Message:
Message: written by 
200 Weeks on the 20th May 2012 at 0:06
I posted in December 2011 and this April about the poor service coming from the ambulance service. It had certainly gotten worse between December and April.
In April I reckoned that I was dealing with about a dozen calls a week where an ambulance wasn’t available, sometimes for quite serious injuries and incidents. I have to say it is almost approaching that number a shift now.
In the last couple of shifts we have had several calls for an ambulance but none were available. An 88 year old lady who had fallen behind locked doors. We forced the front door and called am ambulance. None available.
Elderly man who had fallen in the street, no ambulance available. Victim of a stab wound to the arm, no ambulance available. RTC, person with head and leg injuries, no ambulance available. After 45 minutes of waiting and the third or 4th call from our control room to theirs, still no ambulance available but a request from their controller to call them back if the injuries became life-threatening; presumably they think police officers’ first-aid training, such that it is, would make it clear when someone has an injury that might be life threatening. I know on most occasions I dealt with injuries, unless their head was half hanging off I didn’t have a clue if they were likely to die or waltz off into the sunset singing God Save the Queen.
It’s causing a lot of friction between control rooms. I like to think I’m usually pretty friendly and professional when I speak to people, especially those who are in the same kind of business. But I’m getting pretty pissed of speaking to ambulance controllers who are short, snappy and sometimes just downright rude just because you have the temerity to ask if and when an ambulance might arrive. I know some of my colleagues can be rude and snappy too, but that’s not really an excuse to speak to me like that.
I don’t know if it’s just me, but there seem to be lots more calls where the ambulance is declining to attend in the first until an officer has been because the patient is ‘being violent’. Now there are times when someone is being violent, and situations where I wouldn’t anyone with at least a stab proof vest, a big stick, some pepper spray and may be a Taser, to enter first, but these are not the norm. The amount of jobs we get to where absolutely nothing is happening but the ambo has either not been sent yet, or is sitting in another street, seems to be on the increase. It almost seems like the ambo control is using the police service as a triage nurse to find out whether one is actually needed before they send one.
We’re now recording all incidents where an ambulance is not available, the Association of Chief Police Officers is getting involved, apparently. After all, whenever an ambulance isn’t available, it’s the police who have to pick up the workload. we’re now running people to hospital routinely rather than have an officer wait with the patient. We couldn’t possibly just drive off and tell the patient to wait for an ambo, because if they died it would be our fault.
written by Street Watch: Notes of a Paramedic on the 19th May 2012 at 23:22
My List of the 16 Most Significant EMS Treatment Changes in My 20 Years as a Paramedic
I always had a problem with it. The patient was dead. Everyone knew he was dead. He hadn’t been seen since the night before when he’d asked for a cool glass of water. They found him in the morning in his bed, still as can be. He wasn’t breathing and he had no pulse. He looked peacefully there, his head on the pillow, the half-drunk glass of water on the bed stand. He was eighty-nine years old with inoperable cancer. He’d refused hospitalization just two days before. The problem was while there was a little bit of rigor in his jaw, there was no lividity. The room was warm – how he liked it. The family knew he didn’t want any extra measures done to save his life, but they called us because they didn’t know what else to do.
How many times did this or similar scenes play out? The patient ripped from the bed, laid on the hard floor, compressions breaking the chest, tube down the throat, IV, drugs, strapped to a board, carried out of the house to the ambulance in the rain, raced lights and sirens to the hospital, only to be dismissively called dead on the stretcher on entry to the code room. And then later, unseen to us the family received bills for ambulance transport and for ED care.
Everyone was worked and everyone was transported unless they had a DNR bracelet or met the criteria of rigor mortis in the major joints with dependent lividity.
We finally instituted some changes in our system. Medics were encouraged to use their judgment and call medical control, explain a situation and get permission not to intervene. If they did work the code and the patient was asystole, we could work a patient for 20 minutes, and then cease the resuscitation at home, call the patient dead, remove the tube, lift the person back up, put them back in bed, pull the sheet up to the neck, and have the family come in to say goodbye.
For a number of years, we could presume the patient on our own, but then once we developed statewide guidelines on termination, in the interests of solidarity with the other regions, we agreed to require our medics to call a physician for permission to cease. I have never yet had a doctor disagree with my request to cease. I am somewhat bothered by the requirement that we have to initiate CPR until the doctor gives the final concurrence, although I suppose that protects us if the doctor were ever to say, no, I want you to work the patient and bring him in. It has happened to others.
