Letter from the police

[Fermit]

Konrod said:

This is all a result of a one dimensional policing policy. Speed is the only factor being policed by cameras, so drivers are educated to think that provided they drive slowly they are good drivers. No lane control, no effective speed control, no distance control, no awareness.

No need to apologise. It's nail on the head stuff. 14 years ago I was on a roundabout on the A46 near Lincoln. I was in the right hand lane, with a car and horsebox in the left. As soon as we exited the roundabout the horsebox driver swung in to the dual carriageway right hand lane to pass a lorry, completely slicing me up in the process. When he'd passed and moved left I accelerated to circa 90, to pass both the lorry and him.

At this point, I became aware of a 5 series in the right lane behind me. I thought it was police, as he wasn't accelerating to pass me, and I wasn't pulling away from him, he was mirroring my speed. I then send to my then girlfriend, 'I'm just slowing down a bit, I think we have company'. I soon as I did this, his car lit the blues.

At this point it may be worth noting that this was on Dec 18th. Drink drive season for them. I blew zero. He then proceeded to give me 3 points for driving at 87. I knew I'd lost at this point, so I asked him why he wasn't instead focusing on the guy who sliced me up for not checking blind spots. I stated the reason I sped was because I wanted to simply pass an erratic driver who had no idea what was around him. Shockingly he replied 'I didn't see them'. Like bks you didn't sunshine, you just wanted an easy pull for something that you could measure, IE MPH.

IMO, a driver having no clue what is around him, wandering all over the road without a care, is more likely to blow positive than someone who passes an arbitrary number for brief period, because that was the safest thing to do. But no, speed kills, dead babies et all, but feel free to crap drive and as long as you're under said number you're fine.

[Pickled Piper]

Nibbles_bits said:

Random_Person said:

Nibbles_bits said:

Or it's a recently retired Officer who's just completed his 30 years service, the last 10 of which were spent on RPU.

As in my case.

Exactly - a civilian with no warrant or current ability to police.

But with far more knowledge of policing and actual experience of what might constitute WDCA than most on PH.

Where did the story about unqualified civilians reviewing these videos emanate from?

In my experience the video is reviewed by a PC. It may vary according to constabulary.

[Pickled Piper]

Forester1965 said:

An issue now is that any manoeuvre capable of eliciting a "I wouldn't have done that" response from another driver is liable to be filmed and sent to the authorities. Needs to be considered prior to every manoeuvre; "how would I explain this to the Police/Magistrates/Jury?".

I try and drive on the basis "would I have done that if Plod were present?". The answer is not always yes.

[CHLEMCBH]

Pickled Piper said:

Where did the story about unqualified civilians reviewing these videos emanate from?

In my experience the video is reviewed by a PC. It may vary according to constabulary.

No idea where the story came from but it's fairly standard plod-bashing. Nothing to say that PC is "qualified" to make judgements about driving either, though. Most police staff are specialists in their field. Somebody whose sole task it is to view these videos will build experience far quicker than any RPU officer driving about.

[InitialDave]

CHLEMCBH said:

Nothing to say that PC is "qualified" to make judgements about driving either, though.

Bingo.

The thing about the police, and adenoidal whingers using the police as an avenue to "get" you with their dashcam footage submission, is that they can be completely wrong and still cause you hassle, even if the final end result will only be a snotty letter.

Hence why being mindful if how your driving may appear to such a type is worth doing, even if you are definitely being safe, sensible, and legal.

[Random_Person]

Again, this is where the lack of knowledge comes in about how things actually work. A tiny comparison, distilled into a simple point as to include everything would take up multiple pages and days of typing.

In an authorized police pursuit, there are a plethora of people involved at varying levels of rank and role. These will include:

- A control room Chief Insp on duty and responsible for the entire force area who acts as an overall Bronze commander for everything.
- A highly qualified pursuit driver that will have undergone weeks if not months of driver training, as well as various additional bolt on courses and refreshes / continued prof development. They will also be acting as the ground commander and tactical lead
- A member of staff whose sat in a control room with no formal driving qualifications (occasionally won't hold a driving licence) updating the digital log and risk assessing what they are hearing.

Out of those three, who do you think is in charge of, runs the pursuit and decides whether it should continue or end?

It isn't the first two.

Things in the police are not always run as people think.

[Bigends]

Random_Person said:

Again, this is where the lack of knowledge comes in about how things actually work. A tiny comparison, distilled into a simple point as to include everything would take up multiple pages and days of typing.

In an authorized police pursuit, there are a plethora of people involved at varying levels of rank and role. These will include:

- A control room Chief Insp on duty and responsible for the entire force area who acts as an overall Bronze commander for everything.
- A highly qualified pursuit driver that will have undergone weeks if not months of driver training, as well as various additional bolt on courses and refreshes / continued prof development. They will also be acting as the ground commander and tactical lead
- A member of staff whose sat in a control room with no formal driving qualifications (occasionally won't hold a driving licence) updating the digital log and risk assessing what they are hearing.

Out of those three, who do you think is in charge of, runs the pursuit and decides whether it should continue or end?

It isn't the first two.

Things in the police are not always run as people think.

But the control room inspector or Sgt will be overseeing what the third one is doing

[Random_Person]

Bigends said:

But the control room inspector or Sgt will be overseeing what the third one is doing

Incorrect.

The third person will be "running the show". The top person will not even be in the room or aware of what is going on. They would only have involvement if approached to authorize a specific tactic which happens rarely - even then it would be a speedy sitrep followed by a decision. No active supervision or listening or involvement takes place.

