PSCOs Anyone had a positive interaction with one?
Discussion
joshcowin said:
Think he said he was bronze humming bird or something as absurd!
Yup - Humming Bronze Incident Commander - is that like being CEO of an Optical Cleanliness Transformer - think bloke on bike with a ladder and sponge - although maybe unfair as they are very useful and do generally exist. 
Byker28i said:
surveyor_101 said:
I have Current SC and Nuclear Clearance which if I had any convictions I wouldn't be able to hold. As I have worked on MOD projects, Highways England and Border Force.
Weird because people with security clearances, don't brag about them. It's one of the things one is told not to do...surveyor_101 said:
In terms of bragging, you are allowed to say you have a SC Clearance or NNC.
Errr, no you're not.Edited by surveyor_101 on Monday 20th March 09:46
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/united-kingdom-securit...
TheGovernment said:
You should not:
disclose your level of security clearance online or on social media profiles
disclose your level of security clearance online or on social media profiles
You know, considering the (very) thick skin, the ridiculous and fictitious assertions that are so easily dismissed by people that actually know what they are talking about, the fact that he's constantly contradicting himself, and when he is found out, he just keeps digging, I think surveyor_101 is also Welshbeef?
Sebring440 said:
You know, considering the (very) thick skin, the ridiculous and fictitious assertions that are so easily dismissed by people that actually know what they are talking about, the fact that he's constantly contradicting himself, and when he is found out, he just keeps digging, I think surveyor_101 is also Welshbeef?
I thought exactly the same thing (especially the same rambling style of posting) but Surveyor_101 seems to have been here for 13+ years. Quite a long time to maintain a fake profile....
Countdown said:
I thought exactly the same thing (especially the same rambling style of posting) but Surveyor_101 seems to have been here for 13+ years. Quite a long time to maintain a fake profile....
Nothing fake about what I say but I won't be continuing this thread.Apparently I am not allowed to question a PCSO outside of the remit and who can't provide a copy of their powers under the PRA 2002.
Been here a long time but changed my name used to be sportstech as I had a focus ST.
Nothing to do with welshbeef but nice try to get me banned!
MODS PLEASE Lock thread as its so far of topic.
sebdangerfield said:
surveyor_101 said:
In terms of bragging, you are allowed to say you have a SC Clearance or NNC.
Errr, no you're not.Edited by surveyor_101 on Monday 20th March 09:46
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/united-kingdom-securit...
TheGovernment said:
You should not:
disclose your level of security clearance online or on social media profiles
disclose your level of security clearance online or on social media profiles
I have mentioned them here but its not associated with my name.
surveyor_101 said:
Nothing fake about what I say but I won't be continuing this thread.
Apparently I am not allowed to question a PCSO outside of the remit and who can't provide a copy of their powers under the PRA 2002.
Been here a long time but changed my name used to be sportstech as I had a focus ST.
Nothing to do with welshbeef but nice try to get me banned!
MODS PLEASE Lock thread as its so far of topic.
You can report the thread & ask for it to be locked.Apparently I am not allowed to question a PCSO outside of the remit and who can't provide a copy of their powers under the PRA 2002.
Been here a long time but changed my name used to be sportstech as I had a focus ST.
Nothing to do with welshbeef but nice try to get me banned!
MODS PLEASE Lock thread as its so far of topic.
(Your alter ego knows how toreport a comment)
surveyor_101 said:
I am not a massive fan of the blue nobs plastic police, anyone had a decent experience or are mostly cop wana be?
Had a chat with one tonight 50 year old guy in a ford ranger who didn't like me changing lanes on 3 (3 to 1 in one smooth manoeuvre) lane carriageway in the distant empty road from him without a left hand signal seemed to think it was very dangerous, I said look flower in your check drive they don't cover System of car control but in my information phase as no one could benefit and the highway code says move left when possible I moved back to lane 1 when safe, I was alright what offence do you think I committed? He didn't know!
He was moaning about speed as I left the lights fast to the limit but again PSCOs have no blues follow check speed training etc but he really had a cartman vibe. He didn't speed to catch me he caught up with me in traffic.
When I asked to see his designation card he didn't even know what his was so I said maybe you call it a powers booklet to which he said he didn't carry it! I said under the police reform act 2002 I believe you are required to have about your person on duty so you can convey and to a member of public your powers, he seemed lost at this point. I said since your unable to convey I need to get going now so if your not planning to detain me for 30 mins I shall be leaving now but thanks for the advice!
Just to keep it on threadHad a chat with one tonight 50 year old guy in a ford ranger who didn't like me changing lanes on 3 (3 to 1 in one smooth manoeuvre) lane carriageway in the distant empty road from him without a left hand signal seemed to think it was very dangerous, I said look flower in your check drive they don't cover System of car control but in my information phase as no one could benefit and the highway code says move left when possible I moved back to lane 1 when safe, I was alright what offence do you think I committed? He didn't know!
