How Would You Handle This Scenario.

[retrocop]

This is a true event that happened in the 70s.
You are a Constable walking your beat when you are directed by your station officer via telephone to a nearby building site where the foreman has reported a disturbance. You have no radio in those days.
On attending the site gate you are met by the foreman who informs you that two of his contractors have discovered a subbie has possession of a quantity of their tools which went missing a few weeks previously when the subbie was last on site.
In case anyone is unaware it is a heinous crime within the building trade to steal the tools of a man's trade. Even bailiffs are forbidden by law to confiscate a man's chattels or tools of a artisans trade.
You inform the foreman you will take a short walk around the block and return in five minutes.
On returning you are directed and accompanied by the foreman to the roof of the multi storey car park under construction. There are three men. Two looking a little sheepish on your arrival and one slightly bruised with a nose bleed.
We have an allegation of theft and an obvious assault in this scenario.
You do not have all day or the luxury of sitting by your computer to make your decision and ponder your course of action.
How would you deal with it? Feel free to ask pertinent questions relating to the scenario and I will tell how it was dealt with later

[Togo]

Two threads fluffed up in less than 24 hours. The ed team still wonders why the site is wasting away. The same reason it never took off. Look at the history.

[Ellipsis]

> It would seem that Ellipsis would advocate the modern day policing methods.

Yes, if it was better than this scenario ...

[andy-hughes]

Togo - Threads are what they are, and go where they go.

If you don't approve of the content and / or the tone, you are entirely free not to read or participate.

This site is in its twenty-third year, it must be doing something right, with or without your approval

[choux]

retro, as I read your scenario it was tacit (in my understanding anyway) that the visibility of police on duty played an important role back in those days - possibly as much as the action taken by police. (They weren't all racing around in high performance cars, some marked, some not.) As you have said, you had no radio so thinking on your feet was inherent in much of what you dealt with on a daily basis. Even today the phrase "a copper's nose/intuition" is often used.

I reckon any sergeant would appreciate that minor infringements have been dealt with in a satisfactory manner as far as participants who have erred on both sides are concerned. Police stations and magistrates' courts have a finite capacity. Anyway, a good copper always remembers a face and would know that they have given a miscreant an unofficial warning before. If anyone pushes their luck with the same officer on another occasion they can expect to be taken to the nick.

[Ellipsis]

Illegal summary justice ... ah, the good old days.

[retrocop]

Right Oh. Ellipsis. The modern way in the link is manhandling women who are staging a peaceful protest because an off duty officer murdered a young woman and sexually assaulted her. You approve of that do you? A softly softly approach would show much more empathy, and compassion with the protesters in the way it would be handled over 40 years ago You obviously approve of the heavy handed approach with little common sense displayed.
Whilst you are here you suggest I should arrest the foreman for collusion. What do you think the station officer would say to that?
I know we had only 13 weeks in Police college and had to assimilate every scenario likely to be presented to me on the streets. Dog bites. suicides. ,sudden deaths, road traffic accidents all ingredients of the numerous laws to justify a criminal arrest. So much to remember and assimilate in a relatively short time. But I do remember amongst other things that there is no such thing as collusion in the statute book. You can't just make up charges out the blue. Of course the modern police graduates have over a years training including uni but that does not seem to make them any wiser . But they are taught wokeism by their senior officers which does not impress the public confidence I would suggest.

[retrocop]

The thread was going along quite well AH. No nastiness, or rudeness and then you decide to visit. Why did you change your mind .You haven't answered the question.? I invited brick bats and criticism and I have answered all criticism thrown at me. I expected it from some quarters with good grace so will you answer why you have joined this thread when you stated twice that you were not going to indulge in silly games playing Dixon of Dock Green yet you go back on that pledge.

[Ellipsis]

retrocop, it's not about me, it was your question. And it's not about the Sarah Everard, that was not the Met's finest hour either. Please, no strawmen, no whatiffery, just ask why you answered your question if you didn't like the answer "I'd prefer the police to stick to the law rather than be part of summary justice."

[choux]

I watched a police programme last night. A single officer had to attend a bus station late at night where a man aged 73 and under the influence of alcohol was causing a disturbance and staff had locked themselves in a room to keep safe from him. The officer arrived, asked the man to leave and, because of his refusal, subsequently arrested and handcuffed him and lead him from the premises. A police van turned up with 2 officers on board. The arresting officer spoke to the man and said if he behaved he would de-arrest him. The man agreed and he was taken home in the police van - a journey which took 5 minutes. The arresting officer was a sergeant and explained to camera that it was the best solution all round. Some things haven't changed much at all!

There is a moral to this thread - prioritising and appropriate solution.

[retrocop]

//I'd prefer the police to stick to the law rather than be part of summary justice."//
That's ok. You have your opinion and we can agree to differ. Have you served as a police officer btw. and what law would you suggest I should have stuck to? The law you make up as you go along and one that does not exist. Very unprofessional.

[andy-hughes]

Retrocop - I am happy to answer your question about why I rejoined the thread -

Because I can.

Any time I want, and within Site Rules, I can post what I want, when I want, about what I want, as often as I want.

Ok?

Good.

[Ellipsis]

What, there was no law and you just made it up in the void? Or there was law but it was bad, so you did it better?

Either way, effectively lawless and the police do what they want (ie "think is best") ...

[retrocop]

//There is a moral to this thread - prioritising and appropriate solution.//
Absolutely choux. In my day we didn't have PACE (Police and Criminal Evidence Act. A decision had to be made and you couldn't de -arrest a person arrested with one strange exception. A busker under the Street musicians legislation . If they agreed to move on after being arrested they were released after details were recorded for the records

[Ellipsis]

Not moral ... legal. It's you, retrocop, that's choosing your morals rather than the law. Any morals are yours, not mine.

[douglas9401]

There's a reason one shouldn't get into either an argument or a discussion with the polis.

[retrocop]

For a mod who rides rough shod over Site Rules you obviously believe you can because you think you are teflon coated . You are trolling and deliberately disrupting this thread. One that you say you have no interest but happy to turn this thread into childish spat. Whatever substance you are currently taking I suggest if it is medically prescribed you consult your doctor and ask for something different. It is not working and is affecting your mental health and emotional well being. Of course if it is some other substance then there is nothing to be done except trying to desist. Please would you kindly go away. You have already made a fool of yourself so many times with your appalling childish behaviour today

[andy-hughes]

That's the difference between you and I retrocop.

I have been here a lot longer than you have.

I have had far more people vex me for more deeply than you have.

But I never forget their absolute right to post as they wish, the same right I enjoy.

And I never tell them to 'go away', which is arrogant and rude, and I would never make snide remarks about any medical conditions I might know about, because that is cruel and unforgiveable, and I always try to answer questions as honestly as I can.

And that is why I have been here from Day One, and I have seen more nasty arrogant and cruel posters cone and go, and I am still here.

I don't take the site, or myself, or people like you, too seriously, it helps not to make me as nasty and angry and personal as you are.

So no, I will not go away, I will post as I wish, and you have to put up with it, like I put up with you.

It's not 'your' thread, or 'your' site, we are all here as and when we choose to be.

You are not a policeman now, you have no power here, so post your posts, and I will reply, and if you don't like it, you have a simple choice.

Sleep well.

[anneasquith]

22.17, I thought you were sent to bed ?

[douglas9401]

Aye, probably get detention now. Is this fair? :-)

[anneasquith]

It’s life .