She never knew why she was sectioned and it was never explained to her by the health services or social services and quite rightly she wanted to know. She asked her doctors and social services but nobody would tell her. All she did know that it was Social Services that had instigated her sectioning in the first place.

When she received no answers to her questions she started to write to senior council managers but got know reply. She wrote repeatedly sending the letters recorded delivery to ensure that they go there. She would record all phone calls she had with the council staff. The years passed by and still she did not get the answers she was looking for. Her files of letters and taped phone transcripts were now running into volumes.

In the end she decided to write to the top bod at the council, the Chief Exec. She thought that this would be the only way she could find out why she had been sectioned all those years ago. The Chief Exec did not answer her letters so she persisted. None of the letters were threatening , insulting or distressing in any way they were just persistent. In the end after still getting no response after many months of writing letters and making phone calls to the Chief Exec the lady now very old and frail put together a dossier of all her correspondence and evidence and turned up on the front doorstep of the Council Leader’s house. She thought this would be the only way to get the answers she wanted and make the council take notice of her after all this time.

She knocked on the door and the door was answered by the Council Leader’s daughter. The old lady asked if the girls Father was at home and when the reply was yes she handed the dossier to the girl and asked her to pass it on to her father. The old lady then left. Again no threats were made, no abuse was shouted. Just the paperwork was handed over and the old lady left.

Obviously the Council Leader was quite freaked out by this as his address should not be public knowledge but it is not difficult to find out where somebody lives if you really want to know. There are plenty of public records out there to be looked through if you know where to look. Does everybody remember www.b4usearch.com?

The Council Leader decided to report this to the police now as harassment. It was passed on to a response officer to deal with as this type of thing usually is and the response officer issued a First Harassment Warning even though technically this was crimed as a 2+ Harassment and the offence was complete according to NCRS. The warning seem the common sense approach to take as per Sir Ronnie’s request as this was the first report that had been made to the police about the matter. The crime was then closed. Or so the response officer thought…

After the old lady was given the warning she continued to write to the Council Leader, not to his home address but through the correct channels at the Town Hall. What a mistaka to maka.

The Council Leader being a pillar of society and well respected in the fair county plays golf every 2nd Tuesday of the month with the Chief Constable. Whilst on the 7th fairway he asks the Chief if there is anything that can be done about this crazy old bat who refuses to stop writing to him. The simple answer the Chief could have given would have been to write back and answer her questions or at least acknowledge her to say the matter would be looked into. But no, the Chief says to leave it with him and he will see shat he can sort out.

Over the next few days the order filters down the ranks to the Station Inspector that this old lady has got to be arrested for harassment having continued to write after being given the harassment warning. The order lands firmly in the lap of the original response officer who gave the warning as it is his job. The officer’s sergeant is very supportive of his staff and agrees to help him with it so early one morning they attend the home address of the old lady to bring her in.

When she realises what is happening she refuses to open the door. Not wanting to look stupid as this is a very old lady the officers discreetly ask for backup and the front door is put in. The old lady is waiting for them with a knife inside the address. She obviously has no intention of using it and she is quickly disarmed by the officers and has to be literally dragged from the address. Her neighbours see this and cannot believe that the police are treating an elderly lady in this way.

The lady is then taken to the police station. The officers return to her house and conduct a Section 18 search and recover boxes full of paperwork relating to the lady’s quest for answers. Someone senior finally realises that there is too much for a lone response officer to deal with due to the mountain of evidence that has just been uncovered during the search so a DS and a couple of D’s are brought on board. After all the so called victim of this is a personal friend of the Chief.

A quick flick through some of the paperwork shows that none of it is of a threatening or abusive nature so early advice is sought from the CPS. The CPS advice is very clear. At the current time there are NO OFFENCES. Their clear instructions were to not interview the old lady at the current time and to bail her immediately. All of the documentation was then to be passed to the CPS so that it could be reviewed to see if any of it amounted to a personal harassment of the Council Leader.

As things stood at the minute, although being over persistent, all the old lady had done was to write legitimate complaint letters and request information that she was legally entitled to request. It is not possible to harass a company or organisation and a person is perfectly entitled to address their correspondence to a named person within that said organisation.

This was fed back up the ranks to the Station Inspector who called the area Super Nintendo on his radio and told him what the CPS had said. Not wanting to look stupid in front of the Chief the message came back that under no circumstances was this lady to be released that night. She would either have to be charged and remanded or sectioned again!! but she was not to be bailed.