He was moaning about speed as I left the lights fast to the limit but again PSCOs have no blues follow check speed training etc but he really had a cartman vibe. He didn't speed to catch me he caught up with me in traffic.
When I asked to see his designation card he didn't even know what his was so I said maybe you call it a powers booklet to which he said he didn't carry it! I said under the police reform act 2002 I believe you are required to have about your person on duty so you can convey and to a member of public your powers, he seemed lost at this point. I said since your unable to convey I need to get going now so if your not planning to detain me for 30 mins I shall be leaving now but thanks for the advice!
Edited by surveyor_101 on Thursday 16th March 19:25
If you were in L3 that suggests you were overtaking something. When you'd finished overtaking I assume you moved back to L1 (in one smooth move). Would the vehicles you had overtaken not benefitted from a left-hand indicator?
Where did the PCSO stop you? How did he stop you (blue lights)?
In another thread…
I was seeing what the current guidance on impersonating was, I did think it would not meet the threshold but she needed talking to my local police decided they could not take it further and if some mad lady is going round with a police high viz let get on with it. She didn't claim to be police once but used some wording that could led someone to believe.So at best the “information” you’re providing is at least 15 years out of date and at worst just wrong.
Your second sentence makes no sense whatsoever, but I suspect you’re reiterating your claim that a detective refused to conduct an interview with an unrepresented suspect. While that may have happened “over 15 years ago”, it certainly shouldn’t have and breaches PACE on several counts. But I’m sure you were already aware of that…
The legislation on impersonating police hasn’t changed since it was introduced (s90 of The Police Act 1996, have a link to the actual legislation https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/16/secti... ), so to try and weasel out that you don’t know what you’re on about with a straightforward offence but try to give advice on current interview process etc is pretty poor. The one thing you got right is that a lot has changed, so perhaps it’s best not to give advice based on experience that’s at least 15 years out of date.
I’m calling you out on these points, because the OP really doesn’t need wrong information, however well intentioned.So clearly intimating he was a police officer, although (again, the same as kestral), never gives a straight answer.
From the same thread:
I was seeing what the current guidance on impersonating was, I did think it would not meet the threshold but she needed talking to my local police decided they could not take it further and if some mad lady is going round with a police high viz let get on with it. She didn't claim to be police once but used some wording that could led someone to believe.So at best the “information” you’re providing is at least 15 years out of date and at worst just wrong.
Your second sentence makes no sense whatsoever, but I suspect you’re reiterating your claim that a detective refused to conduct an interview with an unrepresented suspect. While that may have happened “over 15 years ago”, it certainly shouldn’t have and breaches PACE on several counts. But I’m sure you were already aware of that…
The legislation on impersonating police hasn’t changed since it was introduced (s90 of The Police Act 1996, have a link to the actual legislation https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/16/secti... ), so to try and weasel out that you don’t know what you’re on about with a straightforward offence but try to give advice on current interview process etc is pretty poor. The one thing you got right is that a lot has changed, so perhaps it’s best not to give advice based on experience that’s at least 15 years out of date.
I’m calling you out on these points, because the OP really doesn’t need wrong information, however well intentioned.All in this thread: https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
For someone claiming to be studying law at degree level, the OP does seem to struggle with basic grammar, spelling, syntax and punctuation. I realise writing on forums isn’t the same as doing a thesis, but I could probably catch dysentery, eat a tin of alphabetti spaghetti and s
t a more coherent post than 90% of the OP’s ramblings.
Dibble said:
surveyor_101 said:
Dibble said:
You say “trying to detail threads”. I say “challenging incorrect information and querying provenance of said incorrect information”.
You’re as bad as kestral, another poster who likes to think he knows what he’s on about, posts factually incorrect information then disappears whenever he’s called out on it or asked what he’s basing it on.
You don’t have to share a lot of “private info”. It’d be quite easy to say “I did x years, however many years on department a, another however on department b, retired a years ago”. That could at least lend a little credibility to what you’re posting.
Yet you claim to not even know the basics of a very simple offence like impersonating police and seem to lack the ability to Google it (and there are plenty of legitimate online sources you could find the correct information from). Lack of knowledge of such basics hardly instils any confidence that you know what you’re on about with something even slightly more complicated. kestral was wrong about duty solicitors.
I’ve no idea what the thresholds for legal aid, so I’ve not made something up/guessed. I did say in the OP’s other thread his best course of action would be to speak to the original solicitor or another solicitor and take it from there, rather than relying on people’s (often wrong) opinions on the internet.
I left over 15 years ago a lot of things have changed, I have however had a detective to interview someone without a brief! Something you claim could never happen! Well I am telling you it did!You’re as bad as kestral, another poster who likes to think he knows what he’s on about, posts factually incorrect information then disappears whenever he’s called out on it or asked what he’s basing it on.
You don’t have to share a lot of “private info”. It’d be quite easy to say “I did x years, however many years on department a, another however on department b, retired a years ago”. That could at least lend a little credibility to what you’re posting.
