Safe Speed Forums

Mike,

This may settle it.

Bernard Hogan-Howe
06-11-2006, 07:54 PM
Iac, We currently employ 191 PCSOs. By April 2007 we'll be recruiting a further 275. We have a government offer to fund a further 276 between 2007 and 2008 but we've not yet had that money guaranteed. They currently have four powers - confiscating alcohol and tobacco, requiring name and address, and the power to detain for 30 minutes in certain circumstances. We'll continue to develop their role consistent with the public understanding their new powers but are determined to ensure they spend most of their time walking the streets, meeting people and providing reassurance.

From the horses mouth, this is the Chief Constable of Merseyside Police, no mention of speed enforcement.

http://www.merseyside.police.uk/forum/a ... /t-32.html

or have H'andy, Mrs Miggins, myself and the CCMP got it wrong.

fatboytim

ps Mike I think HA may be a psyciatric nurse in a secure unit (scary job but I glad someone does it), fits his training better than securicor.

Settle what? For all forces?

I’ve been away for a while.

Regarding the PCSOs, big and significant changes, the four powers posted in your quote will change within the next month or so as Standard Powers for PCSO’s gained Royal Ascent on the 9th of November, full story - http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/about-us/news/crime-bills

So ALL PCSOs will have a basic standard set of powers, gone of the days PCSOs had “4” powers now it will be more like 30 powers as a standard, before the Chief can designate more (BTW the Chief Constable can NOT decide if they get the standard powers, or less, they are mandatory)
They can be found here - http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/news-an ... iew=Binary

Interesting Traffic Powers…..

Regardless Tim, what was the point you were trying to make, that PCSOs have no powers? Or the funding isn’t guaranteed? Even though the pledge for 24,000 of them and most for the funding is in place??

I may have missed something.
Is it still about civilians using roadside Lasers?
I thought someone posted some case law to suggest it had been tried and failed.

Oww and H/A, A Psychiatric Nurse? Get off!

Mike,



Bernard Hogan-Howe
06-11-2006, 07:54 PM

WTF this the Chief Constable of HA's case.
Has the CC forgot he gave out these powers 2 months prior,
OR
as I said above is he wrong too .

Changing the subject to the powers they are to receive, in the future is not relevant to the issue in this thread, please start another to discuss this, hijacking is naughty and you tried it earlier with the cameras and statistics diversion.
All your arguments are turning into "Yeah but No but Yeah but..." ((C) Walliams and Lucas)

fatboytim

Let me know if you'd like this one splitting off too at some stage. Happy to do so...

Mike wrote

I read the title of the thread, and applied it to HAs' case in particular, I have kept my posts fairly close to the topic.
The point is, It has been asserted throughout this topic, that the CC can delegate these powers, BUT,he does not say he has or, he can, unless he's deceiving the public, HAs' argument seems to hold as it's been backed up by the relevant CC.


Probably

Yes

A Magistrates decision does not make case law, and the case is being appealed.

fatboytim

"Yeah but No but Yeah but..."

Ok, lets start again.

I wasn’t trying to change the subject; I just couldn’t see what your link was stating.
Did it say that Civilians could not assist with road side lasers??
If it did I clearly missed that section.

I assumed it was another dig at PCSOs as there was a section that discusses PCSOs having just 3/4 powers…hence me stating this will change (so…relevant then)

The only case mentioned (albeit heard in front of a Magistrates) had no problem with civilians using the equipment, they did not see in favour of the defendant, it isn’t relevant that he appealed as there is yet to be a result.

Sooooooo as it stands, the only case before any court saw in favour of the civilians, they stated they could not find anything in law that said they couldn’t use the equipment.
Unless anyone can find another case that saw in the favour of the speeding motorist…..opps sorry, alleged speeding motorist.

All your link shows is that the CC was stating the core functions of the PCSOs, he didn’t mention anything to do with random things they may assist with from time to time.

In what sense is it not revelant exactly?

It’s not relevant because it hasn’t been heard yet.

The only case anyone has talked about or indeed posted a link to, was in favour of the civilians.

Mike you are the poster most guilty of introducing diversions off topic and now YOU talk about relevence

What was the relevence of the future powers PSCO's may be given.

As the word of the local Chief Constable that "they currently have four powers" (alcohol, tobacco, name & address, wait for 30 mins) is not good enough for you, what do we need to do.

