RAF POLICE -Waste of time?

[Ramp Monkey]

The other day the vehicle I was travelling in was stopped by the RAF Police for failing to come to a complete halt at a stop sign, despite they’re being no traffic around. The young Cpl was very polite and informed the driver of the offence stating that this time a warning had been issued but next time the offence would be reported to the authorities and civilian court action taken. WHAT!!!!!! since when have been able to prosecute for driving offences carried out on private roads? If any one else has any information please let us all know here at RAF Odiham. At the moment every other day 2-3 RAF Police are out with speed guns etc stopping motorists. If only they would spend their time on trying to find the thieves and real criminals that unfortunately are on our station. They allegedly have no time to patrol off base AMQ! I could think of other things they could with their time. I don't condone speeding or other traffic offences on the station but the question has to be asked, Has someone got their priorities right?

[SH Monkey]

This situation is clearly nonsense, however, they are not private roads. Technically the civvy police could do their own checks on RAF Stns, but they leave the 'self-policing' (excuse the pun) to the RAF/MoD authorities. You can get done for booze driving on Stn! The point here is that it is sad that the RAF plod have nothing more satisfing to do.

------------------
Which bit of dire retention problem are THEY finding hard to understand...

[only1leftmate!]

Could be wrong here, but....


You can't get done for drink driving on an RAF Stn. You can however get done for not obeying Stn Standing Orders that specify DD is not allowed. In the ARmy that means you have to have acces to Stn Standing Orders but in the RAF such an offence is taken to be common knowledge. (presumably because we're more intelligent than Grunt)

What are the consequences of further speeding?

Can RAF plod get your licence? RAF plod are not a constabulary in their own right but personally I wouldn't want to take them on and continue working for HM - it could be awkward.

Solution - get up earlier in the morning you lazy bu**er and stop endangering Lizzies aeroplanes with your hot-rodding. Plod is always right!!!! P.S. I heard you applied the breaks in an offensive manner.

[Snoopy EGUS]

Hi Ramp Monkey,

Unfortunately you can get done on MoD Property.

2 years ago a Navy Chief in Portsmouth Naval Base got done by the Plod after they clocked him with their ray gun doing 5mph over the 20mph limit.

Got a £40 fine and 3 points http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/eek.gif

Snoopy

[Ramp Monkey]

Thanks folks the info guys. Like i said I'm not condoning bad driving or breaking of rules and regulations I just think the threat of Civilian prosecution is not the best way around the problem and possibly not entirely true. I’m seeking legal advise (from the bill ) just out of curiosity and just in case!

[Four 8's]

Gotta agree with you Guys. Don't worry however because according to the Telegraph 85% of RAFP have only got 18 months left in uniform.(Well RAF uniform that is, but I hear that Sainsburys need Security guards)

[supermunk]

Unfortunately the RAFP have got jurisdiction over some roads off camp by arrangement with the local plods. At Leeming they can book you up to the roundabout by the A1 and at Dishforth they are using radar guns on the public road leading up to the gate. Whether or not this has been tested in court I don't know but I'm not going to be a guinea pig. (no pun intended)

PS did you know that if pigs could fly, Scotland Yard would be Londons 4th airport.

[Skycop]

Do what an ex-colleague of mine did when the RAF plods aimed their speed gun at him in NI on the Aldergrove southern peri track.

He sped up, went straight to the guardroom and told them that there was a suspected IRA shoot set up on the airfield because someone had aimed a weapon at him.

The station guard was deployed and all hell broke lose for the next half hour as they tried to round each other up.

Lovely stuff.

[Helmut Visorcover]

I am told from a good source that at Ald there are only two places the RAFP can officially do you with a speed gun (calibration and all that malarkey).
Again, I don't condone speeding and breaking the law but I disagree with anal-retentive rozzers.

I do agree with being stopped for speeding around MQ's but find it pointless and counter productive for being stopped doing 34 mph in a '30 limit' on a clear road up to C site, away from children and small mammals. I have however 'followed' RAFP vehicles through MQ area whilst abiding by 30 mph limit (usually doing -20 mph) only to see said porkmobile disappearing over the horizon clocking far greater than 40 on many occasion. Should I report them to the authorities? Only if I wish to be rectaly examined every time I go to work. Keep up the fight against terrorism, RAFP!