Around about this point the custody sergeant suddenly felt ill and went home sick. He must have come down with a 24 hour bug or maybe he just didn’t want to illegally detain an elderly lady (who under normal circumstances would never have been accepted into custody in the first place) for fear of getting on the wrong side of the Chief. So a replacement custody sergeant was found.

Despite what the CPS ha said, the old lady was interviewed by the D’s but then had to be bailed later that night. I await to see if there were actually any offences.

Read what happened when Bobby met with Twining at New Scotland Yard here…

This post is in response to a post by PCSO Bloggs entitled Section 59 for speeding? whereby North Wales Police have been giving drivers a Section 59 Warning for breaking the speed limit. I thoroughly recommend that you should read her blog if you have not already done so.

I think that giving a Section 59 warning for speeding is a bit of a grey area. It has to be remembered that speeding is a specific offence under Section 89(1) Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. Just because you are speeding does not mean that you are driving carelessly or inconsiderately. As the legislation states under Section 59 Police Reform Act 2002 a warning and subsequent vehicle seizure can only take place if the motor vehicle is being used in a manner which:
a) contravenes section 3 or 34 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) (careless and inconsiderate driving and prohibition of off-road driving), and
b) is causing, or is likely to cause, alarm, distress or annoyance to members of the public.

Whilst the speeding motorist could be causing alarm, distress or annoyance to the local villagers if there was nothing else about their manner of driving that made it careless such as wheels screeching, crossing the centre white line on to the wrong side of the road because they took a corner too quick, overtaking a motorist travelling at the correct speed limit or tailgating the motorist in front because they are not travelling as fast I cannot see how the Sec 59 warning would be legal or valid.

In my force it is policy that if you issue a Sec 59 warning or seize a vehicle that already has a warning you must report the driver for the offence of careless or inconsiderate driving or issue an FPN for the off-road driving. This would mean the writing of a witness statement by the officer or the taking of a witness statement from member of the public that had witnessed the manner of driving. You then have the evidence to back up the warning if it was to be appealed by the driver.

Also if you are not dealing with the driver for any offence how can you justify giving out the Sec 59 warning in the first place? Whilst I understand that the North Wales Police shown in the article gave a warning on the back of a speeding ticket I do not see how their warnings were valid.

If a driver who had received one of these warnings then subsequently had their vehicle seized I think they would have a good case to appeal the seizure on the grounds that they had not driven carelessly. The instigation of prosecution under Sec 3 RTA or the issuing of an FPN under Sec 34 RTA which is then paid by the offender would remove the grounds for appeal.

So in conclusion I do not see how North Wales Police can be issuing valid / legal Sec 59 Warnings on the back of speeding tickets if they cannot prove an offence under Sec 3 RTA, and if such an offence could have been proven why did they not opt for that offence over speeding as it is a more serious offence and carries a harsher punishment at court. If any of these warnings were to be appealed I think North Wales Police could be made to look a bit daft and have to refund any charges incurred by the driver or the driver would have good grounds to claim abuse of process at court.

I have disabled comments on this post because this is just my response to PCSO Blogg’s original post. If you wish to comment please click here to be taken to her original post to leave your comment.

I found this post on PC Bloggs site about NCRS and using the example of Drive Off’s to show how things used to be and how they are dealt with now. I am quite lucky now in that I rarely get to deal with a drive off because all of the enquiries are completed by the CSO’s. They are only passed to a PC when a suspect has been identified. However even when this is the case, most of them go nowhere because the evidence has too many holes in it.

In my force each petrol station is supplied with a number of “Bilking Packs” by the beat officer. This includes a pro-forma statement so that all the shop staff have to do is fill in the blanks and all of the evidential points are covered. It also includes exhibit labels and Video Evidence bags. If the protocol is followed correctly when a drive off happens it is immediately phoned in on the 9′s so that obs can be put out for the vehicle to give some chance of catching the offender, then the shop assistant should complete the bilking pack as soon as possible so that it is all ready for collection when the PC or CSO attends. What usually happens is the shop staff are on the minimum wage and do not want to get involved with the police or attend court as a witness or they are immigrants who cannot read or write English and can barely speak it. Therefore they do not understand the very simple fill-in-the-blanks pro-forma statement so they save it for the manager to fill in another day. Obviously the manager didn’t witness the drive off so the statement cannot be used evidentially because the contents is all hearsay.

