Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

RAF POLICE -Waste of time?

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

RAF POLICE -Waste of time?

Old 18th Jun 2001, 17:26
  #21 (permalink)  
Pub User
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

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.
 
Old 18th Jun 2001, 19:35
  #22 (permalink)  
Al Titude
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Cool

As someone so accurately summed up on this subject recently,

Gate goes up, gate goes down...
 
Old 19th Jun 2001, 00:41
  #23 (permalink)  
Ramp Monkey
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

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&#8221 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).]
 
Old 19th Jun 2001, 01:14
  #24 (permalink)  
Charlie Luncher
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Talking

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
 
Old 19th Jun 2001, 01:41
  #25 (permalink)  
Scud-U-Like
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Unhappy

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........
 
Old 19th Jun 2001, 17:15
  #26 (permalink)  
Double Hush
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Cor Blimey! Straight from the horses mouth or what? It's so refreshing to read a fully informed reply.
 
Old 19th Jun 2001, 17:37
  #27 (permalink)  
stablepowerset
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

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!!


 
Old 19th Jun 2001, 20:59
  #28 (permalink)  
Ramp Monkey
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

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!
 
Old 19th Jun 2001, 21:04
  #29 (permalink)  
Charlie Luncher
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Talking

Scud

How come I dont get a mention?
It was funny at the time.
Charlie sends
 
Old 19th Jun 2001, 23:23
  #30 (permalink)  
Didntdoit
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Thumbs up

Scud

Good DEE FENCE!

Not JD R U?

;->



------------------
....wasn't there, you can't prove I did it!
 
Old 20th Jun 2001, 00:07
  #31 (permalink)  
Four 8's
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Its not actually.
 
Old 20th Jun 2001, 00:38
  #32 (permalink)  
Otis Spunkmeyer
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Broadsword calling Danny Boy
 
Old 20th Jun 2001, 16:29
  #33 (permalink)  
snaggletooth
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Talking

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...
 
Old 21st Jun 2001, 22:10
  #34 (permalink)  
FJJP
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

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.
 
Old 23rd Jun 2001, 03:58
  #35 (permalink)  
Scud-U-Like
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Unhappy

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.


 
Old 25th Jun 2001, 20:27
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Post

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.
A and C is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2001, 16:06
  #37 (permalink)  
HeliAviator
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

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


 
Old 29th Jun 2001, 17:34
  #38 (permalink)  
Gainesy
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Wink

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
 
Old 29th Jun 2001, 21:27
  #39 (permalink)  
BEagle
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

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!
 
Old 1st Jul 2001, 23:50
  #40 (permalink)  
Scud-U-Like
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Unhappy

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.
 

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.