[Blue Stuff]

A mate (JEFTS) was banned from taking his car onto Fenton last year (for the duration of his course, I think), after being caught speeding on-Stn by the cops there.

[SH Monkey]

Ramp,
it is pretty sad that this is how the RAFP entertain themselves. However, if you don't just take it on the chin, it will open a whole can of worms. Whether it comes back to haunt you or other pers on your Stn. The RAFP have got time in abundance to impose nif-naf rules, where as the rest of us have limited time to work round them.

[D-IFF_ident]

I'm no authority but I believe the regulations governing speeding are fairly tight. The radar gun needs to have been calibrated within a short timescale (24hrs?) and there needs to be at least one witness other than the fed pointing the gun. The 'offence' can then be reported to the perp's CO or passed on to the civvy bill; who would most probably tell the Snowdrops that they were too busy chasing criminals to be bothered.

See also:
http://www.residentlawyer.com/motoring/speeding/index.htm
------------------
Chain of command is not a principle of organisation...

[This message has been edited by D-IFF_ident (edited 17 June 2001).]

[FJJP]

The RAFP have no jurisdiction whatsoever off military property. The civilian police have no right to 'grant' them authority over a stretch of public road outside the camp. However, they do have the right to stop you in an MT vehicle on the public road. However, what is the legality of the RAFP to use their blues and twos on the public highway? I think in NI they have to have a civilian policeman travelling with them, who IS in a position of authority to grant them use of the emergency lights/sirens.

So if you get stopped by a plod in your private car on a public road, you can do him in a civil action for false imprisonment.

On base, they have the authority of Station Standing Orders and MAFL to get you - so don't bother to argue. However, what are the regulations for calibrating police car speedometers? I rather suspect you could get away with it given a good lawyer. However, civil action? - I don't think so.

By the way, I have no difficulty in my dealings with our RAFP brethern. It's a sh&&ty job, but someone's got do do it.

Any RAFP chap/chapess care to comment on the above (complete with references to the appropriate documents, of course)?


[This message has been edited by FJJP (edited 17 June 2001).]

[St Johns Wort]

Moving Vehicle Offences.......Luxury!

Percy Pilot RTBs from a 48hr FOB, hands in his gats and heads for the Mess for a heroes well deserved glass of refreshment. However, on going thru the main gate he is stopped by the the RAFP and cautioned, under PACE, for.....wait for it.....not using the Zebra Crossing :rolleyes:

FIAT JUSTITIA RUAT CAELUM

[This message has been edited by St Johns Wort (edited 17 June 2001).]

[L#cky Strike]

Or indeed the wrong half of the gate at 2330 hrs. "It's in the hinterests hof your hown safety, sir!" Aldergrove, March 01.

[Thirteen-Twelve]

I've been caught speeding or just tearing up the tarmac by Military Police, Orderly dog etc on both RAF and Army bases several times in years gone by. Accepting that I had indeed trangressed (usually at night, 60mph+) and humbly said sorry, I found that I got a boll#cking or encouraged to refrain in future.

Perhaps times have changed.

[SH Monkey]

St John's

FIAT JUSTITIA RUAT CAELUM

you must of been a live when that was the language of the day.

http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/jump.gif

[Up Very Gently]

Be fair boys - the feds are only doing their jobs. Aircrew types moan like bloody buggery about every minor obstacle to their particular task, however enjoy spondulicks and luxuries that your average Snowdrop can only dream about. As 12-13 said, treat 'em with respect, and you should be OK. We've all got a job to do - even Nav's. :)

UVG

[Confucius]

No, the job of aircrew is not to make everyone elses life a misery (unless they're Billy-no-mates in a Harrier of course).

If those good for nothing pin-head coppers wanted greater 'rewards' form their job they... altogether now... Should've worked harder at school

In any case, speeding ain't dangerous. Wearing a frickin' hat whilst drivin' is dangerous, but not speeding.

------------------
http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/Gif/SPericani2.gif

[This message has been edited by Confucius (edited 17 June 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Confucius (edited 17 June 2001).]