I do not think that the police should investigate bilkings’ anymore. It is just a big waste of our time and could be stopped over night. Many other countries operate a pre-pay service where you have to go into the shop to pre-pay before the pump is authorised to dispense fuel, or they offer an attended service. Some of the petrol stations have invested heavily in security systems to try and catch the offenders such as ANPR built into their CCTV systems to record all of the number plates and one has even installed a system of spikes that pop up at the forecourt exit to pop the tyres of any vehicle trying to make off.

I have heard it said that it all drive offs should be dealt with as a civil debt and not a criminal offence because once the pump has been authorised to dispense fuel the garage is giving the customer the fuel on credit on the condition that they enter the shop to pay for it. No other type of shop would let you fill up your shopping trolly, then leave the store to load your car with the goods on the condition that you then returned to the checkout to pay for the items afterwards would they??

People say that it is still criminal because the driver filled up their car with the intention of driving off and not offering any payment therefore the criminal intent is there, but I would throw this back at them using the example of credit card companies.

I could decide to apply for a credit card with the sole intention of maxing it out once I receive it and never repaying the balance. This would never be dealt with as a criminal matter by the police because they would say it was a civil debt between me and the credit card company. The same criminal intent was present when I applied for the card but it would be up to the card company to recover the debt through the County Court or bailiffs. Why should petrol stations be treated any differently?

This crime could be stopped overnight if the petrol station companies changed their business methods and obtained payment first. Sure people would moan, but if all petrol stations did it, it would then become the norm and everybody would come to accept it.

I initially started to write this as a comment in reply to a comment I received from Harrybelly in my post (Il)legal Representation but it started to get a bit long so I decided to make it a post in its own right. Harrybelly is defence solicitor and its good to have some opinions from the other side of the fence. Thanks for your comments Harry.

There are good solicitors out there don’t get me wrong. They are usually the ones who tell their client to go No Comment when they know they are banged to rights and not eligible for a caution; therefore meaning the police have to complete all outstanding enquiries because it cannot be treated as an anticipated guilty plea at court. After my disclosure I can usually tell which ones are going to be a No Comment interview.

However take today for example, I was in the custody suite waiting to take my detained person out for interview. Whilst waiting, another officer brought a chavvy estate lad back to the desk. This lad was thick as pig muck. You could tell that just by looking at him before you even heard him speak. Basically he had been arrested for a burglary whereby he had broken into his parent’s garage. He still lived at home with his Mum & Dad but they had banned him from the garage. His Dad had become aware that his son had been sharpening an axe to take out with him later that night to use in a fight. Being the conscientious the Dad he had locked the axe in the garage and banned his son from going in their by locking the door and hiding the key. The son had broken a window and climbed in to try and retrieve the axe but couldn’t find it so climbed back out again.

The son’s account during interview after a lengthy consultation with his solicitor was that in a fit of rage he had been recklessly swinging a spade around in the garden which had somehow managed to strike the window causing it to accidentally break. Once the window had accidentally been broken he then climbed through the window to get to the freezer to take out a pizza that belonged to him! He couldn’t find the pizza so climbed back out again. This had been recorded as a burglary because the son had entered the garage as a trespasser with the intent to steal the axe.

Whilst this pile of pap was being relayed to the custody sergeant during the interview result I was finding it hard to hide my smile from the solicitor who was stood directly in front of me and could clearly see my face. This account had obviously been fed to the son by the solicitor to change an accusation of a technical burglary into an admission of a reckless criminal damage using a defence that will be very difficult to disprove.

Everybody knows that the lad broke the window to the garage so that he could climb in to get the axe that his Dad had just taken off him but try and disprove that very carefully worded story. Those were the exact words used by the lad during his interview and it was blatantly obvious he had been prepped to say the specific words e.g. “I was swinging a spade around in a reckless manner”. A person of this intellect would never string a sentence together of such good English!

Harry makes reference that if we suspect a bent brief to bug the cell to record the consultation. He must know full well that we would never get the authority to do this. Why not just record all consultations. The tapes could then be randomly audited by an independent authority separate from the police. This would then hopefully act as a deterrent to any dodgy brief in that they may get caught out. Everything that the police do it recorded and audited e.g. the custody video, tape recorded interviews etc. to ensure that we play the game correctly. Why bother tape recording interviews or writing it down. I am a sworn officer of the crown as a solicitor is an officer of the court. If they should be trusted why not us?? I am not suggesting that at any point the contents of the tape should be used as evidence against the defendant but why should these meetings be allowed without any form auditing and accountability check being available?

