No police action for collision

Jack_Cork

Mercdriver said:

Jack_Cork said:

I'm not too surprised the police aren't bothered, they are busy moving people on who are sat on park benches and checking old ladies shopping for non-essential items. Well done lads

That reads like police bashing nonsense to me

The Home Secretary has said police checking supermarket trolleys is “not appropriate” after a chief constable threatened to implement the measure to police the coronavirus regulations.

Northamptonshire Police Chief Constable Nick Adderley has since backtracked on his comments, describing his language as “clumsy”.

Mr Adderley had said his force would consider roadblocks, marshalling supermarkets, and searching through shopping baskets and trolleys if people continued to flout the rules, saying their “three-week grace period” of educating and informing people had now ended.

452

Jack_Cork said:

Mercdriver said:

Jack_Cork said:

I'm not too surprised the police aren't bothered, they are busy moving people on who are sat on park benches and checking old ladies shopping for non-essential items. Well done lads

That reads like police bashing nonsense to me

The Home Secretary has said police checking supermarket trolleys is “not appropriate” after a chief constable threatened to implement the measure to police the coronavirus regulations.

Northamptonshire Police Chief Constable Nick Adderley has since backtracked on his comments, describing his language as “clumsy”.

Mr Adderley had said his force would consider roadblocks, marshalling supermarkets, and searching through shopping baskets and trolleys if people continued to flout the rules, saying their “three-week grace period” of educating and informing people had now ended.

So let's see the link to police checking old ladies shopping for non essential items.

AdrianC

452 said:

So let's see the link to police checking old ladies shopping for non essential items.

There was a one-off kerfuffle over a tweet sent by Cambs police, nearly a month ago, which was quickly slapped down.

https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/cambridge-police-tweet-nonessential-shopping-18073255

And the official College of Policing/National Police Chief's Council advice (which was released before that incident) explicitly says that people can buy whatever the shop sells, so long as they've gone there with reasonably essential grounds.

https://www.college.police.uk/What-we-do/COVID-19/Documents/What-constitutes-a-reasonable-excuse.pdf

Jack_Cork

So the guidelines were issued before this 'kerfuffle' and the police still got it wrong and needed the government to explain the rules to them? How can that be right? Is it just poor training? The advice seems quite clear to me

452

Jack_Cork said:

So the guidelines were issued before this 'kerfuffle' and the police still got it wrong and needed the government to explain the rules to them? How can that be right? Is it just poor training? The advice seems quite clear to me

Covid legislation rushed through parliament, read this and off you go is the problem. No training as such was given.

What's not so clear is your link to these old ladies being stop searched. 

Jack_Cork

The guidelines are fairly easy to understand for a person of normal intelligence, ah but there could be the issue

452

Jack_Cork said:

The guidelines are fairly easy to understand for a person of normal intelligence, ah but there could be the issue

Glad to see you've read them before the college of policing stepped in , I'm not understanding your link though. 

Have and old ladies been searched?

Jack_Cork

452 said:

Jack_Cork said:

The guidelines are fairly easy to understand for a person of normal intelligence, ah but there could be the issue

Glad to see you've read them before the college of policing stepped in , I'm not understanding your link though. 

Have and old ladies been searched?

My mistake, no old ladies have been searched it was only threatened as in the end Nick Adderley had to do a U turn on the idea. I'm off topic I know, but I dont think the police have dealt with all of this very well and I am not alone in thinking some of the actions have been unwise. To be honest PC McGarry you must be a bit embarrassed at some of the things that have gone on surely? I know I would be

Car_54

Mickey666 said:

In this particular case, someone in a vehicle has caused significant damage and no doubt worry and stress to innocent parties and despite there being a witness and evidence of the miscreant the police seem unwilling to pursue the person responsible.  Meanwhile, someone else in a vehicle has been fined for travelling in excess of the speed limit, even though they have caused no damage and done no harm.  I'm not defending speeding, but these instances would seem to suggest that the police take POTENTIAL road traffic accidents more seriously than ACTUAL accidents.  It seems strange that a driver can collect penalty points for something with no consequences while avoiding penalty points in the case of an actual accident with real consequences.

There is no evidence of the miscreant (and there might never be), only of the vehicle.

The comparison with speeding is not entirely valid. Most speeding offences need no investigation, and indeed may be dealt with from beginning to end with little (or no?) human intervention.

Car_54

Mickey666 said:

Fair point about the miscreat, although the vehicle is clearly a good start to find the driver responsible.   After all, speeding offences rarely identify the driver do they, but that doesn't prevent the police following up the offence.

I don't really care about how difficult it may or may not be to investigate something, I'm more concerned with the outcomes.  Extrapolating your argument would suggest that the police should spend even more time on simple and easy to prosecute cases and not bother with more complex cases.

No, rather I was suggesting that most speeding offences need little or no police time.