No, no they don't! That is thug brainless thinking. You don't get to decide what the rules are or when they don't apply. They apply all the time. If you think differently then it's you who are wrong.
Typical bouncer mentality. Aggressive people who like a fight and put them in a suit.
I'm not going blind for the sake of a few rules, are you mad? Im no thug and you don't even know me - have you ever worked in a venue in a major city centre full of gang members??
Typical bouncer mentality. Aggressive people who like a fight and put them in a suit.
And for every aggressive bouncer you'll find some power mad young cop who thinks he's Elliot Ness crossed with Robocop.
That young Jack chap is a classic example, bullied at school and desperately looking to redeem himself in his own mind by becoming a police officer, you could see his trying too hard to impress this partner culminating in stopping those two people for basically bog all apart from talking to each other. If he ends up patrolling on his own, I would seriously fear for his safety, he's liable to get a booting from a couple of chavs.
And for every aggressive bouncer you'll find some power mad young cop who thinks he's Elliot Ness crossed with Robocop.
That young Jack chap is a classic example, bullied at school and desperately looking to redeem himself in his own mind by becoming a police officer, you could see his trying too hard to impress this partner culminating in stopping those two people for basically bog all apart from talking to each other. If he ends up patrolling on his own, I would seriously fear for his safety, he's liable to get a booting from a couple of chavs.
He'd get squared up rapidly by me if I was his crew mate too.
He does seem very immature, and will need to learn quickly if he wants to make it.
When some prick is about to bottle you on the face all the rules go out the wiondow. And cops have batons, cuffs, tasers etc.....bouncers have NOTHING. And for the record I have walked out HUNDREDS of punters, unlike you as you have never done the job have you?
I've been there, and reasonable force in the circumstances allow high degrees of force if necessary.
I've dealt with violent people in many situations, not just clubs.
I've seen good and bad bouncers, and the worst seem to think they can batter who they like if they see a case to intervene. They cant.
I've dealt with skinny, drunk kids who have been badly beaten by bouncers, with no justification, but your posts suggest that is what should happen to the gobby drunks.
You know, I do think we need to cut these rookies some slack. They're a bit green yes but aren't we all when we're new in a role? No one can be prepared for the crap they'll face in Police work but there are many different ways to deal with the public...whats right in one case won't be right in another. They'll learn all this as they progress and reflect on how they've dealt with situations.
I've mentored some awful student nurses over the years who I never expected to cut the mustard....but you know what, they turned into some of the most practical, compassionate and effective Professionals I've ever met. First impressions are not always right.
These rookies may well turn into the Police Officers most of us want to see...pleasant guardians of the peace who are firm and powerful only when they need to be. Those who are unable to do this may well leave the force and return to a job that deals with more pleasant clientele!
I agree with you. Unfortunately on this thread we have someone (who will remain nameless but I think we all probably can work out who) think all police officers should be six foot tall and built like a brick s**t house so they beat the c**p out of anyone. Policing has many aspects and dealing with violent people is a very small part of it.
I too hope that these rookies turn out to be good cops. Its all a learning curve as you say.
And for every aggressive bouncer you'll find some power mad young cop who thinks he's Elliot Ness crossed with Robocop.
That young Jack chap is a classic example, bullied at school and desperately looking to redeem himself in his own mind by becoming a police officer, you could see his trying too hard to impress this partner culminating in stopping those two people for basically bog all apart from talking to each other. If he ends up patrolling on his own, I would seriously fear for his safety, he's liable to get a booting from a couple of chavs.
Oh I agree that there are some power-trip cops here in the UK, but the rules and law apply equally to them as it does anyone else.
The power trip cop or the power trip bouncer who think that the law and rules are theirs to decide are the ones in the wrong. There is no argument to that. (Even if they still seem to think there is - That is what is wrong: People who think that it's them who get to decide what the rules are and when they can be forgotten.)
I've been there, and reasonable force in the circumstances allow high degrees of force if necessary.
I've dealt with violent people in many situations, not just clubs.