I had to attend a house fire the other night. Me and my crew mate along with our sergeant were the first police officers to arrive on scene. Trumpton were already on scene and the first two firemen in full BA were up a ladder about to climb through the upstairs front window. Smoke was pouring out of the back of the house and all of the front windows were black with smoke. A few onlookers had gathered in the street in their dressing gowns because it was the early hours of the morning. The atmosphere outside was tense and I could tell that this was not good. We had been told that people were possibly trapped and when I got there I couldn’t see any people that looked like they could have come out of the address.

I do not know why, but for whatever reason the first fireman backed out of the window and they both climbed back down the ladder, they then went to the front door and proceeded to batter it down to try and get in that way. A couple of minutes later the firemen emerged one after the other with a small child each in their arms. The children were black with smoke and were unconscious. Ambulance crews had arrived by this time immediately started to treat the children. I looked across at the two firemen that had just come out of the house with the children. One was frantically trying to rip of his mask. As he pulled it away from his face he immediately started to vomit. He had smoke or steam coming off his head and his colleagues had to rip is jacket off him. He then collapsed on the floor and other firemen poured water all over him to cool him down.

I have been to a number of big jobs over my service where I have seen many serious injuries on people including fatal RTC’s but it never fazed me. You just seem to be numb to it and get on with what you have to do. The only other job that got to me was when I was first on scene to a boy that had disappeared under the surface whilst swimming in a canal lock (I may write about this job another time).

I then saw the firemen bring out an adult male. It was apparent that he had major burns to the front of his body and he was literally smouldering but again this didn’t seem to get to me. I think Nightjack has it right in his post and this goes someway to explain what officers do to cope. When children are involved it is a lot different for me. The sense of relief I felt when I saw the children open their eyes is unexplainable.

This fireman could not have been in that house for more than 2-3 minutes but the conditions inside must have been unbearable. He had his full protective gear on and BA but this obviously was not enough to ensure his safety. I do not think people realise what these brave men and women put themselves through in situations like this.

I attend quite a lot of jobs alongside the fire service. These are nearly always RTC’s. We always take the mick saying that they will use any excuse to turn a perfectly good car into a convertible! or whilst they lay a tarp on the floor and lay or of their kit out in neat little sections on it. Seems the ambulance service seem to think the same too! I think that this is just part of the rivalry between the different blue light services especially between the police and the fire service. When we drive past an ambulance we always wave at each other whether you know the crew or not but this is not always the case with a fire engine.

These brave people have my utmost respect. I could never do what they do. People always say that to me about being a police officer but dealing with a violent drunk person is nothing compared to running into a burning building and saving a life.

If anyone knows of a Fire Service blog in would be interested to hear of it.

As drink driving seems to be in the news quite a bit at the minute with regards to lowering the drink drive limit so that only 1 drink could put you over I thought I would continue on from my last post.

I ranted on at the end of my last post about whether drink drivers should have the option of going Not Guilty when all the facts didn’t really give them much choice. Another offence which can result in a drink driving conviction is Failing to Provide. Most people caught driving will provide a specimen of breath at the station but in the majority of the cases that I have dealt with for Fail to Provide a variation of the following scenario has occurred:

A member of the public phones in to say that they are following a car that is weaving all over the road or someone rings in to say that a chap has been in the pub all afternoon and is about to drive home after sinking numerous pints whilst watching the match. Police attended the location but the vehicle has already left the pub or the officers cannot get behind it quick enough. Some bobbies will just leave it at that if they can’t find the car.

I however will find out the registered keepers address and attend the location. If the vehicle is on the driveway or parked nearby I will knock the door. Normally the driver will answer, smelling strongly of intoxicants and I will tell them why I am there pointing out that they have been witnessed driving after drinking. The usual response I get it that they have just had 4 cans since they got home and that is why they are now drunk. This is known as the “Hip Flask Defense” as in I’ve just had a sip from my hip flask officer… In situations like this I have a power to request a breath test but if they are obviously leathered I don’t bother. I can arrest them under Section 4 of the Road Traffic Act for driving whilst impaired through drink or drugs.

Because they know they have not been seen driving they vigourously deny the fact that they have. Quite understandably they can be quite aggressive in their mannerisms when I slap the cuffs on them and escort them from their house into my waiting police car. These are the type of drivers that usually fail to provide as they seem to think that they are above the law. Hence the reason that they have driven home pissed in the first place knowing full well that the rest of the pub knew what they were doing.

Once at the police station they will continue to protest their innocence and will either refuse to go into the Intoxyliser room or will go in there but then refuse to co-operate with the station procedure. This is where I rub my hands together knowing full well that they have just shafted themselves good and proper. Up until that point it was going to be down to me to prove that they had in-fact driven. Usually the witness who phoned in the original job refuses to give their details or didn’t actually see them get into their car and drive away from the pub so I cannot get a statement from them to prove the driving.

However once you fail to provide a specimen of breath that becomes the offence and not the driving with excess alcohol in your system. Therefore I no longer have to prove that you have driven, just that you failed without reasonable excuse to provide a specimen of breath for analysis. So by being a cocky or arrogant idiot thinking you were above the law you have actually just done your own legs when you probably would have got off. Even if you had blown over the limit, if I couldn’t prove beyond all reasonable doubt that you had driven you would not have had a case to answer. Being too drunk or unfit to supply the necessary breath specimen is NOT a reasonable excuse. A medical condition which prevents you from supplying enough breath for the machine to sample may be a sufficient excuse. If you have such a condition you must advise the police at the time.

If you fail to provide after driving or attempting to drive the penalty can be a fine up to Level 5 (£5,000) and/or 6 months imprisonment. A mandatory disqualification for at least 12 months for first offence (18 months tends to be the norm as you are considered to have been trying to avoid being found guilty) and a mandatory disqualification for at least 3 years for second offence within 10 years

I am a trained operator of the Lion Intoxilyzer. As a result of this I get to perform a number of station procedures with people who have been arrested for failing a roadside breath test.

A few weeks ago I was called to the custody suite by a colleague to perform such a procedure. It was 0620 am and I was just about to finish my night shift at 7am so I wanted to get out asap.

My colleague and his crew mate had witnessed the male driving his van and put the blue lights on to stop him. The male had pulled over but then got out of his van and started to walk off. He was obviously still tanked up from the night before.

They detained the male and breath tested him in the police car which he failed so he was arrested and taken into custody. When he was handed over to me he seemed quite a pleasant chap. He knew he was going to fail the station procedure and he completed it without any problems. He followed all instructions he was given, blew into the tube first time correctly and did not try to trick the machine (which as far as I am aware is impossible to do). From his 2 samples given the lower reading was 46 microgrammes in 100 millilitres of breath.

The legal drink drive limit is 35 microgrammes in 100 millilitres of breath. My force have a policy that they will not prosecute if your blow between 35-40. If you blow between 40-50 you are offered what is called the Statutory Option. This means that you can accept your breath sample as it is and be charged with Excess Alcohol or you can elect to provide a blood or urine sample to be sent off for analysis. It is up to the officer in charge of the procedure whether it is blood or urine and unless there is a medical or religious reason why blood cannot be provided I will always insist that blood is used as this provides the more accurate result. A medical professional has to be called out to take the blood sample so it can mean more of a delay in custody.

Because this male blew 46 I offered him the statutory option. We returned to the custody desk and in front of the Sergeant I explained it to him in simple everyday speak I then read the official caption from the MGDD/B but he still refused the option coughing the offence and saying words to the effect of “What’s the point I’ve been drink driving, it’s only delaying the inevitable”. I couldn’t believe my luck I thought I was going to be stuck in the custody suite all morning waiting for the Doc to arrive when I should be tucked up warm and snug in bed. His refusal was all captured on the custody video and so was me offering him two opportunities to take the statutory option. He was charged with Excess Alcohol and off I went home to bed forgetting all about the job anticipating a Guilty plea at court.

This chap must have gone to see a solicitor whilst he was on bail to court because a week or so later I received notification that I was required at court to give evidence. I had forgotten all about this job so when I looked up the details I was surprised to see that it was this chap who had gone Not Guilty. I checked with the prosecutor as to why I was required and I was told that this chap had stated that the statutory option had not been properly explained to him so it was apparent that the solicitor he had spoken to was trying to get him off on a made up technicality that he would have provided a blood sample had he known the implications. When a blood sample is taken it has to be sent off to the Forensic Science Service for analysis. This can take a few months as it is not classed as urgent so the inevitable driving ban can be delayed for a considerable amount of time.