Yet you claim to not even know the basics of a very simple offence like impersonating police and seem to lack the ability to Google it (and there are plenty of legitimate online sources you could find the correct information from). Lack of knowledge of such basics hardly instils any confidence that you know what you’re on about with something even slightly more complicated. kestral was wrong about duty solicitors.
I’ve no idea what the thresholds for legal aid, so I’ve not made something up/guessed. I did say in the OP’s other thread his best course of action would be to speak to the original solicitor or another solicitor and take it from there, rather than relying on people’s (often wrong) opinions on the internet.
I was seeing what the current guidance on impersonating was, I did think it would not meet the threshold but she needed talking to my local police decided they could not take it further and if some mad lady is going round with a police high viz let get on with it. She didn't claim to be police once but used some wording that could led someone to believe.
Your second sentence makes no sense whatsoever, but I suspect you’re reiterating your claim that a detective refused to conduct an interview with an unrepresented suspect. While that may have happened “over 15 years ago”, it certainly shouldn’t have and breaches PACE on several counts. But I’m sure you were already aware of that…
The legislation on impersonating police hasn’t changed since it was introduced (s90 of The Police Act 1996, have a link to the actual legislation https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/16/secti... ), so to try and weasel out that you don’t know what you’re on about with a straightforward offence but try to give advice on current interview process etc is pretty poor. The one thing you got right is that a lot has changed, so perhaps it’s best not to give advice based on experience that’s at least 15 years out of date.
I’m calling you out on these points, because the OP really doesn’t need wrong information, however well intentioned.
From the same thread:
Dibble said:
surveyor_101 said:
Dibble said:
You say “trying to detail threads”. I say “challenging incorrect information and querying provenance of said incorrect information”.
You’re as bad as kestral, another poster who likes to think he knows what he’s on about, posts factually incorrect information then disappears whenever he’s called out on it or asked what he’s basing it on.
You don’t have to share a lot of “private info”. It’d be quite easy to say “I did x years, however many years on department a, another however on department b, retired a years ago”. That could at least lend a little credibility to what you’re posting.
Yet you claim to not even know the basics of a very simple offence like impersonating police and seem to lack the ability to Google it (and there are plenty of legitimate online sources you could find the correct information from). Lack of knowledge of such basics hardly instils any confidence that you know what you’re on about with something even slightly more complicated. kestral was wrong about duty solicitors.
I’ve no idea what the thresholds for legal aid, so I’ve not made something up/guessed. I did say in the OP’s other thread his best course of action would be to speak to the original solicitor or another solicitor and take it from there, rather than relying on people’s (often wrong) opinions on the internet.
I left over 15 years ago a lot of things have changed, I have however had a detective to interview someone without a brief! Something you claim could never happen! Well I am telling you it did!You’re as bad as kestral, another poster who likes to think he knows what he’s on about, posts factually incorrect information then disappears whenever he’s called out on it or asked what he’s basing it on.
You don’t have to share a lot of “private info”. It’d be quite easy to say “I did x years, however many years on department a, another however on department b, retired a years ago”. That could at least lend a little credibility to what you’re posting.
Yet you claim to not even know the basics of a very simple offence like impersonating police and seem to lack the ability to Google it (and there are plenty of legitimate online sources you could find the correct information from). Lack of knowledge of such basics hardly instils any confidence that you know what you’re on about with something even slightly more complicated. kestral was wrong about duty solicitors.
I’ve no idea what the thresholds for legal aid, so I’ve not made something up/guessed. I did say in the OP’s other thread his best course of action would be to speak to the original solicitor or another solicitor and take it from there, rather than relying on people’s (often wrong) opinions on the internet.
I was seeing what the current guidance on impersonating was, I did think it would not meet the threshold but she needed talking to my local police decided they could not take it further and if some mad lady is going round with a police high viz let get on with it. She didn't claim to be police once but used some wording that could led someone to believe.
Your second sentence makes no sense whatsoever, but I suspect you’re reiterating your claim that a detective refused to conduct an interview with an unrepresented suspect. While that may have happened “over 15 years ago”, it certainly shouldn’t have and breaches PACE on several counts. But I’m sure you were already aware of that…
The legislation on impersonating police hasn’t changed since it was introduced (s90 of The Police Act 1996, have a link to the actual legislation https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/16/secti... ), so to try and weasel out that you don’t know what you’re on about with a straightforward offence but try to give advice on current interview process etc is pretty poor. The one thing you got right is that a lot has changed, so perhaps it’s best not to give advice based on experience that’s at least 15 years out of date.
I’m calling you out on these points, because the OP really doesn’t need wrong information, however well intentioned.
For someone claiming to be studying law at degree level, the OP does seem to struggle with basic grammar, spelling, syntax and punctuation. I realise writing on forums isn’t the same as doing a thesis, but I could probably catch dysentery, eat a tin of alphabetti spaghetti and s
t a more coherent post than 90% of the OP’s ramblings.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff