP V Collins 2006 Guidance and test for an offence under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 "It was for the Justices to find as a matter of fact whether the messages were grossly offensive and in doing so they must apply the standards of an open and just multi-racial society taking account of the context of the words and all relevant circumstances remaining mindful of the fact that sensitivities and word usage change over time. The test is whether a message is liable to cause gross offence to those to whom it relates. Further, for an offence to be made out under section 127(a) of the 2003 Act the accused must intend for the words to be grossly offensive to whom they relate or must be aware that they may be taken as such." Can we stop this now?