I've seen good and bad bouncers, and the worst seem to think they can batter who they like if they see a case to intervene. They cant.
I've dealt with skinny, drunk kids who have been badly beaten by bouncers, with no justification, but your posts suggest that is what should happen to the gobby drunks.
Really? Have you seen what happened right from begginning to end? Do you know what went on inside right to the end when they chucked them out? Why has other countries got height restrictions on coppers/fireman and not the UK? Why should we be any different?
Spot on. It was for the camera's I think plus a bit of adrenaline. The fight was broken up. Everyone was calm. Should have split the pair up and told them to go home.
The assault has to be dealt with somehow though. Arrest isn't always necessary, but if it's believed that the situation will likely flair up again then it becomes reasonable to do so.
Shouldn`t that drivers arrest be quashed due to an incorrect arrest
No because an arrest under Section 4 (Unfit to drive) of the RTA does not require that the driver be breathalysed. The tutor was incorrect in saying that the person needed to be witnessed driving, because the offence is also relevant where somebody is attempting to drive or merely in charge of a motor vehicle. A persons fitness to drive is based not upon their driving ability at the time, but the officers assessment of that persons impairment.
In situations where the suspects impairment isn't obvious then conducting a roadside (preliminary) breath test is always worth doing, but even where they pass the roadside test, they can still be arrested under Section 4.
This is why I wouldn't want to be a police officer: All this social worker crap.
Has a law been broken? No? Well I have better things to do then, good night!
Dealing with offences isn't the main responsibility of the police though, the preservation of life is. Unfortunately what that means is where there is a chance that the police's inaction could have led to a persons harm or death, the police will get the blame, even if that area of responsibility fell to another agency. This is increasingly the case these days when everything is being cut to the bone due to 'austerity', because all it means is that more and more falls to the police, the agency of last resort.
I'm quite staggered by this. How some of this motley crew got in beggars belief. There are 100s of applicants for each vacancy, and this lot get in.
Most of those wouldn't have lasted a couple of weeks at Training School in my day, and then televising some of what they're doing tops the lot. it makes them a laughing stock.
They should be concentrating on learning the job, not trying to be reality tv shows.
I'm glad I've retired.
I'm sure there are many fine recruits across the country, but this lot leave a lot to be desired.
Utter crap. You ever tried to restrain someone high on crack??
I have, and I agree with Deep Purple. Restraining people high on crack is something that we don't actually do that often. Being able to talk to people and de-escalate situations is far more common, far more useful, and far more lawful.
You have totally missed my point and you just don't get it - watch the Cops show again - they are confident yet don't go OTT. They don't let things fester unlike our cops. And guess what? the past 12 months was a RECORD of complaints against UK cops! Explain THAT!!
I agree that US cops often come across a lot more confident. That's because they're given better tools to do their job, and they get far more support from the authorities and from the public.
No because an arrest under Section 4 (Unfit to drive) of the RTA does not require that the driver be breathalysed. The tutor was incorrect in saying that the person needed to be witnessed driving, because the offence is also relevant where somebody is attempting to drive or merely in charge of a motor vehicle. A persons fitness to drive is based not upon their driving ability at the time, but the officers assessment of that persons impairment.
In situations where the suspects impairment isn't obvious then conducting a roadside (preliminary) breath test is always worth doing, but even where they pass the roadside test, they can still be arrested under Section 4.
I was surprised that was allowed in, because the arrest was okay, although I'm not sure the young Officer was fully aware of his powers, because afterwards he was trying to think back to training where he was told you could arrest without a breath test.
It is worrying that the tutor was able to state he was wrong in that way, and it wasn't corrected, because people watching will believe that bit (if they noticed or remember it).
I was surprised that was allowed in, because the arrest was okay, although I'm not sure the young Officer was fully aware of his powers, because afterwards he was trying to think back to training where he was told you could arrest without a breath test.
It is worrying that the tutor was able to state he was wrong in that way, and it wasn't corrected, because people watching will believe that bit (if they noticed or remember it).
