Blues and two's RAF Police
JagRigger,
The simple answer is that pre-2001 (plus further powers gained in 2003) the RAF Police pretty much turned into civilians when they stepped off the base - hence the days of covering up blue lights and even the word 'police' on their cars.
Since 2001 the RAF Police, in common with their Army and Navy equivalents, have gained a whole raft of draconian powers that would have seemed impossible when I joined the RAF. The additional 2003 changes (brought in against a background of post 9-11 knee-jerk) means the simple RAF plod have a huge range of powers never previously anticipated. The very idea that an RAF Police flt lt would have powers, in extremist, to search a regular civilian house, without a judicial warrant, just because the civilians living there shared it with someone who either is (or was) a service person is astonishing. As a comparison, for the civilian police those powers are usually held no lower than superintendent.
I'm not convinced at all that the RAF Police need such powers, nor do I think they are fit to use them. I am not sure the upper-echelons of the RAF are convinced either.
The simple answer is that pre-2001 (plus further powers gained in 2003) the RAF Police pretty much turned into civilians when they stepped off the base - hence the days of covering up blue lights and even the word 'police' on their cars.
Since 2001 the RAF Police, in common with their Army and Navy equivalents, have gained a whole raft of draconian powers that would have seemed impossible when I joined the RAF. The additional 2003 changes (brought in against a background of post 9-11 knee-jerk) means the simple RAF plod have a huge range of powers never previously anticipated. The very idea that an RAF Police flt lt would have powers, in extremist, to search a regular civilian house, without a judicial warrant, just because the civilians living there shared it with someone who either is (or was) a service person is astonishing. As a comparison, for the civilian police those powers are usually held no lower than superintendent.
I'm not convinced at all that the RAF Police need such powers, nor do I think they are fit to use them. I am not sure the upper-echelons of the RAF are convinced either.
Just This Once
You said,
"I'm not convinced at all that the RAF Police need such powers, nor do I think they are fit to use them. I am not sure the upper-echelons of the RAF are convinced either."
I had a fairly lengthy diatribe prepared, at your request, as further explanation of my low opinion of your origional post re this issue. Its not needed now that you have returned to planet earth and done it for me.
Thanks
However, I would go further, they are not fit to use them and no right minded member of the 'upper echelon' would ever let them use them!
You said,
"I'm not convinced at all that the RAF Police need such powers, nor do I think they are fit to use them. I am not sure the upper-echelons of the RAF are convinced either."
I had a fairly lengthy diatribe prepared, at your request, as further explanation of my low opinion of your origional post re this issue. Its not needed now that you have returned to planet earth and done it for me.
Thanks
However, I would go further, they are not fit to use them and no right minded member of the 'upper echelon' would ever let them use them!
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Worcestershire
Age: 50
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It took long enough but the last post finally pushed this thread to be a Police bashing.
Unfortunately I have to agree that there are some members of the RAFP that would not have a clue and would totally abuse these powers if permitted. However, as with all trades there are good and bad and I can only think that to make a sweeping statement such as the last post can only be made on the back of experiences with the bad side of the trade and not much actual knowledge.
Unfortunately I have to agree that there are some members of the RAFP that would not have a clue and would totally abuse these powers if permitted. However, as with all trades there are good and bad and I can only think that to make a sweeping statement such as the last post can only be made on the back of experiences with the bad side of the trade and not much actual knowledge.
PEZZA
Wrong, I'm afraid, on so many levels. However unpalatable the facts the RAF Police simply are not upto that level of police work, nothing personal just a fact.
Going back to the origional thread; I did have the immense pleasure of once watching a Provost Officer, in his police vehicle blue lights flashing, chase 3 aircrew types on their bicycles.
Their offence........ riding without lights at twilight! Priceless!
Wrong, I'm afraid, on so many levels. However unpalatable the facts the RAF Police simply are not upto that level of police work, nothing personal just a fact.
Going back to the origional thread; I did have the immense pleasure of once watching a Provost Officer, in his police vehicle blue lights flashing, chase 3 aircrew types on their bicycles.
Their offence........ riding without lights at twilight! Priceless!
I’m not keen on turning this into a police-bashing thread as the police just put these rules into practice. It is the higher chain of command to decide what regulations and laws need to come into force and not to ignore them completely in the false hope that no service police officer will ever try and use them. Over time the service police appetite to use these powers will increase until checked by judicial review. My key message is that these new laws do affect military aircrew and the chain of command.
Made up example:
Tornado GR4 crew authorised for OLF. During an otherwise uneventful OLF trip the weather closes in a bit and they deviate off track for a few miles and they exit the lateral limits of the OLF area. Weather is still a bit rubbish and rather than weather-abort into the package of ac somewhere above they end push-on at under 200’ for a minute or so in the normal low flying area before re-entering the OLF area where the weather is now better. During the subsequent debrief of HUD tapes the entire formation discuses the decision of the crew to push-on vs low-level abort. Several learning points come out or are reinforced before the crews disperse and think little more of it. Meanwhile a completely separate flying complaint comes in from a different part of the route and the RAF Police start a routine investigation.
Follow-up, Pre-31 Oct 2009
A couple of weeks later the RAF Police pop into the sqn and chat to the nav (pilot is now in Theatre). Nav explains the sortie profile – medium level, AAR, air-to-air photo-shoot in new sqn markings, low level transit to range, OLF and then medium level home. Police take simple statement from nav & formation leader and takes copy of tapes and routing. Evidence shows that the flying complaint has no basis but notes the MSD bust 30 mins later and sends note through to sqn boss who happened to be the formation leader and auth. Sqn boss rolls his eyes at the RAF Police note and files it in B One N. Civilian complainant informed of investigation and that the crew were at 1000’ agl descending, cleared to 250’ MSD, and not at 30’ as the complainant had alleged. The End.
Follow-up, Post-31 Oct 2009
A couple of weeks later the RAF Police pop into the sqn and interview the nav (pilot is now in Theatre). Nav explains the sortie profile – medium level, AAR, air-to-air photo-shoot in new sqn markings, low level transit to range, OLF and then medium level home. Police take statement from nav & formation leader and takes copy of tapes and routing. Evidence shows that the flying complaint has no basis but notes the MSD bust 30 mins later. Civilian complainant informed of investigation and that the crew were at 1000’ agl descending, cleared to 250’ MSD, and not at 20’ as the complainant had alleged.
RAF Police believe that they have sufficient grounds to believe that the crew have flown at a ‘height less than the minimum height prescribed by regulations’; this is a serious offence and carries a prison sentence ‘not to exceed 2 years’ [Armed Forces Act 2006, Section 34, enacted 31 Oct 2009]. Pilot is arrested by service police when crewing out of an ac in Theatre and is held in custody prior to questioning. Pilot is searched, as is his room in Theatre, fingerprinted and DNA taken; sqn boss is left dumb-founded. Meanwhile back in the UK the RAF Police have arrived to conduct a search of pilot’s home in pursuit of a camera he may have had with him on the sortie as well as any other electronic evidence. His wife (an accomplished NHS surgeon), 5 kids and disabled mother are all rather distraught having come home to find a load of RAF corporals searching their civilian house.
Perhaps an extreme example but we are currently relying on ‘judgement’ of very junior personnel to ensure that the above does not happen; but the RAF Police are convinced that they have such powers.
Fly Safe & Fly Legal.
Made up example:
Tornado GR4 crew authorised for OLF. During an otherwise uneventful OLF trip the weather closes in a bit and they deviate off track for a few miles and they exit the lateral limits of the OLF area. Weather is still a bit rubbish and rather than weather-abort into the package of ac somewhere above they end push-on at under 200’ for a minute or so in the normal low flying area before re-entering the OLF area where the weather is now better. During the subsequent debrief of HUD tapes the entire formation discuses the decision of the crew to push-on vs low-level abort. Several learning points come out or are reinforced before the crews disperse and think little more of it. Meanwhile a completely separate flying complaint comes in from a different part of the route and the RAF Police start a routine investigation.
Follow-up, Pre-31 Oct 2009
A couple of weeks later the RAF Police pop into the sqn and chat to the nav (pilot is now in Theatre). Nav explains the sortie profile – medium level, AAR, air-to-air photo-shoot in new sqn markings, low level transit to range, OLF and then medium level home. Police take simple statement from nav & formation leader and takes copy of tapes and routing. Evidence shows that the flying complaint has no basis but notes the MSD bust 30 mins later and sends note through to sqn boss who happened to be the formation leader and auth. Sqn boss rolls his eyes at the RAF Police note and files it in B One N. Civilian complainant informed of investigation and that the crew were at 1000’ agl descending, cleared to 250’ MSD, and not at 30’ as the complainant had alleged. The End.
Follow-up, Post-31 Oct 2009
A couple of weeks later the RAF Police pop into the sqn and interview the nav (pilot is now in Theatre). Nav explains the sortie profile – medium level, AAR, air-to-air photo-shoot in new sqn markings, low level transit to range, OLF and then medium level home. Police take statement from nav & formation leader and takes copy of tapes and routing. Evidence shows that the flying complaint has no basis but notes the MSD bust 30 mins later. Civilian complainant informed of investigation and that the crew were at 1000’ agl descending, cleared to 250’ MSD, and not at 20’ as the complainant had alleged.
RAF Police believe that they have sufficient grounds to believe that the crew have flown at a ‘height less than the minimum height prescribed by regulations’; this is a serious offence and carries a prison sentence ‘not to exceed 2 years’ [Armed Forces Act 2006, Section 34, enacted 31 Oct 2009]. Pilot is arrested by service police when crewing out of an ac in Theatre and is held in custody prior to questioning. Pilot is searched, as is his room in Theatre, fingerprinted and DNA taken; sqn boss is left dumb-founded. Meanwhile back in the UK the RAF Police have arrived to conduct a search of pilot’s home in pursuit of a camera he may have had with him on the sortie as well as any other electronic evidence. His wife (an accomplished NHS surgeon), 5 kids and disabled mother are all rather distraught having come home to find a load of RAF corporals searching their civilian house.
Perhaps an extreme example but we are currently relying on ‘judgement’ of very junior personnel to ensure that the above does not happen; but the RAF Police are convinced that they have such powers.
Fly Safe & Fly Legal.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Wiltshire
Age: 58
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Still, it is in contradiction to the 2006 road traffic act. You may not pursue with B&2 unless trained, NO civilian force will train and qualify you. The IAM instructors, or similar, will not do this either although they are all Class 1 examiners; unless the CC says they can or you are a warranted Policeman posted into a vehicular traffic billet.
If you injure or kill someone you WILL be prosecuted for GBH or Manslaughter, even the Police are investigated for due diligence and necessity (after authorisation from the duty inspector). Weather they kick your back door in or not, they can’t do it with B&2 (the original question?)
If you injure or kill someone you WILL be prosecuted for GBH or Manslaughter, even the Police are investigated for due diligence and necessity (after authorisation from the duty inspector). Weather they kick your back door in or not, they can’t do it with B&2 (the original question?)
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Worcestershire
Age: 50
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
XENOLITH
How so? Please enlighten me as to how you can make that statement without knowing every single member of the RAFP?
As I said in my earlier post, this seems to be a statement made without regard to the facts.
How so? Please enlighten me as to how you can make that statement without knowing every single member of the RAFP?
As I said in my earlier post, this seems to be a statement made without regard to the facts.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: in my combat underpants
Age: 53
Posts: 1,065
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Their offence........ riding without lights at twilight! Priceless!
Hinecap
You take it right!
Further, I maintain that riding a bicycle without lights is not an emergency that requires pursuit with blue lights flashing, particularly when the 'miscreants' are personally known to said Provost Officer as they live in the same building.
Further still..................ahh whats the point.
You take it right!
Further, I maintain that riding a bicycle without lights is not an emergency that requires pursuit with blue lights flashing, particularly when the 'miscreants' are personally known to said Provost Officer as they live in the same building.
Further still..................ahh whats the point.
Last edited by xenolith; 10th Oct 2010 at 20:01.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Newcastle Upon Tyne
Age: 54
Posts: 1,511
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
I too was told to get off my bike and walk after the snowdrop on the gate decided my front light was too dim.
He was only slightly less annoying than the one who flapped an unbuttoned pocket on my combats telling me to "get a grip!"
I'm afraid all the ones I met behaved like petulant teenagers. Of course, they mostly were!
He was only slightly less annoying than the one who flapped an unbuttoned pocket on my combats telling me to "get a grip!"
I'm afraid all the ones I met behaved like petulant teenagers. Of course, they mostly were!
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
2 - why is it that if they detain a civvi, they must immediately call for Civ Pol assistance ?
3 - OK Redcaps, but in some garrison towns I have encountered patrols of one Military / one Civ Pol - covers all options ?
I remember o'dark hundred at ISK, on the public road between the two halves of the camp, one FS RAFP (ex-para) chastising an exercise intruder who failed to comply with a resaonable request to put his hands on his head and STFU. A tap on the knee cap with an SLR got the message through.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Just south of the Keevil gap.
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Paramedic-caused-fatal-crash"
Tashengurt, re your 19:55 post
Yes, you will.
See here for the report of a local lad, who I believe was eventually sent down for this incident. The charge was causing death by dangerous driving.
Yes, you will.
See here for the report of a local lad, who I believe was eventually sent down for this incident. The charge was causing death by dangerous driving.
Last edited by Cpt_Pugwash; 10th Oct 2010 at 20:20.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: somewhere special
Age: 46
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
See here for the report of a local lad, who I believe was eventually sent down for this incident.
BBC NEWS | UK | England | Berkshire | Careless driving paramedic fined
either way, no immunity from prosecution
Easy solution - use LJ's golden rule and don't get caught!
...and if you do, deny everything as trying to prove is very difficult for the average plod - they usually rely on a confession!
...and if you do, deny everything as trying to prove is very difficult for the average plod - they usually rely on a confession!
Join Date: May 2001
Location: London
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not only is there no immunity from prosecution but most police standing orders forbid even class 1 pursuit trained drivers from continuing with car chases which might present a danger to the public.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Newcastle Upon Tyne
Age: 54
Posts: 1,511
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Cpt Pugwash,
That makes my point! No charge for GBH or Manslaughter, that's why we have death by dangerous and more recently by careless!
Changeitnot,
Training to be civpol is two years. I know it pales compared to say, a Doctor, but it isn't that short is it?
That makes my point! No charge for GBH or Manslaughter, that's why we have death by dangerous and more recently by careless!
Changeitnot,
Training to be civpol is two years. I know it pales compared to say, a Doctor, but it isn't that short is it?
Last edited by Tashengurt; 10th Oct 2010 at 23:10. Reason: just one more thing...
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Why oh why would I wanna be anywhere else?
Posts: 1,305
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
but even then, the armed ones I knew were too busy shooting themselves in their feet or legs.
Or punching unauthorised holes in a desk with a small high velocity 9mm object.
Or taking a Sterling SMG off-base unauthorised (presumably to impress his bird)
Or breaking into a contractor's hut and nicking the Kit Kats and chewing gum (the chewing gum was, according to the evidence at the DCM, for his dog!!)
Or ordering some "norty toys" by mail order, told by the missus to send them right back, and then putting the package by the door of a bunker in the SSA. When the EOD team blew the package the guys name and address was clearly visible!
Ah yes, Honington was an absolute riot in the 80s.
And then I had a flight under my command at Benson in the 90s 