The All-New Polis Discussion Thread

[Ad Lib]

Cressida Dick is a b*****d.

[Benjamin_Nevis]

9 hours ago, invergowrie arab said:

How many scandals had Cressida Dick presided over now?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57484219.amp

Wasn't she actually promoted after overseeing the shooting of Charles de Menezes? 

[ICTChris]

Here’s a completely mental story about the FBI using a serial killer as an informant.

https://apple.news/AOSZ4Rfw_Rk-SEWKEYo9Q2Q

[101]

Aamer on a roll this morning

[101]

Also worth remembering that the SPF are against the police carrying drugs to reverse an overdose. So against saving lives, pro using lethal force.

 

 

[scottsdad]

39 minutes ago, 101 said:

Also worth remembering that the SPF are against the police carrying drugs to reverse an overdose. So against saving lives, pro using lethal force.

 

 

My dad was Secretary to the SPF in the 1980s. This surprises me - he was always utterly anti-gun and so were his colleagues. Changed times. 

[welshbairn]

54 minutes ago, 101 said:

Also worth remembering that the SPF are against the police carrying drugs to reverse an overdose. So against saving lives, pro using lethal force.

 

 

I'm surprised it's only 53%. The real thing they're going for is everyone getting a personal tazer.

[Genuine Hibs Fan]

Based on most of the police officers I know the wanting to have a handgun is purely to fulfill some Walter Mitty fantasy and we'll see a marked increase in police officers being admitted to a&e after accidentally kneecapping themselves while showing off. So I'm all for it 

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

4 hours ago, 101 said:

Also worth remembering that the SPF are against the police carrying drugs to reverse an overdose. So against saving lives, pro using lethal force.

 

 

Thats not actually the point of this. The SPF dont recommend that members carry naloxone because the police refuse to insure officers for the liability aspect of its use. Keep in mind the college of paramedics and doctors etc have indemnity insurance to cover their use and recommend that anyone not properly covered should not administer a drug to another person. Its ok as an individual ‘any man’ member of the public but as someone working in a professional service the police officer would open himself up to all manner of repercussions should any well intended use of naloxone have a negative impact. Indeed the man you have quoted from twitter would be salivating at any opportunity to bring such an action, so its only appropriate for them to be fully covered. 

Police are being used to fill in for a massive shortage of ambulance and NHS resources, including mental health calls and other medical matters, you’ll frequently find NHS call handlers asking questions like ‘do you feel angry’ to justify sending police resources when they have no ambulance to dispatch. For me personally I think people in crisis should be seen by health care first responders and we should invest heavily to ensure that we have enough, the pandemic has allowed the NHS to shift a considerable amount of work to Police as the service of last resort (who cant say no). I believe we should have massive investment in CPN’s and have them available to respond to these calls. Moreso now we have a mental health epidemic in this country and its only going to get worse when they cut services further so lets not do that. 

As for the ‘routine arming’ aspect, I do not believe we are at the point in Scotland where every single police officer should be routinely armed. There is however a growing instance of firearm use in organised crime etc in Scotland which imo merits considering increasing the number of specially trained officers to allow for an armed response vehicle to be in every town or similar which currently isnt the case. There is also a growing number of incidents with people arming themselves with machetes and baseball bats etc. The irish model of having detectives armed or the New Zealand model of arming traffic police to a certain degree and maintain specialist firearms officers additionally. 

People who seem to have completed a facebook degree in police tactics say ‘taser is enough’ id argue that taser isnt reliable enough to be the only option available to ‘shift cops’, not necessarily saying have guns in every car but things like ‘bean bag shotguns’ or bola wire weapons should be considered to explore ‘less lethal’ options and still provide protection to police officers. 2 very recent examples show how vulnerable police can be with the guy who was run over in East Kilbride last week and the police officer who was almost murdered in Paisley on Sunday (who was armed with a taser which did not work). Taser as a tactical option is only really effective when there is an alternative and in terms of ‘use of force’ taser is ranked the same as use of a baton or cs spray. 

I get theres a big ‘i hate the polis’ group on this forum and fair enough people have their reasons, but I think people shouldnt have to go without the tools to do their job safely or as safely as possible just to avoid offending people bleating on about ‘i wouldnt live in a country where police carry guns’ but dont seem to mind for their fortnight in Spain. 

[101]

23 minutes ago, Inanimate Carbon Rod said:

Thats not actually the point of this. The SPF dont recommend that members carry naloxone because the police refuse to insure officers for the liability aspect of its use. Keep in mind the college of paramedics and doctors etc have indemnity insurance to cover their use and recommend that anyone not properly covered should not administer a drug to another person. Its ok as an individual ‘any man’ member of the public but as someone working in a professional service the police officer would open himself up to all manner of repercussions should any well intended use of naloxone have a negative impact. Indeed the man you have quoted from twitter would be salivating at any opportunity to bring such an action, so its only appropriate for them to be fully covered. 