I don't think the tutor was saying he was wrong for making an arrest without conducting a breath test, I think he saying that he didn't have enough evidence for a Section 4 arrest, because he hadn't seen enough of the suspects manner of driving. Obviously the tutor was wrong in that respect because you don't necessarily need to have seen the suspects driving at all, let alone his manner of driving. The footage doesn't make it clear though and to a viewer without knowledge of Sections 4 & 5 it would appear that the tutor is referring to a breath test having not been carried out. But that's what you get with edited footage that doesn't tell the whole story.
I don't think the tutor was saying he was wrong for making an arrest without conducting a breath test, I think he saying that he didn't have enough evidence for a Section 4 arrest, because he hadn't seen enough of the suspects manner of driving. Obviously the tutor was wrong in that respect because you don't necessarily need to have seen the suspects driving at all, let alone his manner of driving. The footage doesn't make it clear though and to a viewer without knowledge of Sections 4 & 5 it would appear that the tutor is referring to a breath test having not been carried out. But that's what you get with edited footage that doesn't tell the whole story.
Tutors being wrong happens from time to time.
That happens to all of us, and I doubt most people would even notice to be honest.
The way things are edited does often make these programmes a little cringeworthy at times though, but their priorities are making entertainment, rather than showing things done correctly.
That search of the couple, with no grounds at all, must have been staged, with their agreement.
On the other one (was it Dan?) who was paired up with the ex military one and went to a nightclub and he got separated when apparently he shouldn't. Wouldn't they have gone over that in their training, because somethibg like that; two individuals kicking off a bit of a distance apart, is a very likely scenario on any Friday or Saturday night.
.
what do you expect he can't even write, id be surprised if he can read either...
That happens to all of us, and I doubt most people would even notice to be honest.
The way things are edited does often make these programmes a little cringeworthy at times though, but their priorities are making entertainment, rather than showing things done correctly.
Indeed, the trouble is when people take it as gospel and think that is how the job is done!
That search of the couple, with no grounds at all, must have been staged, with their agreement.
To be fair there could have been other grounds which were not adequately conveyed... That particular spot could have been a known deal spot..
Glad to see they all came right in the end especially Jack.
He jumped in with that arrest way too quick hence it going wrong.. What I find odd is that no back up arrived, I understand that his transmission didn't go through, but a job like that should have more than one patrol attending anyway..
He jumped in with that arrest way too quick hence it going wrong.. What I find odd is that no back up arrived, I understand that his transmission didn't go through, but a job like that should have more than one patrol attending anyway..
He was arresting him for criminal damage which he had obviously done as his mother wasn't protesting. He probably didn't expect him to kick off like that and, as you say, he first transmission didn't go through. Im not sure that they do automatically send another car.
I think, however, that he had come on in leaps and bounds from what he was like at the beginning.
He was arresting him for criminal damage which he had obviously done as his mother wasn't protesting. He probably didn't expect him to kick off like that and, as you say, he first transmission didn't go through. Im not sure that they do automatically send another car.
I think, however, that he had come on in leaps and bounds from what he was like at the beginning.
Yep but there didn't appear to be any pressing need to arrest at that point particularly as his identity was known. Any domestic in progress will always be resourced with at the very least a double crew, and a mention of a knife would always resort in more than one double crew as well as taser or firearms support. Something very odd about one officer being sent to that without any assistance also on its way.
Yep but there didn't appear to be any pressing need to arrest at that point particularly as his identity was known. Any domestic in progress will always be resourced with at the very least a double crew, and a mention of a knife would always resort in more than one double crew as well as taser or firearms support. Something very odd about one officer being sent to that without any assistance also on its way.
There was a serious lack of experience shown there, and he should never have gone alone, I agree.
Having got there on his own, he should have spent time talking the lad round, and keeping things calm, rather than diving in like he did. A domestic is the last place you want to be doing that, because other family members can suddenly change tune, and join in against you. I suppose the camera crew affected this, which is why I find it very wrong to be filming new recruits in this way.
