Issued COVID FPN by a police officer

[Pegscratch]

monthou said:

Can you point me to the relevant legislation?
IANAL, I've skimmed the RTA and all I can see are powers where there's reasonable cause to think an offence has been commited or an accident occurred. Which is where XCP's imagination came in.

Requires several "leaps of faith", but essentially you definitely need to believe them to be connected to the vehicle before you can even get started was my point. Sitting on a bench having made precisely zero mention of said vehicle was what I was getting at...

[Jonmx]

blueg33 said:

You think you are the scum of the earth - I am a developer and a banker..............

I left the Police and became an estate agent....

[Pegscratch]

Jonmx said:

I left the Police and became an estate agent....

We have a winner.

[monthou]

Pegscratch said:

Requires several "leaps of faith", but essentially you definitely need to believe them to be connected to the vehicle before you can even get started was my point. Sitting on a bench having made precisely zero mention of said vehicle was what I was getting at...

Thanks.
I don't know whether the MOT was mentioned or not. If he refused to give a reason for being on the bench then it's not surprising he was arrested for not giving details. If he said he was waiting for an MOT that sounds like the epitome of a reasonable reason for being out. Either way using the RTA to force his details sounds like an abuse. But, as I said, IANAL.

[XCP]

blueg33 said:

You would make up a reason - ie basically lie to get the information

I hope you are not a police officer

Not at all. we have a 'homeless' ( whatever that means) man who has driven someone else's car for an MOT test, and is declining to give any details. I would wonder why. Perhaps he is trying to hide something.
As I say depending on the circumstances I would suspect a document offence. I wouldn't have to make anything up or lie.

I am not a police officer, but I was once upon a time.

[Pegscratch]

XCP said:

Not at all. we have a 'homeless' ( whatever that means) man who has driven someone else's car for an MOT test, and is declining to give any details. I would wonder why. Perhaps he is trying to hide something.
As I say depending on the circumstances I would suspect a document offence. I wouldn't have to make anything up or lie.

I am not a police officer, but I was once upon a time.

At that point in time he’s said nothing of a car, or an MOT, or that he is homeless or indeed what his name is.

He’s a bloke, on a bench, doing and saying nothing.

[monthou]

XCP said:

Not at all. we have a 'homeless' ( whatever that means) man who has driven someone else's car for an MOT test, and is declining to give any details. I would wonder why. Perhaps he is trying to hide something.
As I say depending on the circumstances I would suspect a document offence. I wouldn't have to make anything up or lie.

I am not a police officer, but I was once upon a time.

Wanting to know is not the same as having the right to know.

[Pegscratch]

monthou said:

Wanting to know is not the same as having the right to know.

There’s the start of a long and philosophical discussion about enabling people to abuse their position; I like many others would simply identify themselves to an officer if they were asked, under the misnomer of “if you’ve nothing to hide”. Sadly this kind of blind acceptance of this way of things is probably enabling (some, unpleasant) officers to feel empowered to demand details of people because “they must be hiding something”.

At what point are you being an obstructive little gobste, as opposed to an upstanding member of society that won’t accept unjustified demands?

[Electro1980]

Pegscratch said:

Electro1980 said:

So, yes, you think that a failure by an employer to provide basic training to do a job is a failing on the employee?

No, I think a failure of an employer to provide basic training is a failure of the employer. The failure of an employee to care enough about the profession that they have chosen/found themselves in to do not even basic reading of pertinent information and events is a failure of the employee. It is not binary. You can have an employer that has not failed and an employee that still does. You can have an employer that has failed and an employee that has not.

Hence your argument being somewhat of a strawman. You argued that the employer has failed them, not the employee failing themselves. That is possible, but it is not a counter to the employee having failed themselves.

So how is a understanding of the law the officers are expected to enforce not basic training to do the job? Seems like a standard process to me.

