are they all this good?

[DucatiGary]

shell lincoln, BiB (2 of) get out an unmarked BMW estate (maroon) which they parked blocking the exit of the petrol station.

it was 18:10, so very very busy.

I though, hey up, bit of action, BiB's gonna get somone here.

they walk through the forecourt and one makes a call on his mobile phone, which I thought hold on isnt that "supposed to be dangerous" and shout over "oi! make a phone signal with my hand against my ear shake my head and point at the sign saying no mobiles with my other hand.

he just gave me a look of disgust turned away and carried on.

i was waiting for a pump just whatching him, walking round, if he owned the place talking on his mobile even though no one is supposed to talk on their phone.

anyways, get to the pump, start filling up, BiB come over, do you have a problem Sir.

to which I said yes i do, your supposed to be protecting the public but instead you are potentially endagering peoples lives as there is supposed to be a risk of explosion using mobile phones near fuel, to which he said "we all know thats nonsense though" i just said no wonder no one has faith in the police nowadays hey

and then, a nother BiB came over (was in a marker bmw estate), said "having fun are we boys" "you seem to be very busy" in a sarcastic manner and the 2 in the unmarked car scuttled of then relised they had been blocking the exit to the petrol station for about 15 mins, without noticing, and got a load of abise from about 10 cars that couldnt get out the forecourt.

now im no brain surgeon, but do we really pay the BiB such a low wage only the numpties are applying for the force now?

certainly seems that way, also hats of to the obviously higher ranking BiB who stepped in at just the right time before I could see the other guy giving me a real hard time, also fair play to him as he was on his way out of the counter stated he loved my car, its really nice isnt it.

I bet he catches more crims too ya know.

[Chrispy Porker]

Do you know what the mobile call was about?

[bluepolarbear]

Chrispy Porker said:

Do you know what the mobile call was about?

Not having a go at you CP (honest) but that is always the standard answer to poor police behaviour - basically "you don't know what the guy was doing so you can't comment".

It kind of sums up where everything is going wrong for the BiB in terms of respect and trust of the public. I suspect he was using Airwave which isn't a mobile phone, he is also right in terms of the risk but all of that is by the by. Not sure what call would warrent the use of a phone on a forecourt and the distress it may cause but don't you think it would have been so much better if he explained in general terms why it was necessary to make the phone call, to provide a little education?

Instead of a negative experience and post we may then have got someone posting how he saw a BiB on the phone, but he explained he was doing XYZ which they never realised, who on the forum realised the reason was XYZ and how great it is to see the BiB up close protecting and serving the public.

[R5Gttgaz]

Chrispy Porker said:

Do you know what the mobile call was about?

A fire at a petrol station.

[crmcatee]

bluepolarbear said:

Chrispy Porker said:

Do you know what the mobile call was about?

I suspect he was using Airwave which isn't a mobile phone, he is also right in terms of the risk but all of that is by the by.

But even airwave isn't intrinsically safe. So it's still a big no no.

Edited by crmcatee on Saturday 26th May 07:29

[Chrispy Porker]

bluepolarbear said:

Chrispy Porker said:

Do you know what the mobile call was about?

Not having a go at you CP (honest) but that is always the standard answer to poor police behaviour - basically "you don't know what the guy was doing so you can't comment".

It kind of sums up where everything is going wrong for the BiB in terms of respect and trust of the public. I suspect he was using Airwave which isn't a mobile phone, he is also right in terms of the risk but all of that is by the by. Not sure what call would warrent the use of a phone on a forecourt and the distress it may cause but don't you think it would have been so much better if he explained in general terms why it was necessary to make the phone call, to provide a little education?



Instead of a negative experience and post we may then have got someone posting how he saw a BiB on the phone, but he explained he was doing XYZ which they never realised, who on the forum realised the reason was XYZ and how great it is to see the BiB up close protecting and serving the public.

I only asked!
And yes the standard answer to alleged poor behaviour is to try and find out what actually happened. Is that wrong?
I think you are putting words into my mouth with respect.

[TPS]

Chrispy Porker said:

Do you know what the mobile call was about?

At the end of the day the police should set an example and it is a bit off if they then come over and say to the op do you have a problem.

[Chrispy Porker]

Agreed.
But if someone addressed me with an opening gambit of 'Oi' I think I would have asked him/her if he/she had a problem too.
Mind you makes a change from whistles.

[streaky]

crmcatee said:

bluepolarbear said:

Chrispy Porker said:

Do you know what the mobile call was about?