Yep but there didn't appear to be any pressing need to arrest at that point particularly as his identity was known. Any domestic in progress will always be resourced with at the very least a double crew, and a mention of a knife would always resort in more than one double crew as well as taser or firearms support. Something very odd about one officer being sent to that without any assistance also on its way.
And presumably if the lad trashing his mother's front room did have a knife, the camera person could either have had career-defining footage of the murder of a police officer or been at serious risk him/herself. I wondered if they knew the accused had a reputation for turning over furniture but never goes armed.
There was a serious lack of experience shown there, and he should never have gone alone, I agree.
Having got there on his own, he should have spent time talking the lad round, and keeping things calm, rather than diving in like he did. A domestic is the last place you want to be doing that, because other family members can suddenly change tune, and join in against you. I suppose the camera crew affected this, which is why I find it very wrong to be filming new recruits in this way.
Hopefully he will settle down with experience.
Hopefully. He just seems a little too keen to look as if he's capable, but an on going domestic involving a knife just isn't the time to show that you can do things on your own.
Hopefully. He just seems a little too keen to look as if he's capable, but an on going domestic involving a knife just isn't the time to show that you can do things on your own.
I suppose one good thing about this is that it shows the type of people are wide ranging, just like society, and are not a bunch of neo Nazi thugs, as some people always seem to think is the case.
Comments
I'm not going blind for the sake of a few rules, are you mad? Im no thug and you don't even know me - have you ever worked in a venue in a major city centre full of gang members??
And for every aggressive bouncer you'll find some power mad young cop who thinks he's Elliot Ness crossed with Robocop.
That young Jack chap is a classic example, bullied at school and desperately looking to redeem himself in his own mind by becoming a police officer, you could see his trying too hard to impress this partner culminating in stopping those two people for basically bog all apart from talking to each other. If he ends up patrolling on his own, I would seriously fear for his safety, he's liable to get a booting from a couple of chavs.
He'd get squared up rapidly by me if I was his crew mate too.
He does seem very immature, and will need to learn quickly if he wants to make it.
I've been there, and reasonable force in the circumstances allow high degrees of force if necessary.
I've dealt with violent people in many situations, not just clubs.
I've seen good and bad bouncers, and the worst seem to think they can batter who they like if they see a case to intervene. They cant.
I've dealt with skinny, drunk kids who have been badly beaten by bouncers, with no justification, but your posts suggest that is what should happen to the gobby drunks.
I agree with you. Unfortunately on this thread we have someone (who will remain nameless but I think we all probably can work out who) think all police officers should be six foot tall and built like a brick s**t house so they beat the c**p out of anyone. Policing has many aspects and dealing with violent people is a very small part of it.
I too hope that these rookies turn out to be good cops. Its all a learning curve as you say.
Oh I agree that there are some power-trip cops here in the UK, but the rules and law apply equally to them as it does anyone else.
The power trip cop or the power trip bouncer who think that the law and rules are theirs to decide are the ones in the wrong. There is no argument to that. (Even if they still seem to think there is - That is what is wrong: People who think that it's them who get to decide what the rules are and when they can be forgotten.)
Really? Have you seen what happened right from begginning to end? Do you know what went on inside right to the end when they chucked them out? Why has other countries got height restrictions on coppers/fireman and not the UK? Why should we be any different?
The assault has to be dealt with somehow though. Arrest isn't always necessary, but if it's believed that the situation will likely flair up again then it becomes reasonable to do so.
Possibly due to the editing, but if it's not reasonably practicable to do so immediately, then the caution doesn't have to be said immediately.
No because an arrest under Section 4 (Unfit to drive) of the RTA does not require that the driver be breathalysed. The tutor was incorrect in saying that the person needed to be witnessed driving, because the offence is also relevant where somebody is attempting to drive or merely in charge of a motor vehicle. A persons fitness to drive is based not upon their driving ability at the time, but the officers assessment of that persons impairment.