[XCP]

Pegscratch said:

XCP said:

Not at all. we have a 'homeless' ( whatever that means) man who has driven someone else's car for an MOT test, and is declining to give any details. I would wonder why. Perhaps he is trying to hide something.
As I say depending on the circumstances I would suspect a document offence. I wouldn't have to make anything up or lie.

I am not a police officer, but I was once upon a time.

At that point in time he’s said nothing of a car, or an MOT, or that he is homeless or indeed what his name is.

He’s a bloke, on a bench, doing and saying nothing.

In those circumstances then I wouldn't be considering motoring offences. If I were him though I would give my name and contest the PCN rather than get arrested under S24 PACE.

[Pegscratch]

Electro1980 said:

So how is a understanding of the law the officers are expected to enforce not basic training to do the job? Seems like a standard process to me.

So you’ve given up on the unwinnable argument then?

It does appear on the face of it fairly basic learning but you’d think then if they felt they didn’t have the knowledge they’d do as many of us have suggested - to read up themselves. The extra easy thing about this situation is that all of this information is wide open and in the public domain. No special paywall preventing you from doing anything about it. Many of us have to pay for access to training materials.

[XCP]

Pegscratch said:

There’s the start of a long and philosophical discussion about enabling people to abuse their position; I like many others would simply identify themselves to an officer if they were asked, under the misnomer of “if you’ve nothing to hide”. Sadly this kind of blind acceptance of this way of things is probably enabling (some, unpleasant) officers to feel empowered to demand details of people because “they must be hiding something”.

At what point are you being an obstructive little gobste, as opposed to an upstanding member of society that won’t accept unjustified demands?

It is not normal for law abiding motorists to decline to give their name and address when required by a police officer. I can only recall one such incident in my service, and he ended up being dragged out through the remains of his drivers window. ( he was a 'Freeman' type). Consequently, when someone refuses to give details, when required to do so under road traffic law, it arouses a suspicion that all might not be above board, and of course is an offence in itself.

[monthou]

XCP said:

It is not normal for law abiding motorists to decline to give their name and address when required by a police officer. I can only recall one such incident in my service, and he ended up being dragged out through the remains of his drivers window. ( he was a 'Freeman' type). Consequently, when someone refuses to give details, when required to do so under road traffic law, it arouses a suspicion that all might not be above board, and of course is an offence in itself.

What part of road traffic law says you can ask (demand) a bloke sat on a bench for his id?
Don't you have to reasonably suspect he's been involved in a driving offence or an accident?
Not wanting to give id to a pcso on covid duty doesn't seem to fit that.

[CoolHands]

XCP said:

It is not normal for law abiding motorists to decline to give their name and address when required by a police officer. I can only recall one such incident in my service, and he ended up being dragged out through the remains of his drivers window. ( he was a 'Freeman' type). Consequently, when someone refuses to give details, when required to do so under road traffic law, it arouses a suspicion that all might not be above board, and of course is an offence in itself.

Ah we’ve finally found pc savage

[Nibbles_bits]

Pegscratch said:

Electro1980 said:

So how is a understanding of the law the officers are expected to enforce not basic training to do the job? Seems like a standard process to me.

So you’ve given up on the unwinnable argument then?

It does appear on the face of it fairly basic learning but you’d think then if they felt they didn’t have the knowledge they’d do as many of us have suggested - to read up themselves. The extra easy thing about this situation is that all of this information is wide open and in the public domain. No special paywall preventing you from doing anything about it. Many of us have to pay for access to training materials.

8 weeks training. That's it.
8 weeks before your thrust upon the adoring public.
8 weeks to do a job like no other.

So who's the more unprofessional, ignorant Officer now?
Me, who won't give a Covid FPN?
Or these Officers that have arrested someone for an "offence"
(Not to mention 'not giving your details' isn't an offence') and ended up plastered all over the internet??

