Monthly Archives: October 2010

The questionnaire is only three pages long yet nothing illustrates more effectively how health and safety regulations have blighted the emergency services.

Last week, former Scotland Yard deputy assistant commissioner David Gilbertson wrote about the corrosive effect of the ‘risk avoidance’ culture that now takes precedence over public duty.

As Mr Gilbertson explained, the problem lies with the RA1, the emergency services’ risk-assessment form which is used to identify potential dangers of any operation.  (see blog - http://blog.old-and-bold.info/?p=1301)

And two episodes this week illustrate his point.

At the inquest into the 7/7 London bombings, in which 52 people died, firefighters were forced to defend their decision not to enter a Tube tunnel until ‘protocols’ had been observed.

And at another inquest in Kettering, Northants, last Thursday, it was revealed that two men drowned in an icy lake as firefighters stood by, unable to help because they had only ‘basic water awareness training’. The fire services have a version of the RA1 form, as do each of the different police forces.

The Metropolitan Police’s RA1 requires officers to assess a checklist of 238 possible hazards before conducting any sort of planned operational activity, such as security at a football match, or any operation that is spontaneous but requires the intervention of a senior officer, such as a bombing or a riot.

The Mail on Sunday has obtained one of these forms, which is not made available under the Metropolitan Police Freedom of Information Publication Scheme. It is an astonishing document which covers every conceivable eventuality – and more.

The potential hazards are divided into 13 categories including the place in which the operation will take place (Access and Place of Work), the means by which officers will travel to their operation (Transport) and even the threat posed by the required uniforms (Work Equipment).The senior officer must tick the relevant boxes, fill out an inventory of ‘risk activities’ (RA2), calculate levels of risk (RA3) and submit their recommendation (RA4) for the assessment to be confirmed and signed.

According to the RA1 form, potential dangers of ‘uncomfortable seating’, ‘slippery surfaces’, ‘sunburn’ and ‘passive smoking’ must all be considered. One senior police officer, who asked not to be named, said: ‘The thing is they have thought of every possible danger you could ever imagine.

‘With uncomfortable seating, for instance, it might be that an officer is on an operation which will require hours of watching and staying in the same place. With sunburn, if you are policing something like the Notting Hill Carnival for 12 hours it could potentially be a problem.

‘There’s nothing they haven’t thought of so the risk of “fluid injection” or “HIV” – which is very real if you are raiding a drug den – is on the same form as “traffic equipment/cones etc”. It’s the same with equipment, if you haven’t got access to the right transport, officers might have to take their riot gear on the bus with them, which is very heavy and could potentially hurt their back.’

Every department in the police force now has a risk assessment advisor. Every operation has a file opened, every file should have an RA1, two, three and four. The forms must be kept for ten years in case of any legal action.

The unnamed officer added: ‘There is an entire department processing the RA1s. Every one has to be signed off by a commander or chief constable. Technically, if you have got bombs going off you should complete these forms before sending your officers in. However, it’s a grey area. The line would be that you must complete one “wherever practicable”.

‘The difficulty is that it’s a question of judgment. Are you likely to save lives without one of the forms being completed? In a situation like that, you would probably not fill in the form and account for your actions in your subsequent report.

‘For instance, if a bomb goes off in the Tube, you would send in your officers but fill in the form before sending in forensics. But the thing with these forms is that it places the onus on the senior officer to fill it out. And if you don’t, you will have to explain why you haven’t.’

If it is deemed that a senior officer has not done enough to identify potential risks they face legal action. In 2003, then Scotland Yard Commissioner Sir John (now Lord) Stevens and his predecessor Lord Condon faced prosecution for alleged breaches of health and safety rules after two incidents in which officers fell through roofs while pursuing suspected burglars. Both were acquitted.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1325280/The-3-page-health-safety-form-paralysing-police.html#ixzz13xVomxdY

Detectives will be trained to use Facebook and Twitter to track down killers and other criminals.

Sweeping changes are aimed at making police better at using the internet to dig up evidence on suspects. 

Student investigators will be shown how they could trace wanted people on social networking sites, where they might leave posts revealing valuable clues.

Senior officers are under increasing pressure to keep pace with online technology to help gather intelligence on gangs, fraudsters and other criminals.

Earlier this year, escaped prisoner Craig Lynch mocked police with clues about his whereabouts on Facebook while he was on the run for four months.

And detectives in London are looking for clues on Facebook and Twitter that could shed light on the murder of 17-year-old Marvin Henry during a suspected fight between rival gangs.

Updated training rules will advise how to examine computers, mobile phones and other electronic devices for clues.

Around 3,500 student detectives take the initial crime investigator’s development programme each year.

These improvements are exactly what detectives need to tackle the challenges and complexities of modern policing effectively.

“These improvements are exactly what detectives need to tackle the challenges and complexities of modern policing effectively.”

It will not be the first time police have been encouraged to use social networking websites in the line of duty.

Earlier this month, police in Greater Manchester spent a day using Twitter to report more than 3,000 incidents reported to the force.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Technology/Facebook-and-Twitter-Lessons-Ahead-So-Detectives-Can-Find-More-Clues-Online/Article/201010415782284?lpos=Technology_Third_UK_News_Article_Teaser_Region__6&lid=ARTICLE_15782284_Facebook_and_Twitter_Lessons_Ahead_So_Detectives_Can_Find_More_Clues_Online

Three police officers check how far along the road the Range Rover is parked after a former Lancashire Constabulary chief complained he could not access his driveway without hitting the kerb

It was not, it has to be said, one of the police’s finest hours.