[St Johns Wort]

SH Monkey

I hate cheeky kids! http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/tongue.gif

[Pub User]

Ramp Monkey

The RAFP do indeed have juristiction over the public road that runs into RAF Odiham from the Alton Rd. This is granted by the local constabulary.

[Al Titude]

As someone so accurately summed up on this subject recently,

Gate goes up, gate goes down...

[Ramp Monkey]

Pub, the question of jurisdiction on the public road to camp is not the point, it’s the private roads on camp I’m more interested in. I believe they have no powers to take civil court criminal proceedings. (Unless covered by a “by-law” ;) ;) It is my belief that they are not. Not withstanding their refusal to police open "off base AMQ", that they have no man power for. Stop messing around with radar guns and start patrolling the AMQ, catch real criminals.

[This message has been edited by Ramp Monkey (edited 19 June 2001).]

[Charlie Luncher]

Whilst carrying out the secret war on a little Italian island. We decided to try out our new toys given us by the spams. Didnt see the feds asleep by the side of the airfield as two t-sparks raced by to the aircraft with no lights on.
Got away with we are calibrating the goggles and a little bit of the crazy brits.
he he.
dont think it would work at the banana factory.
Charlie sends

[Scud-U-Like]

Ramp Monkey

One is tempted to assume from the title and tone of your post that yours is a rather clumsy attempt to stir-up another anti-RAF Police thread. I am glad to see that the majority of respondents have the maturity not to follow your lead.

Speeding and other traffic offences on Churchill Avenue at RAF Odiham have, for many years, been the subject of debate among the personnel serving at that Unit and their families.

Half of the complaints received by the Stn authorities in this matter, relate to dissatisfaction that the RAF Police are not doing enough to prevent speeding on the road. The other half are complaints that the RAF Police carry out too many speed prevention checks on the road. I think it would be fair to say the RAFP have struck the right balance.

The road is a public road and therefore under the control of the local authority and under the jurisdiction of the civil police. However, as Pub User rightly indicates, the RAFP have a long-standing agreement with the local Hampshire Police Sub-Divisional Commander that the RAFP may carry out speed prevention checks on that road.

Most RAF Police flts have an excellent liaison with the local civilian police, which includes formal and informal policing agreements. These include sharing criminal intelligence, conducting joint police patrols and other joint initiatives, all of which are perfectly lawful.


S H Monkey

Technically, the civi police could not 'do their own checks on RAF stns'. Or at least, they could, but they would be unable to report or prosecute under the Road Traffic Acts. Only1leftmate is correct. A road beyond the physical barrier of the main gate, within the bounds of a military unit is not 'a road to which the public have access' under the Road Traffic Acts. Offences under the Road Traffic Acts cannot therefore be committed on such roads.

But before you leap into your motor and tear around the Stn with abandon, please note that large tracts of the Road Traffic Acts are reproduced as station standing orders and are therefore offences for which you may be charged or warned.


Four 8's

Bull*%#t. Don't believe all you read in the papers (not even the big ones).


D-IFF_ident

You are on the right track. The various Home Office approved radar devices vary in the frequency with which they must be calibrated. Most are required to be returned to the manufacturer every few months for a major recalibration. The routine daily calibration check can be carried out by the operator of the device.

The Rules of Evidence require that evidence of speeding must be corroborated. In other words, a person cannot be convicted of speeding on the evidence of a lone eyewitness. However, the corroboration need not come from another person and can be provided by a device, such as a radar gun. A lone policeman using a properly calibrated Home Office approved device can therefore secure a conviction for speeding.


FJJP

The Service Police (including the RAF Police) have jurisdiction over all service personnel, not only anywhere in the UK, but anywhere in the world. (Dust off your MAFL).

The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), many years ago, produced a memorandum permitting the Service Police to use 'blues and twos' on the public highway, where this is necessary in the prevention of crime or in the interests of public safety.


Confucious

At least the quotes of your namesake were all his own material. The 'harder at school' snipe has been used SO many times on this forum, I admire you for having the nerve to use it yet again.

Al Titude

Ditto for the barrier snipe.

Well, Ladies and Gentlemen, I can only apologise for producing such a rambling and banal post. But, ask a silly question........