There is also a difference between HA's case and the Devizes case, in that the Devizes case was recorded, and Andy's was not.
The problem is that by statute and case law with a non recorded (photo or video) offence, a Constable has the advantage that his evidence a speedometer gave a reading in excess of a limit is acceptable evidence, whereas, the evidence of the driver that his speedometer showed below the limit is not, most of these cases specifically mention Constable.
(equality of arms )

So in Court the word of the PCSO is only as strong as the word of the driver, there will be no evidence of the speed or the 'offence" other than the PCSO saying the device read a speed, he cannot show that speed to the court, whereas, the driver could have his speedo calibrated and present this as evidence the speed he read at the time was correct.

Without that power a Constable has in court, it becomes a fair fight, ones word against the other.

fatboytim

First off, I stated that it was unclear by your link and quote as to what you were trying to say.

That’s why I explained the powers of PCSOs HAS (not may as you suggested) changed on the 9/11/06 so thoughs forces that designate just 4 powers, will now change to a minimum of 30’ish.
I could see no reference to speed cameras, so assumed you were talking about PCSO powers (which was all that was discussed) so no diversion tactic then.

HOWEVER a PCSO has no power to do door to door enquiries or Scene Guard a crime scene, however it is one of their main functions.

My point here is that no “power” is required to use a roadside laser (just some training) so posting the 4 powers that particular force has is irrelevant

It’s not a diversion tactic, but a valid point.

Can you show me where in Law it says you need to have a “Power” to operate such equipment?

I shall save you google’ing that one, there is no such requirement.

The only valid argument anyone has come up with is the formal opinion, having to be from a constable (who is to say the constable was not with them to form it)

As Andy had stated, “the bluecaps and the police woman were all together and jumped in to the street to stop my poor wife’s car”

Just to comment on your point about their word against the PCSO’s, can it just be born in mind that a PCSO is considered a “Professional Witness” when attending court, just adds a bit of clout when its “one on one” so to speak.

A couple of links –

http://www.buckscc.gov.uk/community_saf ... ce_cso.htm


http://www.northants.police.uk/default. ... e&ID=10654

Mike,
Yeah but No but Yeah...here we go again,
door to door, gaurding crime scenes,
These are duties anyone can carry out they are not powers they are duties of the job, they have F*ck all to do with direct testimony to be presented in court. They had 4 powers prescribed by law no more.
PSCO's may also clean the Station Toilets, but that doesn't need an Act of Parliament, alchohol and tobacco, name address and 30min wait do.

A relative of mine is a 'professional witness' he's a DSS fraud officer, and he can interview under caution, but he doesn't want a stab vest and a blue light for his car.
All it means is you are giving evidence with regard to your job, it does not mean in any legal way that your testimony has any more strength.

The problem is with 'opinion' AIUI only 'Expert witnesses' and Constables can give opinion in evidence, tricky one eh!

fatboytim

Oooo dear!

Language matey, lets remain civil hay, tong and cheek’s fine but aggressive words are not necessary.

You are making my point for me…..I asked what was the point of posting the four powers that force had designated to it’s PCSOs……………..and I’m going to bold the next bit, It doesn’t matter what powers you have (so posting them was pointless) you do not need a “Police Power” to operate the camera.
As you do not need a power to do many of the tasks PCSOs carry out.

There is no requirement in Law for you to have any power whatsoever, to operate the laser (just force policy around the training in the usage, correct reading etc)

AGAIN please post a relevant link to the legislation, where it states you need a certain power (or power of a Constable) to operate (not form the opinion) but operate the equipment- then I will happily accept that.

I agreed with you on the Prior Opinion, do you not read my post?
I agree with you!, relax fella!

Andy had said that the Policewoman and the two pesky scumbag Bluecaps were all together, so the Constable could well have formed that opinion.

Or are we going to go round and round again?

one last thing...

I hope your not confusing “Expert Witness” with “Professional Witness”.
PCSOs are Professional witnesses - not just for the Powers they have, but for anything they witness, their evidence is the same as a designated person or an accredited person.

Granted it’s off topic, but are you telling me the evidence from a Police Professional Witness doesn’t hold more weight than Joe Public?

Regardless of what the PCSO is giving evidence about, they are not an Expert Witness but they are always a Professional Witness.

Andy had said that the Policewoman and the two pesky scumbag Bluecaps were all together, so the Constable could well have formed that opinion.



Mike..just cos I am not here ...at the moment..doesnt mean I am not watching

PLEASE DO NOT MISQUOTE ME.. they are not words I have ever used !!!

You will argue with anyone ....