I didn't know they wouldn't be insured against it all going wrong, I'm also not an expert on what can go wrong, obviously it might not reverse the OD but beyond that any reaction that might be caused by trying to help then obviously the person administering care should be protected.

 

26 minutes ago, Inanimate Carbon Rod said:

I believe we should have massive investment in CPN’s and have them available to respond to these calls

I'm not sure what a CPN is but, in an American city they have a crisis team in an ambulance that's a mental health nurse and a paramedic who can give crisis care and take you to a mental health unit if required. I would like this to come in in Scotland as like you say sending the police to people who aren't feeling well is completely inappropriate use of their time and skill, this for me is part of "defunding" the police or moving money spend from police officers dealing with mental health issues into a proper service.

30 minutes ago, Inanimate Carbon Rod said:

I think people shouldnt have to go without the tools to do their job safely or as safely as possible just to avoid offending people

I think it's all about proportionality, I'm not sure it's proportional to have everyone carrying a side arm although your non lethal suggestions and having more specialised officers sound sensible but I think it would be over kill where I live, considering I went on holiday and left my windows wide open (PM hedgecutter for my address) also think if we were to routinely arm then the screening of officers would have to be higher to the same level that armed officers are screened to and I imagine this would cut down the potential pool of people able to do the job.

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

17 minutes ago, 101 said:

I didn't know they wouldn't be insured against it all going wrong, I'm also not an expert on what can go wrong, obviously it might not reverse the OD but beyond that any reaction that might be caused by trying to help then obviously the person administering care should be protected.

- I know a lot of police officers and I haven’t met a single one who would refuse to carry it if fully covered. The naloxone isnt the end result treatment for an overdose, its a quick acting drug but the drug remains in the system and you can ‘re-overdose’ when it wears off. The side effects listed for naloxone can also be serious, but police officers (and members of the public) dont have the training to manage an adverse reaction. 

I'm not sure what a CPN is but, in an American city they have a crisis team in an ambulance that's a mental health nurse and a paramedic who can give crisis care and take you to a mental health unit if required. I would like this to come in in Scotland as like you say sending the police to people who aren't feeling well is completely inappropriate use of their time and skill, this for me is part of "defunding" the police or moving money spend from police officers dealing with mental health issues into a proper service.

- a community psychiatric nurse. They have a power of detention under the Mental Health Act similar to police so are a much better resource to send. These teams you report on have been trialed in Scotland but the ambulance service didnt keep up the funding. They are in use in London and work incredibly well. The go to model in Scotland is for NHS to phone police to go and police facilitate either a telephone triage or take a person to hospital. Its not the right thing to do, but police cant ignore the ambulance service saying ‘we dont have anyone and they’ve said they’ll kill themselves’ so they have to go and try to help. Its not ideal. I disagree with ‘defunding’ police, because theres a lot of things which could be achieved really well if they were funded properly. The SNP has defunded the police in real terms and the organisation is in crisis so it quite obviously doesnt work. Im all for a ‘shift’ in how things work and operate and would absolutely love to see more investment in things like the violence reduction unit (which is a joint police initiative which works on diversion and prevention), this is absolutely shown to work and could do so much more with more investment. 

I think it's all about proportionality, I'm not sure it's proportional to have everyone carrying a side arm although your non lethal suggestions and having more specialised officers sound sensible but I think it would be over kill where I live, considering I went on holiday and left my windows wide open (PM hedgecutter for my address) also think if we were to routinely arm then the screening of officers would have to be higher to the same level that armed officers are screened to and I imagine this would cut down the potential pool of people able to do the job.

- i get your point and im not calling for routine arming, but I think the world is changing and there needs to be some kind of revision. I agree that it would be overkill in some areas, but there needs to be more options available where there is increased risk. Have a look at stuff like bola wire etc or bean bag guns, probably the best way to move forward. 

 

Edited September 7, 2021 by Inanimate Carbon Rod

[Detournement]

1 hour ago, Inanimate Carbon Rod said:

 

As for the ‘routine arming’ aspect, I do not believe we are at the point in Scotland where every single police officer should be routinely armed. There is however a growing instance of firearm use in organised crime etc in Scotland which imo merits considering increasing the number of specially trained officers to allow for an armed response vehicle to be in every town or similar which currently isnt the case.

When has there ever been an organised crime situation where the police could have returned fire?

 

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

2 hours ago, Detournement said:

When has there ever been an organised crime situation where the police could have returned fire?

 

I know of a few. It’d also allow for more proactive policing of organised crime members too. Quite a tricky subject to discuss in detail or specifically due to the nature of it. 
Also thats only one aspect of my argument, increasingly we see things like the incident in paisley, weapons readily available on the internet shipped to your door. Consider how stretched borders are, think of what actually gets through… (im talking mail order weapons before anyone thinks im talking anti-immigration). 
The world is a scary place just now and I can see it getting worse. You can see a lot of people who are involved in drug trade and trafficking people etc running about as if theyre the Cartel or showing  off. Attitudes amongst criminals have changed and they dont seem to care if their actions endanger third parties, shootings in streets, outside schools, in front of kids, machete battles in parks and houses torched despite them being beside innocent families etc, the game is changing and collateral damage is an after thought. 