Sometimes, I have the family come into the room while we were still doing CPR, and have them say goodbye before we stop. What a sight that can be. A family one by one saying good bye to the 100-year old aunt in the room where she has lived the last ten years of her life. The love you see, the things they say, the tenderness. “Auntie Mae, I’m going to look out for Junior, for you, you know that.” “Auntie Mae, I love you, I love you my whole life.” “You going to rest now, Auntie Mae, you going where the fields are green.” Sometimes, they just give a kiss, and whisper something into the ear. A husband says, we’ll be together again. Wait for me.
I have seen this scene play out a number of times and I have always considered myself privileged to be there to witness it.
We do all we can. The families know when a loved one’s time has come. Their spouce, or mother or father or sister or brother, grandparent, aunt or uncle, dies at home, surrounded with their love and thoughts in their last moments, with some kind of dignity.
The National Association of Emergency Medical Physicians has termination of resuscitation rules that have a 100% predictive value for determining death. A study done at Yale showed that 54% of cardiac arrests brought into their ED met national guidelines for being called at home. They were all declared dead in the ED.
I understand that sometimes there may be reasons to transport dead people and that every scene is different. But as the American Heart Association said in its 2005 Guidelines:
“Civil rules, administrative concerns, medical insurance requirements, and even reimbursement enhancement have frequently led to requirements to transport all cardiac arrest victims to a hospital or ED. If these requirements are nonselective, they are inappropriate, futile, and ethically unacceptable.”
Termination of Resuscitation Protocols is # 6 on my list of best treatment changes in the last 20 years.
***
Here are our regional guidelines on termination on nontraumatic cardiac arrests:
TERMINATION OF RESUSCITATIVE EFFORTS (PARAMEDIC LEVEL ONLY):
NONTRAUMATIC CARDIAC ARREST
Discontinuation of CPR and ALS intervention may be implemented after contact with medical
direction if all of the following criteria have been met.
1. Patient must be least 18 years of age.
2. Patient is in cardiac arrest at the time of arrival of advanced life support, no pulse, no
respirations, and no heart sounds.
3. ACLS is administered for at least twenty (20) minutes, according to AHA/ACLS Guidelines
4. There is no return of spontaneous pulse and no evidence of neurological function (nonreactive pupils, no response to pain, no spontaneous movement).
5. Patient is asystolic in two (2) leads
6. No evidence or suspicion of any of the following: drug/toxin overdose, hypothermia,
active internal bleeding, preceding trauma.
7. All Paramedic personnel involved in the patient’s care agree that discontinuation of the
resuscitation is appropriate.
All seven items must be clearly documented in the ambulance patient care report
(PCR).
DMO should be established prior to termination of resuscitation in the field. The final decision to terminate resuscitative efforts should be a consensus between the on-scene paramedic and the DMO physician.
CONTACT DMO for confirmation of terminating resuscitation efforts.
If any of the above criteria are not met and there are special circumstances whereby
discontinuation of pre-hospital resuscitation is desired, contact DMO.
Logistical factors should be considered, such as collapse in a public place, family wishes, and safety of the crew and public. Examples: Inability to extricate the patient, significant physical environmental barriers, unified family wishes with presence of a living will.
All patients who are found in ventricular fibrillation or whose rhythm changes to ventricular
fibrillation should in general have full resuscitation continued and be transported.
Patients who arrest after arrival of EMS should be transported.
***
Here is a link to a blog post detailing a call where the decision to resucitate was complicated:
Here is a link to a survey on this issue I conducted a couple years back:
Here is a link to the NAEMP’s position paper.
***
16 Most Significant EMS Treatment Changes in My 20 Years as a Paramedic
7. Decreased Use of Lights and Sirens
8. Selective Spinal Immobilization Guidelines
9. Alternative Airways
10. Chemical Restraint
11. No More Lasix
12. EZ-IO
13. Permissive Hypotension
14.Expanded Medication Routes, Less IV Emphasis
15. Narrower Use of Narcan
16. Increased Standing Orders
written by Xf on the 19th May 2012 at 18:54
written by Trauma Queen on the 19th May 2012 at 15:35
This year we have guests.
A professor and his gang of PhD students have come along to undertake research into the effects of standing in the desert all day. They’re here to take blood and urine samples from the marshalls who spend an entire week out in the sand.
Their hypothesis is that being in the desert makes you dehydrated.
I pretty much agree.
The thing is, the best way to get out to a group of marshalls is by flying out to them.
And we’re the guys with the helicopters.
So they’re with us.
I have to admit, I’m not initially thrilled by the idea.
I’m already nervous about being in charge of an aircraft’s operations – and that’s with the knowledge that everyone (with the granted exception of the patients we will receive) will have a reasonable idea of, say, which part of the helicopter not to walk into if you don’t want to be turned into pink slime.
When we all chat over a beer in the evening, they’re excited and enthusiastic and charming.
In short, they’re exactly the sort of people you’d want to work with.
Now, if I could feel a little more confident in what I’m doing and stop worrying about them dying in some horrible way on my watch, I’ll be totally happy….
written by Surrey Constabulary Blog on the 19th May 2012 at 12:32
A PROMINENT N/Yorks councillor has pulled out of the race to be the new police commissioner for North Yorkshire and launched a scathing attack on its current police authority, condemning what he called a culture of “secrecy and suspicion” which needs to be overhauled.
Councillor Jim Clark
Coun Jim Clark, a member of Harrogate Borough Council and North Yorkshire County Council and chair of the North Yorkshire Health Scrutiny Committee, told the Yorkshire Post he felt there needs to be a clean sweep of the North Yorkshire Police Authority (NYPA) following the scandal-hit reign of former Chief Constable Grahame Maxwell, who stepped down this week after admitting gross misconduct, but is to receive almost a quarter of a million pounds in compensation.
Coun Clark was set to seek formal nomination for the Conservative party candidate in North Yorkshire for the commissioner elections in November, a position also likely to be challenged by police authority chairman Jane Kenyon, who is yet to rule herself out, and fellow member Carl Les who has confirmed he is considering a bid.
But last night the former senior chartered accountant told the Yorkshire Post he has now ruled himself out of the role of commissioner, to focus on other priorities.
“There are also a number of other issues but I just feel there has not been an open and transparent culture at the authority,” he said.
“I just think there needs to be a clean sweep.
“I still have a number of concerns about shortcomings in the way finance has been dealt with in our area and as a senior chartered accountant with business experience at the highest level I felt I could make considerable improvement.
“My main concern, however, was policing in my local area and following a recent meeting with senior police officers I believe my ideas for improvement and public engagement can be taken forward in my current role as a local county councillor.
“I do think commissioners are a good thing because the police authority has lost its credibility to some extent.
“This way there will be more accountability and I hope things will be more open and transparent.”
Coun Clark has also raised concerns over the election process for the new commissioners.
He added: “There is going to be such a low turn out because we have never had elections at that time before and we could finish up with somebody who is completely unprepared.”
Mr Maxwell narrowly avoided being sacked last May when he admitted gross misconduct after an inquiry found he tried to unfairly help a relative during a recruitment exercise. His request to extend his five-year fixed-term contract beyond this May was turned down last autumn by his employer, North Yorkshire Police Authority.
This week the authority confirmed Mr Maxwell will receive £247,636 – a figure described as “ridiculous” by one MP – as he was required to leave his £133,000 a year post before being able to secure the full pension entitlement available to officers after 30 years of service.
The payment is governed by nationally-agreed chief officer regulations and the authority has no option but to pay up.
Jeremy Holderness, chief executive of North Yorkshire Police Authority, reacted angrily to Coun Clark’s comments last night.
“I am quite frankly baffled by Mr Clark’s assertions that the authority has been secretive about these events,” he said.
“At every turn we have kept the media and the public informed about developments and, I think it is fair to say, have a good reputation amongst the media, and especially this newspaper, for responding to their enquiries, not only on this issue but on all others.
“Where many public authorities might seek to conceal information or use the exemption provisions of the Freedom of Information Act to do so, we have consistently not done so and applied the public interest test appropriately to disclose as much information as possible.
“I really feel that Mr Clark’s criticism is unwarranted and regret that he feels this way.”
Contenders are starting to emerge for Yorkshire’s four police commissioner posts, which are expected to carry salaries of between £70,000 and £100,000.
Lord Prescott, the former Deputy Prime Minister, is among five people seeking the Labour nomination for the Humberside force area and has already said he wants commissioners to be able to interfere in police operations.
Meredydd Hughes is seeking Labour’s nomination for the role in South Yorkshire, where he served as Chief Constable until last October.
Would-be police tsar on attack as he quits race
See: Disgraced chief constable who tried to help relative get a job is given £250,000 golden goodbye
And:
written by Shijuro is not georgedixon's Blog on the 19th May 2012 at 10:17
Funny how freedom of speech only applies to certain people eh?