[Double Hush]

Cor Blimey! Straight from the horses mouth or what? It's so refreshing to read a fully informed reply.

[stablepowerset]

There is a way of getting your own back!!!!

Dont forget the plods are bound by the same rules we all are! so when you see them speeding around the station worth giving the police ops a call and finding out what the emergency is? if there aint one find out who the plod is and have him done for speeding.

Mate of mine did make a call about the plods on his unit flouting the seat belt law!! and this was off station, got told nothing could be done unless he was willing to give his name rank sect etc!! so there is a down side, guess who would have been the subject of point of entry vehicle searches for the next couple of months!!

[Ramp Monkey]

Scud, thanks for the long thought out explanation, however, you have completely missed my point. There are numerous complaints from off base accommodation that the RAF Police do not patrol or carry out security measures. The reply to this problem is a shortage of manpower, a fair excuse. So why waste time with radar guns, threatening civil court action against offenders on base? As you stated the camp roads are not under the control of the RTA. If you read my thread I stated, “ I am not condoning speeding” and I am in no way trying to stir up a Hate RAFP thread.
What concerns me is the safety of my family and those who live around me. The RAFP are underpaid overstretched and undermanned, why cause further pain by setting up speed traps on camp? MQ maybe, at least they would be a safer place!

[Charlie Luncher]

Scud

How come I dont get a mention?
It was funny at the time.
Charlie sends

[Didntdoit]

Scud

Good DEE FENCE!

Not JD R U?

;->



------------------
....wasn't there, you can't prove I did it!

[Four 8's]

Its not actually.

[Otis Spunkmeyer]

Broadsword calling Danny Boy

[snaggletooth]

I got stopped by Plod at the outbound gate of a secret base in Northumberland this morning.

"Keep your speed down in future!" was the advice offered.

"How fast was I going?" I enquired, knowing that the Rozzer was relying on the Mk1 Eyeball.

He got as far as the "but" in,
"I dunno, but...", before I zipped off homeward.

It's only a 125 fer crissakes! Chill Winston!

------------------
Lend me £10, I'll buy you a drink & Mother wake me early in the morning...

[FJJP]

Scud,

No arguement that the RAFP have world-wide jurisdiction over all Service personnel. But I still dispute that they have a right to stop you in your civilian car on a public road.

NB, consider the latest debacle over the 'Human Rights Act' and the removal of the ability to instantly charge an airman.

[Scud-U-Like]

Stablepowerset

You are absolutely right in stating that the RAFP should uphold the highest standards of professional conduct. In my experience, most of them do.

Your 'mate' ought to have the courage of his convictions. If he is not prepared to do this, he should not hide behind the spurious fear of RAFP reprisals.


Ramp Monkey

I am sure the RAFP are heartened by your concern for their welfare.

Actually, I did not miss your point. What I was trying to explain, by citing a real example, is that, in matters of policing (as with so much in life), you cannot please all of the people all of the time. The best the police can do is to strike a compromise between competing demands on their resources.

I am not about to discuss on a public forum matters of counter-terrorism policy with regard to RAF Odiham or any other unit.

The fact that the Road Traffic Acts do not apply to 'on-camp' roads is a loophole in the law, which has, to a great extent, been closed by the road traffic provisions in stn standing orders. I hope you are not suggesting that road traffic within military units should be allowed to go totally unregulated.

Whilst the laws and policies under which the RAFP operate are universal, the deployment and duties of the RAFP on individual stations are, to a great extent, decided by station commanders and their station management boards. In other words, it is your aircrew brethren who dictate the security and policing priorities of the RAFP at your Station. Speed checks are carried out on the airfield at the request of SATCO. Speed checks are carried out on other areas of the Station because your Station Commander and your Sqn boss say so.


Charlie Lurcher

Sorry, but you weren't vindictive enough to qualify for a response.


Didntdoit

No, I am not he. But, nice bloke and I suspect he would say very much the same.


Four 8's

Is too


Otis

Please don't associate me with that rogue Broadsword ;)

FJJP

I do understand your point. You would be correct in saying that the RAF Police have no statutory right to REQUIRE a service person driving a private vehicle on the public highway to stop. However, there is nothing in law to prevent an RAF Police officer from REQUESTING such a driver to stop, using the recognised hand signal. If a service person were to fail to comply with such a request he might be subject to disciplinary action because:

a. if he failed to see the signal, he may be guilty of driving without due care and attention, or

b. if he decided to ignore the signal, he may be guilty of conduct prejudicial to good order and Air Force discipline.