I suspect he was using Airwave which isn't a mobile phone, he is also right in terms of the risk but all of that is by the by.

But even airware isn't intrinsically safe. So it's still a big no no.

A report to the Energy Institute in March 2003 concluded that there were no confirmed ignition incidents associated with mobile telephones anywhere in the world, and that said 'phone pose a negligible ignition risk - far less than any other ignition risk on a fuel forecourt. And, by-the-by, a study jointly by Boeing and Airbus indicated a negligible risk of a mobile 'phone interferring with an aircraft's flight systems.

The regulations about petrol stations require forecourt staff to not permit the use of mobile telephones on the forecourt. One might expect the BiB to know the law (but there are so many of them, that's a practical impossibility). Nevertheless, given that all fillng stations post notices banning the use of mobile 'phones, it is neither good practice, nor good for public relations to apparently use one (or Airwave).

In similar circumstances, if an officer of the law approached me and enquired whether I had a problem, I would point out that he was causing a problem for the filling station staff - who must not allow the use of a mobile 'phone (etc.).

What the telephone call was about is on no import. As reported the officer was moving around whilst talking on the 'phone. He could have moved off the forecourt, thereby removing the problem for the filling station staff and the need for the OP to point out the problem the officer was causing.

Streaky

[chris_tivver]

streaky said:

crmcatee said:

bluepolarbear said:

Chrispy Porker said:

Do you know what the mobile call was about?

I suspect he was using Airwave which isn't a mobile phone, he is also right in terms of the risk but all of that is by the by.

But even airware isn't intrinsically safe. So it's still a big no no.

A report to the Energy Institute in March 2003 concluded that there were no confirmed ignition incidents associated with mobile telephones anywhere in the world, and that said 'phone pose a negligible ignition risk - far less than any other ignition risk on a fuel forecourt. And, by-the-by, a study jointly by Boeing and Airbus indicated a negligible risk of a mobile 'phone interferring with an aircraft's flight systems.

The regulations about petrol stations require forecourt staff to not permit the use of mobile telephones on the forecourt. One might expect the BiB to know the law (but there are so many of them, that's a practical impossibility). Nevertheless, given that all fillng stations post notices banning the use of mobile 'phones, it is neither good practice, nor good for public relations to apparently use one (or Airwave).

In similar circumstances, if an officer of the law approached me and enquired whether I had a problem, I would point out that he was causing a problem for the filling station staff - who must not allow the use of a mobile 'phone (etc.).

What the telephone call was about is on no import. As reported the officer was moving around whilst talking on the 'phone. He could have moved off the forecourt, thereby removing the problem for the filling station staff and the need for the OP to point out the problem the officer was causing.

Streaky

Completely agree with the rest of your response, but I think research since has cast a little more doubt (though I agree it is unlikely to cause an incident). Note also that mobile phone technology has changed quite a lot since 2003.

[Bing o]

scroat said:

Oi!

Nothing like manners!

[7db]

DucatiGary said:

...as there is supposed to be a risk of explosion using mobile phones near fuel, to which he said "we all know thats nonsense though"...

Apparently you didn't, but there it is.

A chap just did a study of lighted cigarettes on petrol spills. Mostly they go out. I don't think that phone spark risks are that big.

Edited by 7db on Friday 25th May 23:11

[Fat Richie]

streaky said:

One might expect the BiB to know the law (but there are so many of them, that's a practical impossibility). Streaky

Hmm, isn't there an old saying that goes something like: "ignorance of the law is no defence"?

[NCC1701]

I'm quite surprised this happened to DucatiGary, he's always been so pro

Edited by NCC1701 on Saturday 26th May 10:14

[bluepolarbear]

chris_tivver said:

Completely agree with the rest of your response, but I think research since has cast a little more doubt (though I agree it is unlikely to cause an incident). Note also that mobile phone technology has changed quite a lot since 2003.

I'd be interested in pointers to read more. The orginal "ban" all stems from early CB and electronics which caused the pumps to dispense incorrect amounts. There is a theoritical risk from a short on the battery but you would basically have to drop it into the fuel tank. I'm not aware of any confirmed reports of explosions due to mobile phones

[bluepolarbear]

Chrispy Porker said:

I only asked!
And yes the standard answer to alleged poor behaviour is to try and find out what actually happened. Is that wrong?
I think you are putting words into my mouth with respect.

Not my intention at all CP and if I've misread your post then I apologise.