[XCP]

monthou said:

What part of road traffic law says you can ask (demand) a bloke sat on a bench for his id?
Don't you have to reasonably suspect he's been involved in a driving offence or an accident?
Not wanting to give id to a pcso on covid duty doesn't seem to fit that.

Q1. None
Q2. Yes

Final sentence: Agreed.

[XCP]

CoolHands said:

Ah we’ve finally found pc savage

He was an amateur. Our arrest was totally legal and the chap was convicted at court. No complaints were forthcoming

[Electro1980]

Pegscratch said:

Electro1980 said:

So how is a understanding of the law the officers are expected to enforce not basic training to do the job? Seems like a standard process to me.

So you’ve given up on the unwinnable argument then?

It does appear on the face of it fairly basic learning but you’d think then if they felt they didn’t have the knowledge they’d do as many of us have suggested - to read up themselves. The extra easy thing about this situation is that all of this information is wide open and in the public domain. No special paywall preventing you from doing anything about it. Many of us have to pay for access to training materials.

What unwinnable argument? What exactly do you think I arguing? I’m not the one who keeps on trying to wiggle around the basic principle of the onus on the employer to provide the training needed to do the job and somehow put it on the employee to undertake training and learning in their own time. I’m not the one who keeps trying to claim that people should undertake training in their own time in order to do their job. Perhaps if you answered my questions in good faith we would get somewhere much quicker.

Back to the original question. Do you think the onus should be on the employee or the employer to ensure all employees have the skills and training to do their job? Although it’s clear from your statement here that you think employees should spend their free time doing training to do their job.

Edited by Electro1980 on Wednesday 3rd March 07:03

[Dibble]

I started as a Special in 1991 and joined as a regular officer in 1996. I didn’t get very much training for the former and a bit more for the latter. Obviously, even since 1996, there’s been quite a lot that’s changed, with huge chunk of new legislation. Off the top of my head, there’s been legislation about harassment, sexual offences, bail, Covid (obviously), as well as changes to disclosure, drug reclassification (and re-reclassification). I’m sure there’s plenty more which escape me now.

Some of that legislation (and its application) is complex. Who should be responsible for making sure officers are up to speed on that, the organisation, or the individual officer? If people try to learn it at home, how do they know they’re getting it right/understand it? We’ve seen plenty of discussion on here about what the CoVid legislation means, so self learning for stuff like this isn’t really an option, IMHO. Look at any Facebook thread about police giving tickets out and there’s a split between “Tickets should be a bazillion and eleven pounds”, “You’re not allowed to drive more than five miles out of your postcode on a Wednesday when the wind speed is above 5 knots from the west unless your maternal grandfather’s second cousin’s surname had three syllables and ended in q” to the full on FOTL frothers. Although most forces are now only recruiting people with a degree, or working towards one, that’s no guarantee of intelligence/common sense. Some cops are great, some are rubbish. Some are extremely clever, some couldn’t count their own balls/tits and get the same number twice.

Unfortunately, most forces use online learning now, which has its limitations and everyone learns differently, so what works for one person won’t work for another. But it means the organisation can say “Well, we put out an NCALT package and they’ve done it, so we’re covered...” even with the pass/fail “knowledge checks”, it doesn’t allow people to ask questions about the bits they don’t understand/aren’t clear on.

[blueg33]

Nibbles_bits said:

8 weeks training. That's it.
8 weeks before your thrust upon the adoring public.
8 weeks to do a job like no other.

So who's the more unprofessional, ignorant Officer now?
Me, who won't give a Covid FPN?
Or these Officers that have arrested someone for an "offence"
(Not to mention 'not giving your details' isn't an offence') and ended up plastered all over the internet??

Lots of jobs are like no other so I am not sure that is a point

There would be more public support of there weren't so many issues around bullying attitudes from the police, poor understanding of the laws they are enforcing and what appears to be an almost institutional attitude of "I have power and I'm going to use it"

There must be ongoing training after the initial 8 weeks?