A traffic officer ended up arrested outside his own home by a squad of three of his colleagues… who had swooped on the address after a neighbour complained about nothing more than the way his car was parked.

Unfortunately for traffic cop Roderick Lund his neighbour happened to be one of the constabulary’s retired superintendents, Anthony Green.

The three-man parking squad began using tape measures and chalk to ascertain exactly where PC Lund’s Range Rover was, relative to the entrance to Mr Green’s driveway.  

When PC Lund refused to move his 4×4 with its personalised number plate, he was arrested for obstructing the police.

The farcical episode only ended yesterday when it emerged that PC Lund, 40, has won £5,000 in damages from his own force. The climbdown came after video footage showed that his Range Rover – parked in the road in front of his house – wasn’t overlapping his neighbour’s drive.

The police descended on the road in the village of Catterall in Lancashire last October when Mr Green complained he couldn’t get on his driveway.

He said the narrow road meant it was impossible to drive his outsized American-built Dodge Nitro truck on to his property without mounting the kerb.

Three officers arrived led by Inspector Dave Vickers, and – prudently, as it turned out – PC Lund began filming what unfolded with his video camera.

PC Lund – who is married with three step-children – is recorded complaining he’d be breaking the law if he moved the vehicle, saying: ‘I can’t move it, I had a drink last night.’ With the camera continuing to point at his senior colleague, Inspector Vickers tells him: ‘I’m warning you now, you will be arrested for police obstruction if you continue to do that.’

The constable then retorts ‘Go for it then’ at which the inspector begins reading him his rights as he pleads: ‘I’m not being aggressive – how is this aggressive?’ After being led away in handcuffs, PC Lund was taken to a police station in Morecambe, put in a cell and detained for ten hours before being released on bail.

The other police officers all knew he was a member of the Lancashire Constabulary’s traffic division. Mr Lund feared that the incident could lead to charges, so he began legal action against Lancashire Constabulary for unlawful arrest, false imprisonment and using unreasonable force. In an out-of-court settlement he was awarded £5,000.

His solicitor Rex Makin said his client had been humiliated by the officers who visited his home and suffered severe anxiety following his arrest.

He added: ‘It’s a real shocker of a case that demonstrates precisely how police should not conduct themselves.’

Neither PC Lund nor Mr Green was available for comment last night, but a neighbour said: ‘They’ve been arguing over parking for ages, it’s been the talk of the street.

‘As a retired superintendent it seems Anthony tried to pull rank on him, but it turned out to be rather an expensive mistake.’

Lancashire police refused to comment.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1324211/3-traffic-officers-called-parking-dispute-police-superintendent-neighbour.html#ixzz13rkXFWtx

Police trucks marked like patrol cars

They have long been the bane of drivers on the motorway.   

But now dodgy lorry drivers are to be targeted with police’s latest weapon – a truck decorated like a panda car.

The HGV cabin comes complete with blue-flashing lights and the blue and yellow liveried pattern that is used on regular patrol cars.

In the past it has been hard for officers to catch truckers breaking the law because the cabs are too high to see inside from their patrol cars.

Reckless drivers who have used phones or even watched DVDs while they have been driving have all escaped the law.

But by using an unmarked truck themselves, police are at the same height and are able to film drivers which is then used as evidence.

The uniformed officer in the police wagon follows the drivers before pulling them over on the shoulder.  

The Metropolitan Police’s new HGV will be unveiled at Earl’s Court from next Thursday until Sunday as part of the Top Gear Live show.

The HGV will also be used to educate lorry drivers and cyclists of the dangers of blind spots, especially a cab’s left-hand turn blind spot, a major cause of cyclist fatalities. 

Cyclists are also being invited into the cab to see how a driver’s vision can be restricted.

The height is also useful for checking on drivers of vehicles such as horse boxes.

Last month, model Katie Price was fined £1,000 by Mid Sussex magistrates and given three penalty points for sending a text message while driving her pink horsebox.

Forces in the West Midlands first used the idea earlier this year in a crackdown on lorry drivers.

Department of Transport figures show that although goods vehicles account for only 10 per cent of all motorway traffic they are involved in nearly a third of all collisions.

Former trucker Gus Nairn, of Central Motorway Police Group, said being at the same height as other lorries is a real advantage.

He said the truck gives an ‘elevated position where you can see in the cab which is something you don’t normally have the benefit of in a patrol car’.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1325092/Latest-fight-dodgy-lorry-drivers-Police-trucks-marked-like-patrol-cars.html

I reproduce below an article we read in Daily Telegraph dated 21st October 2010 -

Police have been barred from listening to music in their cars and offices to save a force £23,000 a year in royalties.

The ban will mean that they avoid paying almost £2,000 a month, enough to keep one of 1,000 posts which are under threat.  Under licensing rules, officers can play music while they work, as long as they are on their own. 

If another officer or member of the public can listen in, it counts as public performance and a licence from the Performing Right Society (PRS) is required.

Sussex Police, the force imposing the ban, has to make £52 million cuts over the next four years.  Bob Brown, chairman of Sussex Police Federation, which represents rank and file officers, said some were already planning to pay for music licences out of their own pockets.

The PRS controls copyright for more than 10 million tracks and charges £54.16 for a music licence for an office of fewer than five people, and £60 for a police vehicle.

Police forces spent £800,000 on licences last year.  Nine tenths of the money is passed on to the performers.  Meanwhile, the county’s police authority says it may have to divert £1 million from it’s front line to fund a vote if the Home Secretary, Theresa May, goes ahead with plans to introduce American-style elected police commissioners.

John & Wendy Wright