[Detournement]

Fair enough. I linked in the gang war thread today to the house in EK getting hit by the lorry so I'm in agreement that gangsters seem less bothered about keeping a low profile.

I'm still not sure about the guns. Would our health and safety regime not require a fire arms team level response to any shooting rather than a couple of McTackleberrys improvising? There was a shooting fairly local to me where neither the police nor paramedics approached the scene for 25 minutes despite multiple residents giving him first aid. 

 

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

1 hour ago, Detournement said:

Fair enough. I linked in the gang war thread today to the house in EK getting hit by the lorry so I'm in agreement that gangsters seem less bothered about keeping a low profile.

I'm still not sure about the guns. Would our health and safety regime not require a fire arms team level response to any shooting rather than a couple of McTackleberrys improvising? There was a shooting fairly local to me where neither the police nor paramedics approached the scene for 25 minutes despite multiple residents giving him first aid. 

 

So the argument I think the spf (btw not exactly my favourite people despite my posts here tonight) are making isnt necessarily for every police officer to be carrying a gun every second of every day, its an argument for having police officers trained in the use of them and to have more of them available for deployment because the number of incidents of near miss or serious injury to police officers is increasing. They seem to favour something akin to having more ‘afo’ authorised firearms officers, ensuring that they are sent to calls involving bladed weapons, potentially deadly weapons or people deemed to be ‘otherwise so dangerous’ so read that as incredibly violent or people known to be incredibly violent/skilled martial artists etc? As it stands armed police are ‘authorised’ by a firearms commander and given instructions on the extent of their authorisation ‘i authorise you to intercept that vehicle using a tactical stop and use firearms to detain the occupants’. But largely there is a reluctance to authorise because they worry about potential public outcry and ‘image’. Which is starting to become an issue where police officers are encountering more and more violence from weapons etc. Its really difficult to compress the essence of the argument on a post here, but essentially whats being reported is the ‘headline’ bit with none of nuance and detail of the actual survey results. 

There are some who would want a side arm on the hip of every officer, but those are largely in the minority. What most actually want is to ensure that the right resources are there and that the safety of the public and responding police officers is of more importance than being scared to send guns to calls involving deadly weapons. Tasers should be rolled out everywhere and other ‘less lethal’ (technical term because even a police baton is a less lethal weapon (it still has the potential to kill)) options should be rolled out, this should also be coupled with the introduction of body cameras which cannot be turned off to ensure full accountability, either attached to the weapon or on the car/body armour and activated when the officer is deployed or whatever. 

[strichener]

Never mind guns, answering calls properly would be a start.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-58474385.amp

Edited September 7, 2021 by strichener

[SlipperyP]

8 hours ago, Inanimate Carbon Rod said:

The world is a scary place just now and I can see it getting worse.

Crime rate has halved in the last 20 years in Scotland.  Why do you see it as getting worse?

https://www.statista.com/statistics/916472/crime-rate-of-scotland-uk/

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

3 hours ago, SlipperyP said:

Crime rate has halved in the last 20 years in Scotland.  Why do you see it as getting worse?

https://www.statista.com/statistics/916472/crime-rate-of-scotland-uk/

For example crime recording rules, the scottish crime recording standards are the guidance for how crimes are recorded, how that works reduces the number of ‘recorded’ crimes which naturally reduces the stats. Difficult to explain, but no crime hasnt halved in 20 years.

Instances of domestic abuse certainly haven’t halved in recent years and that is where most of the most serious violence comes from. But even if you reduce crime by realistically 20% then cut numbers of police officers on the street by say 40% because you’ve got a statutory requirement to have a certain number of officers, then you have to fill roles of civilians who were let go or not replaced through natural wastage. So despite headline pledges of 1000 extra officers that claim actually negatively impacts the number of police officers on the street. 

Edited September 8, 2021 by Inanimate Carbon Rod

[RH33]

I was surprised to learn that cops don't wear steel toe cap boots, in case they injure someone. 

[velo army]

7 hours ago, Inanimate Carbon Rod said:

For example crime recording rules, the scottish crime recording standards are the guidance for how crimes are recorded, how that works reduces the number of ‘recorded’ crimes which naturally reduces the stats. Difficult to explain, but no crime hasnt halved in 20 years.

Instances of domestic abuse certainly haven’t halved in recent years and that is where most of the most serious violence comes from. But even if you reduce crime by realistically 20% then cut numbers of police officers on the street by say 40% because you’ve got a statutory requirement to have a certain number of officers, then you have to fill roles of civilians who were let go or not replaced through natural wastage. So despite headline pledges of 1000 extra officers that claim actually negatively impacts the number of police officers on the street. 

Could you elaborate on how this is the case?