I await to see what happens at court when his brief cross examines me and tries to imply that I didn’t explain or offer the statutory option properly. I just hope the magistrates will take this time wasting into account when he is proved wrong when the custody video is played back in court.

I think that Drink Driving should be classed as an absolute offence. There should be no Guilty or Not Guilty option available to the defendant. If you are seen by a police officer driving and this can be corroborated by another source be that another police officer, video evidence or another witness, you then fail a roadside breath test or are arrested for being impaired, and you then provide 2 satisfactory specimens of breath for analysis at the police station I cannot see how you can then claim to be not guilty when it gets to court. If you have not raised any objections throughout this whole procedure, e.g. immediately denied driving, claiming the Intoxilyzer / Intoximeter is faulty or inaccurate, accused the officers of lying about any part of the case and you have fully co-operated throughout the whole police procedure what have you got to back up your Not Guilty plea?? Therefore how can you then claim to be Not Guilty?

I was crewed up with Pc Sammy Stroker on the night before Christmas eve one year. We had just been back to a house party that had gone a bit wrong for the third time that night. This time we had got a bit more physical with the unwelcome guests. Some had been physically thrown out of the house by us because we had got fed up with being called back there. The most satisfying part for me was when a couple of the lads in the house saw us, panicked and ran to the bathroom upstairs and started to promptly flush the toilet. Sometimes its more fun to know they have had to flush “it” away themselves than have them hand it over to us and have to do all of the paperwork. It must be really frustrating for them but it makes me chuckle. The group finally left the street after the gobby little twat that just couldn’t leave it had been arrested for Breach of the Peace. This finally sent the message home. He was “escorted” out of the area and to a place where the peace could no longer be breached and left to make his way home.

About an hour later a call came over the radio of a group of youths in a nearby village causing damage to some cars in the street. They were then seen to make their way on to a small park at the bottom of the street. I knew the street and park well. The park had three (official) ways in and out. One was a small alley way from the street with the damaged cars, the second was out on to a field and the third was on to another street that ran parallel to the first. The park was bordered either side by the two parallel streets gardens and to the rear by a brand new luxury housing development of a few massive houses. The forth side was a stream and a thick hedge with a field the other side.

I shouted up that me and Pc Stroker would make our way to the other street to try and head off the group. I knew the Area Car was not far away so I directed them to the first street where the damaged cars were. As we got out of our panda both me and Pc Stroker heard two loud smashes coming from the direction of the park. We walked down the alley way and on to the park which was pitch black. Luckily neither of us were wearing our yellow jackets and I had my navy blue Nato jumper on because it was so cold so we both blended into the darkness quite well.

As we walked on to the park we could both hear the sound of voices coming from the back of the park towards the posh housing development. As our eyes adjusted to the darkness we could see 4-5 figures climbing over the fence that separated the park from this development and a figure standing at the back of one of the houses. We both edged back towards the alley way from were we had just come and started to walk towards the group keeping against the hedgerow. We then heard one of the group say “That’s breaking and entering..” Now if that’s not an admission then I do not know what is! As we got closer I saw one of the group climb out of the conservatory window. I could see that this window wasn’t open so the loud crash must have been the window being put in.

More mobiles were on their way. I directed the Area Car to the original street where the call had come in from and they blocked the alley way off. Myself and Pc Stroker had the second alley way and the field covered. I then told the other mobiles to go to the front of the posh houses. All of this was done in whispers over the air and all mobiles attended on a silent approach.

Most of the group had climbed back over the fence and were now on the park. We could hear them trying to decide what to do. Me and Pc Stroker were then joined by a Dog Handler. His dog was not the quietest pooch in the world and I thought the youths might get spooked but they didn’t seem to hear a thing. When everybody was in place, me, Pc Stroker and the dog handler ran towards the group shouting at them to stop and get down on the floor. The dog was barking and snarling and we were all screaming at them.

Two of the group were straight over the fence back into the garden of the house, they disappeared around the front of the house straight into the arms of the waiting officers. The other two panicked and didn’t know which way to run. All were promptly cuffed and arrested for Burglary.

When the house was checked, a piece of paving slab had been thrown through the conservatory window. The house was actually empty which is probably why the group had given up and climbed over the fence back on to the park.

It turned out that the four had been at the house party we had attended earlier in the evening and were making their way home after we had kicked them out for the final time. All four spent Christmas Eve in custody.