However, the fact does remain (maybe not in this case) that poor behaviour of the bib whether real or perceived by the member of the public is generally treated with a "you don't know what he was doing" response. We see it in cases of speeding, queue jumping, tail-gating, pursuit driving without migiting risk etc We have a CC in another post telling the public "take us on if you think you are hard enough" and wanting to give MOP a "slap".

IMHO there is a culture of arrogance that has set-in in the senior management which is starting to descend over the rank and file as "shadow of the leader" and fuelled but the current climate of "fear" which allows certain individuals to pursue political agendas. Until it is recognised and addressed the Bib / MOP relationship will continue to deteriote.

[streaky]

NCC1701 said:

I'm quite surprised this happened to DucatiGary, he's always been so pro

Being pro BiB does not stop this sort of thing happening. But that it did and elicited the response it did and the posting that ensued, is indicative of the poor view that J Public has of BLiar's police. Many posters on here have had similar experiences and, depending upon the impact at the time, have modified their (our) view of the police. Those with greying hair - like me - grew up with a healthy respect for the police. We held onto that until around 10 to 12 years ago*. Since then there has been a catalogue of reports and personal experience that has greatly eroded our respect. In some cases (posted on this Forum) the erosion has gone so far as to suggest people would not go to the aid of an officer being attacked - Streaky

[alphadog]

bluepolarbear said:

chris_tivver said:

Completely agree with the rest of your response, but I think research since has cast a little more doubt (though I agree it is unlikely to cause an incident). Note also that mobile phone technology has changed quite a lot since 2003.

I'd be interested in pointers to read more. The orginal "ban" all stems from early CB and electronics which caused the pumps to dispense incorrect amounts. There is a theoritical risk from a short on the battery but you would basically have to drop it into the fuel tank. I'm not aware of any confirmed reports of explosions due to mobile phones

Mythbusters busted that mobile phone myth as well - they found that it was more dangerous to fill your car with petrol wearing a shellsuit due to static electricity!

I find the soles on certain shoes seem to generate static which then gets discharged when I get out of the car and touch the bodywork. Little risk when filling up due to driving a diesel, though.

[Flat in Fifth]

In the same corner with Streaky on this.

At best it could have been that PC Duncan Disorderly was dealing with a report which involved someone who may have been on the forecourt and needed to be prevented from leaving same. Seemed to show lack of situational awareness regardless, but then we all have off days, chap who never does anything wrong actually never does anything, full stop.

Re the mobile phone on forecourts thing. Snopes has the low down on this
http://www.snopes.com/autos/hazards/gasvapor.asp

From what I remember from a Mythbusters programme, that haven of iffy and whiffy science **, American Petroleum Institute found that the greatest risk came from USA practice of setting pumps to fill and trip automatically, walking away, getting back in the car, building up static which was not grounded until touching the pump nozzle. Older citizens were less prone, although more likely to wear clothing suitable for static production, because due to advancing years they tended to grab the A-pillar and thus ground themselves on exiting vehicle.

In UK as we do not have the ability to set the pump nozzle to stay on unattended but we have to stand and deliver, as it were, thus I guess this static situation is not a problem.

• * Likewise Brainiac Science Abuse, dodgy science wrapped up as entertainment, though they do pander to the male audience with that nurse in "Things Jon Tickle's body can't do"

Holy Maloley, short almost buttoned nurse uniform, complete with unholstered 42FFs

Why can you never find a picture on google images when you really really want one?

Off to the shower, turns temperature to cold .....



edited to add alphadog beat me to it on the mythbusters comment, spent too long looking at busty nurse photos, now I need stronger specs. ho hum

Edited by Flat in Fifth on Saturday 26th May 08:59

[NCC1701]

streaky said:

NCC1701 said:

I'm quite surprised this happened to DucatiGary, he's always been so pro

Being pro BiB does not stop this sort of thing happening. But that it did and elicited the response it did and the posting that ensued, is indicative of the poor view that J Public has of BLiar's police. Many posters on here have had similar experiences and, depending upon the impact at the time, have modified their (our) view of the police. Those with greying hair - like me - grew up with a healthy respect for the police. We held onto that until around 10 to 12 years ago*. Since then there has been a catalogue of reports and personal experience that has greatly eroded our respect. In some cases (posted on this Forum) the erosion has gone so far as to suggest people would not go to the aid of an officer being attacked - Streaky

Is it indicative of J Pulbic's view or is it possible that if you've had a bad experience you are more likely to mank and moan about it.

The nature of police work means that there will always be people who are disgruntled and ready to see the worst in the BiBs.

I am not interested in defending the BiBs in the O/P, there will always been a few who let the BiBs down but I still believe that they are firmly in the minority.