Tim,

I warned you about em.. always right never wrong .. met plenty of people just like em... I will report the findings of police in relation to the matter of concern...when they can bother to reply !!!

Dont waste you time on him... PCSO, Special Constable, Dyslexic 14 year old ! .... God help us

Mike,
Perhaps, when you have to pay the taxes, that pay PCSO's wages you may think differently about the value for money issue, 2/3rds the cost for minimal powers.
The real coppers are stuck in the station writting statements, while PCSO's are on patrol, if there is a real problem they still have to get real coppers to attend.
PCSO's are an expensive quick fix, to put uniforms on the streets, purely for public reassurance.
The police need more civilian administration, too many coppers are pen pushing desk jockeys. 'civilian staff' should do the admin and man the stations day to day functions, putting coppers who can intervene prior or during an offence back on the streets, not PCSO's to be witnesses for prosecution after the fact. If I am being attacked a Constable MUST intervene, not stand back and call for back up from the real police, anyone with a mobile phone could do that. I'd rather die with a copper fighting next to/for me, than die with a couple of PSCO's witnessing from a 'safe distance' . The only upside is if I won, they could be witnesses to my self defence
I am happy let coppers work 25yrs and get a good pension (and I've had some very disturbing interactions with them), because they are there to catch the bullets aimed at us the public.
PCSO's will not physically protect me or mine, they may help in prosecuting afterwards, but afterwards is too late.
Well, It would appear someone in the Prescot/St Helens Division (I'm not familiar with the exact location of HA's incident) has been acting ultra vires, as the CC doesn't mention bestowing these powers on his PSCO's. HA must ask for the CCs authority for those PCSO's who nicked his wife, if they didn't have it, someones got some explaining to do.
I doubt I'll be posting any further on this thread, as if you refuse to accept a CCs answer at face value, further discussion is pointless.
The references are all in Wilkinsons, go to the reference library and check it out, a great read, close to it you should find the Blackstones police manuals series, which I think you will love.

Mike don't forget,
Don't smoke
Don't drink,
Dont ride your bike on the pavement (or without lights)
Don't let your dog 'Foul ' in the park
Don't wear your hoodie up (or baseball cap) as the cctv can't see your face.
Don't play with the bad boys,
Work hard at school,
be nice to your mum.
and your first adult passport will be a biometric ID card.
Enjoy your youth.

I'm sure you will want the last word,
be my guest...

fatboytim

And you accuse ME of diversion tactics.

Welcome back Andy – will you give ma a hug?

Tim – I was told off earlier for avoiding the subject, are we going to stay on the subject of PCSOs and roadside lasers, giving that evidence in court?

Tim said –

WHAT POWERS???


Is that because you couldn’t find anything in Law that says civilians are not allowed to use the laser equipment??

You talk about PCSOs as if they are taking over from PCs, that’s why people keep disagreeing with you.
The reality is, they are a totally different resorce (you’re right they are not Police officers, there no replacement)

Would you rather a burglar walking out of your front door and a PCSO standing there and reporting it back to the Police control room, or an empty street for the burglar to walk off in to the sunset, as that’s the reality of them not being there.

Regardless (and you brought this up mate) there are plenty of Police Officers, the paperwork is just too much, that’s where something needs to be done (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/a ... ge_id=1770 this link may explain a few things)

Back to the subject in hand..


round and round and round

Tim, what on earth has the powers they have got to do with the duties they will carry out, again, I will bold this, just for you.

You do not need a police Power to carry out this task.
Your link said nothing about roadside lasers.

Please post the relevant link to the legislation/Law that states a civilian cannot use the laser equipment.

And thanks for the advice about my youth, I will look forward to my first beer and passport…

Mike you will be aware that in order for a speeding conviction there must be two independant means of establishing vehicle speed.

In the case of the 'laser gun' this is the gun's readout which confirms the officer's prior opinion.

You or I may be able to form a prior opinion but unfortunately no matter how well trained we are we are not policemen and therefore our prior opinion is not admissible.

The question is whether or not a PCSO is a constable and consequently whether or not their prior opinion is admissible as evidence. The case currently under appeal will determine the law in relation to civillian operators but then the question will remain as to wether PCSO's are civillian or not.

Given what I have read and seen I would submit that if the case finds that civillians cannot form a prior opinion of a vehicle's speed that is admissible as evidence then the same would be true for PCSO's.

Of course in HA's case this would be irrelevent beacuse the WPC was present and would simply claim that she had formed the opinion.