Personally, I think it would just be easier to stop and take the lecture on the chin. The RAF Police tend to let off with a warning far more traffic offenders than do their civilian police counterparts.

[A and C]

The police at heathrow started using a radar gun on the ramp ,i was not involved in eny way with this but i am told that two or three sweeps with a 757 WX radar is enough to send a plod radar gun back to the menders.

[HeliAviator]

The junction in question has a STOP road marking and a GIVEWAY sign (STILL) just prior to the junction clearly wrong! Plod are entitled to caution you for a Moving Traffic Violation on MOD property, outside of these bounds they have NO JURISTICTION. Their case for prosecution based on Radar Gun evidence used on or near a Military airfield would not stand up in court if challenged for the following reasons:

1. Radar Guns work on The K/Ka band, this is in the UHF band of frequencies, of which there is more than sufficient scatter from other transmitters to provide an inaccurate reading.

2. An unscrupulous plod could (civy plod do this occasionally) use the quick draw action which gives a higher reading, or mistakenly (yup) focus on the aircraft behind you!

Also:

3. Radar Guns of the K/Ka variety have to calibrated each time BEFORE use, using a know source, such as a patrol car with a known, in date calibrated speedometer with its scale displaying 1 mph segments. The plod do not have such vehicles. I have seen them using Land Rovers as calibration vehicles!!

4. Radar gun evidence is not admissable if the run is used when, raining, mist, fog, smoke or at night.

5. The Radar gun can not be used through glass due to defraction, inducing signal scatter.

6. The Radar gun can not be used from the comfy confines of a vehicle due to the Farraday Cage Effect.

Personally, I not condone speeding or any other Road Traffic Act violation. However you should be aware that not all plods are full of boundless honesty and integrity.

The Badger

[Gainesy]

HeliAv,
What's wrong with using a Land Rover as a calibration vehicle?
It is apparent to any obsever when the following speeds are reached in mine.

30mph Dogs put heads outside for ear-planing session

40mph Dogs put heads inside to stop ears getting sore from flapping

60mph Dogs don ear-defenders

70mph Pistons, tappets, con-rods & other oily bits depart via bonnet/sump. Dogs brace.

You just have to know what to look for.

Cheers
Gainesy
PS Actually 70 is a target, not a limit

[BEagle]

Gainesy - how on earth did you ever find the patience to coax one of those infernal contraptions up to 70 mph?? Are you sure it wasn't Kph??

I timed the piece of $hit I had last year in the lovely sun-drenched Islas Malvinas on a (rare) calm wind day. An indicated 40 mph came up in about 18 seconds - then I gave up due to concerns about my hearing being up to the next annual fondle-and-grope session from the quack!

[Scud-U-Like]

HeliAviator

Your bold assertion that a 'prosecution based on radar gun evidence used on or near a military airfield would not stand up in court', is classic, half-informed barrack room lawyer stuff.

The Association of Chief Police Officers' Traffic Committee Enforcement Technology National Guidance Manual (pause for breath), covers the subject of radio interference in relation to hand-held radar devices. (Do you imagine they would have overlooked this matter?)

The guidance states that a measuring site in the vicinity of an airport must be treated with extra caution. Checks are available to ensure that radar interference is not present in the area of the measuring site and many Home Office approved devices have an in-built radio interference indicator.

So, the police simply have to find an area of the airfield where there is no radio interference. This will not always be possible, but, often it will.

Radar guns are generally calibrated once a year by the manufacturer, who will issue a certificate to that effect. The radar gun is normally calibrated before use, by the operator, using a pair of tuning forks (not a vehicle with a calibrated speedometer).

The Guidance Manual also covers the other restrictions on the use of radar guns, that you mention. So, no surprises there.

As for the jurisdiction argument, if you take the time to read the previous posts in this thread, you will see that the question of jurisdiction is not 'black and white', as many of the matters under discussion have never been tested in court.