The job couldn’t have gone any better. Everything went to plan and even the radio dispatcher thanked us all for a quality job. None of them got charged with burglary (no surprise) but all were dealt with for Criminal Damage either by Reprimand, or Charge. I’m sure they all had a lovely Christmas.

It was a warm summers evening and Pc Bobby Dazzler and his crew mate Pc Sammy Stroker were assigned to provide response cover for a neighbouring police station’s area. As they were driving through a medium sized village in a nice area of the county of Westshire a moped passed them in the opposite direction. This ‘ped was 2 up. The rider and his pillion were obviously youths and looked too young to hold a full motorbike licence between. Surprisingly both were wearing helmets. Bobby being the traffic geek that he is saw his opportunity to seize the ‘ped under Sec 165A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 because the rider would probably only hold a provisional licence.

The ‘ped was giving it licks as it went past the officer’s Panda so Bobby, who was driving spun the diesel heap of a Ford Focus around and gave it some pedal to try and catch the ‘ped up. Neither officer knew what road they were on, only the name of the village. As they got to the end of the road at a T junction Bobby looked left and right and to the right he could just see the ‘ped disappearing into a dip in the road. Bobby floored it again and was making some ground on the ‘ped. Speeds were reaching 60mph, which in a car is nothing special but for a 50cc ‘ped which is 2 up must be quite scary. Bobby activated the blue and tooz just as the ‘ped reached a big roundabout at the end of the road where the lane they had been travelling down intersects a major dual carriageway.

The pillion passenger kept looking back so both riders on the ‘ped knew that Bobby and Sammy wanted them to stop. The ‘ped took the second exit on the roundabout back on to the continuation of the country lane but their riding became more erratic. The rider was taking bends on the wrong side of the road and this road was slightly busier so more cars were having to pull over. The ‘ped was managing to maintain a speed of about 60mph because it was going downhill. This was a proper pursuit now; Bobby’s first since getting his blue light authority. Bobby told Sammy that he better call in the Fail to Stop because he was getting a bit worried now due to the manner of driving of the ‘ped. Just as Sammy did this the ‘ped reached another T junction, pulled to the offside of a car waiting at the junction on to the wrong side of the road and turned right, pulling in front of a car travelling towards the junction from the right.

This car just missed the ‘ped, but luckily had left enough room for Bobby to manoeuvre the Panda through the gap. The ‘ped was now making slow progress through another village because there was a gradual incline to the road. This road had a 40mph limit but the ‘ped was barley making 25mph. Bobby managed to catch it up but could not do much other than continue to follow with lights and sirens blaring. Bobby wanted so mush to clip the back wheel of the pad with his front bumper but he resisted the temptation.

Whilst all this had been happening the control room had done their usual pursuit questions, confirming Bobby’s driving authority, road conditions, traffic density, manner of driving of the pursued vehicle etc. Sammy had been giving a clear, calm commentary over the air despite not knowing where they were but then inevitable finally came that Bobby had been expecting… ABORT ABORT, FROM THE CONTROL ROOM INSPECTOR YOU MUST ABORT THS PURSUIT.

Bobby switched off the blues and tooz but continued to follow the vehicle. As stated, the ‘ped was struggling to reach the speed limit on this stretch of road so nothing above a normal level of driving was required to keep up with the ‘ped. Both vehicles then entered the national speed limits but the road then went down hill just as it entered another village. As the ‘ped entered the 30′s again Bobby and Sammy had to let it go.

Just as the ‘ped disappeared into the distance the control room put out a job for a theft from motor vehicle in the village where Bobby & Sammy had picked up the ‘ped. The suspects matched the description of the ‘ped’s riders in terms of clothing and a moped was seen to make off from the scene. It must have just been making off from the scene as Bobby & Sammy saw it speed past them hence the reason it failed to stop.

The Westshire Constabulary has a blanket policy that no motorcycle will be pursued. This does not mean that a pursuit cannot be initiated but you can guarantee that 99 times out of 100 the pursuit will be aborted. Apparently if a motorcyclist falls off whilst travelling at speed they might get hurt or something?! Also if this is a result of them being chased by the police it is the police’s fault if they get hurt or die. For some strange reason it’s not their fault that they chose not to stop or that they started to ride like a crazy fool to try and get away.

Therefore the clear message to all criminals in the Westshire force area is if you want to commit a crime, use a motorcycle as your getaway vehicle because the police wont chase after you incase YOU get hurt.