[pavarotti1980]

Random_Person said:

Incorrect.

The third person will be "running the show". The top person will not even be in the room or aware of what is going on. They would only have involvement if approached to authorize a specific tactic which happens rarely - even then it would be a speedy sitrep followed by a decision. No active supervision or listening or involvement takes place.

FIM or FOM's are based in control rooms and are in charge. A comms person is not running the show. Surely the FIM/FOM will silver not bronze too ?

[Random_Person]

pavarotti1980 said:

FIM or FOM's are based in control rooms and are in charge. A comms person is not running the show. Surely the FIM/FOM will silver not bronze too ?

Not in all forces. There is no such thing as a FIM within a well known large force area - this is the Chief Insp role above as person 1 - who is generally tasked and absent elsewhere. There are a lot of pursuits, all managed by person 3 (they don't always have no licence but you get the jist).

[pavarotti1980]

Random_Person said:

Not in all forces. There is no such thing as a FIM within a well known large force area - this is the Chief Insp role above as person 1 - who is generally tasked and absent elsewhere. There are a lot of pursuits, all managed by person 3 (they don't always have no licence but you get the jist).

FIM/FOM (Force Incident/Operations Manager) does not exist? Ok......which area is that?

[Random_Person]

London.

Unsure about GMP and other such places. I know most counties have them. But I also know the way that pursuits are run between areas varies hugely. TVP don't generally even monitor the Intops channel and take an age to get going.

[Bigends]

Random_Person said:

Bigends said:

But the control room inspector or Sgt will be overseeing what the third one is doing

Incorrect.

The third person will be "running the show". The top person will not even be in the room or aware of what is going on. They would only have involvement if approached to authorize a specific tactic which happens rarely - even then it would be a speedy sitrep followed by a decision. No active supervision or listening or involvement takes place.

Wasnt talking about the 'top person'. My old force FCR has an Inspector and Sgt overseeing incidents as and when required, and either one of them or the handlers own Supervisor would have an ear on any ongoing pursuit

[Random_Person]

My main point is, the person authorising, supervising and running a pursuit in London is someone who has the least experience of operational policing or driving whatsoever. Most of the time it is a civilian, who has never been out in a police car and rides a pushbike to work.

[CHLEMCBC]

Random_Person said:

My main point is, the person authorising, supervising and running a pursuit in London is someone who has the least experience of operational policing or driving whatsoever. Most of the time it is a civilian, who has never been out in a police car and rides a pushbike to work.

What's your connection to and personal experience of police work?

[Random_Person]

CHLEMCBC said:

What's your connection to and personal experience of police work?

It should be fairly obvious. But one does not post such information online.

[standards]

Random_Person said:

CHLEMCBC said:

What's your connection to and personal experience of police work?

It should be fairly obvious. But one does not post such information online.

Can we try Twenty Questions?
Disengages nosey mode

[Nibbles_bits]

GeniusOfLove said:

Nibbles_bits said:

Random_Person said:

Nibbles_bits said:

Or it's a recently retired Officer who's just completed his 30 years service, the last 10 of which were spent on RPU.

As in my case.

Exactly - a civilian with no warrant or current ability to police.

But with far more knowledge of policing and actual experience of what might constitute WDCA than most on PH.

Still a busybody bellend sending in little infractions from their dashcam though.

The world would be a much nicer place if people like that all vanished overnight, spiteful small minded petty little knobends.

Yes the DCW is.......but the reference to a civilian was the member of police staff sending the letter.

[Nibbles_bits]

Random_Person said:

Again, this is where the lack of knowledge comes in about how things actually work. A tiny comparison, distilled into a simple point as to include everything would take up multiple pages and days of typing.

In an authorized police pursuit, there are a plethora of people involved at varying levels of rank and role. These will include:

- A control room Chief Insp on duty and responsible for the entire force area who acts as an overall Bronze commander for everything.
- A highly qualified pursuit driver that will have undergone weeks if not months of driver training, as well as various additional bolt on courses and refreshes / continued prof development. They will also be acting as the ground commander and tactical lead
- A member of staff whose sat in a control room with no formal driving qualifications (occasionally won't hold a driving licence) updating the digital log and risk assessing what they are hearing.

Out of those three, who do you think is in charge of, runs the pursuit and decides whether it should continue or end?

It isn't the first two.

Things in the police are not always run as people think.

Or the Officer in the pursuit calls it off

Or the Comms Inspector calls it off

Or the FCR Inspector (Oscar 1) calls it off

Or the duty Inspector calls it off

Or the duty Sergeant calls it off

[Southerner]

Blackpuddin said:

Do the police actually have the right to 'keep something on file'? Surely it's either a crime or it's not. This seems to be some new hybrid entity.

Are the police not perpetually breaking the law with their attitude to ‘keeping things on file’ anyway; I seem to recall they’ve been advised that their approach to DNA retention in the event of non-crimes is supposedly not legal but they decline to act on this?

How long in law is a person required to be able to provide driver details for? Say the police find reason to take action against the OP for another driving issue in the future and this previous letter is dug up. Can they demand that the OP retrospectively identify who the driver was is this incident, seeing as they haven’t bothered asking at the time, in order to establish whether it should be considered in any action relating to something else at a later date?

The whole thing sounds legally dubious and a waste of everyone’s time, frankly. But if the police wish to involve themselves in sending threatening communications then the citizens whom they choose to target are entirely justified in responding.