In situations where the suspects impairment isn't obvious then conducting a roadside (preliminary) breath test is always worth doing, but even where they pass the roadside test, they can still be arrested under Section 4.
Dealing with offences isn't the main responsibility of the police though, the preservation of life is. Unfortunately what that means is where there is a chance that the police's inaction could have led to a persons harm or death, the police will get the blame, even if that area of responsibility fell to another agency. This is increasingly the case these days when everything is being cut to the bone due to 'austerity', because all it means is that more and more falls to the police, the agency of last resort.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2015/jul/24/the-police-like-vicars-are-now-the-social-service-of-last-resort
I have, and I agree with Deep Purple. Restraining people high on crack is something that we don't actually do that often. Being able to talk to people and de-escalate situations is far more common, far more useful, and far more lawful.
I agree that US cops often come across a lot more confident. That's because they're given better tools to do their job, and they get far more support from the authorities and from the public.
I was surprised that was allowed in, because the arrest was okay, although I'm not sure the young Officer was fully aware of his powers, because afterwards he was trying to think back to training where he was told you could arrest without a breath test.
It is worrying that the tutor was able to state he was wrong in that way, and it wasn't corrected, because people watching will believe that bit (if they noticed or remember it).
I don't think the tutor was saying he was wrong for making an arrest without conducting a breath test, I think he saying that he didn't have enough evidence for a Section 4 arrest, because he hadn't seen enough of the suspects manner of driving. Obviously the tutor was wrong in that respect because you don't necessarily need to have seen the suspects driving at all, let alone his manner of driving. The footage doesn't make it clear though and to a viewer without knowledge of Sections 4 & 5 it would appear that the tutor is referring to a breath test having not been carried out. But that's what you get with edited footage that doesn't tell the whole story.
Tutors being wrong happens from time to time.
That happens to all of us, and I doubt most people would even notice to be honest.
The way things are edited does often make these programmes a little cringeworthy at times though, but their priorities are making entertainment, rather than showing things done correctly.
That search of the couple, with no grounds at all, must have been staged, with their agreement.
what do you expect he can't even write, id be surprised if he can read either...
Indeed, the trouble is when people take it as gospel and think that is how the job is done!
To be fair there could have been other grounds which were not adequately conveyed... That particular spot could have been a known deal spot..
And we never did find out what happened to the bloke in the smashed car.
He jumped in with that arrest way too quick hence it going wrong.. What I find odd is that no back up arrived, I understand that his transmission didn't go through, but a job like that should have more than one patrol attending anyway..
He was arresting him for criminal damage which he had obviously done as his mother wasn't protesting. He probably didn't expect him to kick off like that and, as you say, he first transmission didn't go through. Im not sure that they do automatically send another car.
I think, however, that he had come on in leaps and bounds from what he was like at the beginning.
Yep but there didn't appear to be any pressing need to arrest at that point particularly as his identity was known. Any domestic in progress will always be resourced with at the very least a double crew, and a mention of a knife would always resort in more than one double crew as well as taser or firearms support. Something very odd about one officer being sent to that without any assistance also on its way.
There was a serious lack of experience shown there, and he should never have gone alone, I agree.
Having got there on his own, he should have spent time talking the lad round, and keeping things calm, rather than diving in like he did. A domestic is the last place you want to be doing that, because other family members can suddenly change tune, and join in against you. I suppose the camera crew affected this, which is why I find it very wrong to be filming new recruits in this way.
Hopefully he will settle down with experience.
And presumably if the lad trashing his mother's front room did have a knife, the camera person could either have had career-defining footage of the murder of a police officer or been at serious risk him/herself. I wondered if they knew the accused had a reputation for turning over furniture but never goes armed.
Fair play, Jack does seem to be shaping up.
Hopefully. He just seems a little too keen to look as if he's capable, but an on going domestic involving a knife just isn't the time to show that you can do things on your own.
I suppose one good thing about this is that it shows the type of people are wide ranging, just like society, and are not a bunch of neo Nazi thugs, as some people always seem to think is the case.