Jump to content

IOM Constabulary recruitment


joebean

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Derek Flint said:

A senior police officer from the island told me only a couple of weeks ago that "things have moved on since your day". 

They are due to be appointing a dedicated engagement officer soon who is very well experienced, so perhaps things will go to a new level.

At the rate they are deploying armed response recently, I expect the engagement officer to be RoboCop.

https://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/armed-officers-dispatched-to-castletown-as-isle-of-man-police-release-statement-713387

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Derek Flint said:

A senior police officer from the island told me only a couple of weeks ago that "things have moved on since your day". 

They are due to be appointing a dedicated engagement officer soon who is very well experienced, so perhaps things will go to a new level.

Thanks for your comment. 
 

In my opinion all police social media posts should go through an engagement officer. You wouldnt see other government departments posting in such a way. Side note, ex police inspector Andy Kneen does an excellent job with the DOI social media. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Gladys said:

I am sure Peelian principles do persist in current codes and policies, there is much to hang on to.   It was an unattributed quote from nearly 200 years ago, that may have benefitted from some attribution.

Unfortunately, often with even 200 year old soundbites, if you develop them further,  they lose the intended impact.  So, if the absence of crime and disorder is the measure of success, the fact that there is still crime and disorder is a measure of failure.

Not that I believe the police have failed, far from it,  and I do appreciate that there are many complexities. :rolleyes:

Exactly the sort of debate needed. There's so many different models and approaches that sometimes are inadequately explored

16 minutes ago, cissolt said:

At the rate they are deploying armed response recently, I expect the engagement officer to be RoboCop.

https://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/armed-officers-dispatched-to-castletown-as-isle-of-man-police-release-statement-713387

We've been through this. More an indication that historically  there was a reluctance to send the appropriate resource. 

3 minutes ago, Maugholdmafia said:

Thanks for your comment. 
 

In my opinion all police social media posts should go through an engagement officer. You wouldnt see other government departments posting in such a way. Side note, ex police inspector Andy Kneen does an excellent job with the DOI social media. 

The staff should be trained and empowered. At the end of the day SM is just another mode of communication. Something has been lost somewhere but hopefully the new appointee will be an educator who can cascade that.

And yes, Andy is brilliant. He's transformed the reputation 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even the rise in votes for the 'Reform Party' can be seen to have shaped/entitled the current anti immigration far right riots.

Reform didn't get many seats but got a lot of votes, those people will have used the votes to try to justify their politics and actions ???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, John Wright said:

Are you sure? Or is that the measure of an oppressive totalitarian regime, where difference, independence of view, dissent are suppressed. And strange offences and mental health diagnoses are dreamt up to oppress and suppress.

Sounds very 1984ish, and worrying.

You make all that sound like a bad thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, John Wright said:

It’s never as simple as that. There may be all sorts of defences…

…There were legitimate medical reasons not to blow …

 

I can’t think of any legitimate medical reasons not to blow. I can accept that someone might not have the vital capacity or FEV1 to register a correct reading, but to ‘refuse to blow’ - that’s just bollocks. 
 

Getting people off when they’re bang to rights guilty is what brings the legal profession (and the medico-legal wing of my own profession) into disrepute. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Amadeus said:

They were lucky this was in the UK. Try that at an US airport and it’s lethal force almost guaranteed and justified under their rules. 

Thing is police in the US are trigger happy mainly because just about everyone they stop has a gun and are willing to use it. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, cissolt said:

At the rate they are deploying armed response recently, I expect the engagement officer to be RoboCop.

https://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/armed-officers-dispatched-to-castletown-as-isle-of-man-police-release-statement-713387

Bring back Roberts all is forgiven. This maniac in charge thinks we’re all living in some Brazilian flavella. Gun toting pigs on every estate it appears now. Wanting to close borders and id. And no one is asking any questions about it. 
the article says there was no harm to the public, yes there is, there’s ppolicemen with loaded guns walking round. 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Gizo said:

Bring back Roberts all is forgiven. This maniac in charge thinks we’re all living in some Brazilian flavella. Gun toting pigs on every estate it appears now. Wanting to close borders and id. And no one is asking any questions about it. 
the article says there was no harm to the public, yes there is, there’s ppolicemen with loaded guns walking round. 

 

 

 

 

Ever been through a UK Airport recently

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Gizo said:

Bring back Roberts all is forgiven. This maniac in charge thinks we’re all living in some Brazilian flavella. Gun toting pigs on every estate it appears now. Wanting to close borders and id. And no one is asking any questions about it. 
the article says there was no harm to the public, yes there is, there’s ppolicemen with loaded guns walking round. 

 

 

 

 

So what harm was caused to the public?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, John Wright said:

Well, it couldn’t be. He’s been charged, pleaded not guilty and the trial is several months away.

one poster said he wouldn’t have refused to provide a sample if he was not guilty.

I was pointing out three possible technical defences, there are others, there are factual defences. I wasn’t saying any did, or didn’t, apply to him.

It’s sub judice. What is reported in the press doesn’t permit or admit of any conclusions other than

1. He’s been charged and what with

2. he’s pleaded not guilty

3. there’s to be a pre trial review and trial.

out of your 3 technical defences only the second is failure to provide   the first a sample would/could have been provided and the last a sample would/could have been provided , they both rely on technical or clerical failures and not failing to provide anything. the fact said samples might be worthless doesn't mean they weren't provided.

Edited by WTF
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

9 hours ago, Gizo said:

Bring back Roberts all is forgiven. This maniac in charge thinks we’re all living in some Brazilian flavella. Gun toting pigs on every estate it appears now. Wanting to close borders and id. And no one is asking any questions about it. 
the article says there was no harm to the public, yes there is, there’s ppolicemen with loaded guns walking round. 

 

 

 

 

Nobody actually likes deploying armed cops. As a commander you are shouldering an immense responsibility with that decision, but the process you follow - if followed, shows a clear accountability and justification for the option.

As I said, we were actually just sending the wrong assets a lot of the time. When I worked on ARV in the UK back in the 1990's it was the safest place to be because you were always last to be sent!

Just because you send an armed officer doesn't mean they are even going to point a firearm at someone most of the time. The contingency is there though if the threat is high enough

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, WTF said:

out of your 3 technical defences only the second is failure to provide   the first a sample would/could have been provided and the last a sample would/could have been provided , they both rely on technical or clerical failures and not failing to provide anything. the fact said samples might be worthless doesn't mean they weren't provided.

They’d all be charged as fail to provide, and those three are all possible defences

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...