Love the story of the West Mids bobby that has been disciplined for tweeting his pride and delight at being part of a team that arrested two scumbags that are up for the brutal assault of an old dear in her home… They broke her eye socket, fractured her skullbruised her PALMS and sprayed her blood on the wall!
The bobby is young in service (apparently) and still full of the joys of arresting trash…
That will teach him eh?
More to fear from your own management than criminals?
Welcome to the modern police…
written by Shijuro is not georgedixon's Blog on the 19th May 2012 at 10:12
I see Kier Starmer isshocked that cops archoosing not to pursue criminals (opps…sorry innocent until proven guilty policed by consent citizens) because they are “scared of the outcome should anything happen”…
No! You think? Wow! Glad you’re here to tell us these things Kier…
Nooffence MOPS but this is what you want… Now you got it… Deal…
written by Surrey Constabulary Blog on the 19th May 2012 at 9:33
Government tone appears to be more conciliatory and open to suggestion, says Ian Rennie.
The General Secretary of the Police Federation has said he is optimistic that the latest set of Winsor’s recommendations will be discussed in a measured way.
Ian Rennie said that he had found the tone of ministers to be “more conciliatory” and he hoped that the negotiation process through the Police Negotiating Board would be “more effective than with the last set of proposals”.
“Let me be clear on this point – policing is not for sale.”
He told this website: “There seems to be more willingness for negotiation and I am optimistic that the process as a whole will be better this time around.”
As previously reported, the PNB first met to discuss the Winsor II recommendations on pay and remuneration in April and a working group has been set up.
The group is holding a series of meetings before the PNB convenes again in July.
Mr Rennie was speaking after addressing members of the Police Federation of England and Wales at their annual conference in Bournemouth.
He used his speech to press home the Federation’s criticism of the pay and conditions proposals, which include lower starting salaries for officers, minimum entry requirements for the Police Service and annual fitness tests.
Mr Rennie told delegates Mr Winsor had no previous experience or knowledge of the police “nor knowledge of pay systems or employee relations”.
He said the review had been carried out “by an individual who values his opinion more than others” and which “was central to the government’s ideology”.
Mr Rennie challenged the assertion in the Winsor reports that reform of the police, including the power to introduce compulsory severance, was needed because the next three decades will be more challenging than the last.
He said: “Mr Winsor states that chief constables need tools including the power to make police officers redundant because there will be less money.
“But why should the last 30 years be any more challenging than the last? There were five recessions in the last century, and three have been in the last 30 years.”
Mr Rennie went on to attack the use of large scale privatisation by some police forces, adding: “Let me be clear on this point – policing is not for sale.”
written by POLICE INSPECTOR BLOG on the 19th May 2012 at 9:31
Last year’s Manchester Pride queen is to stand for police commissioner.
Mr Felse – whose drag alter ego is Ethol Mary – also stood for the English Democrats in last week’s Salford mayoral contest. He came eighth, but he still harbours political ambitions. The youth worker, who led hundreds of floats through Manchester last August Bank Holiday, said police are not visible enough on Greater Manchester’s streets.
Mr Felse, 62, from Lawrence Quay, Salford, said he would concentrate on getting ‘bobbies back on the beat’, particularly in areas where people feel intimidated by high levels of crime.
He said while campaigning for mayor he found many Salfordians living in a climate of fear. Mr Felse thinks as many candidates as possible should now stand for the powerful new police chief role. He said: “The police are extremely important so it’s extremely important that a number of people come forward. At the moment there’s only the Labour candidate. I have a very clear direction on policing. I think it’s very wrong that we don’t have police on the beat as we used to.”
Mr Felse, a welfare officer at the Manchester-wide Northern Wave gay and lesbian swimming club, once described his drag queen alter ego as looking ‘more like a Grimsby docker than Lady Gaga’.
He stood as an English Democrat candidate in Dewsbury three years ago before becoming the party’s candidate in the Salford’s mayoral race on a pledge to slash council tax by 50 per cent. The community worker polled 3.6pc of the vote, meaning he lost his deposit.
He said if the party does not ask him to run for them in the police commissioner race, he will stand as an independent.
The new police chief role will have the power to hire and fire the chief constable and supervise the force’s budget It is being introduced in all 41 policing areas nationwide.
Meanwhile; Conservative PCC ‘poster-boy’ Colonel Tim Collins has pulled out of the race because he can’t make the interviews. We eagerly await news of Katie Price; I suspect that she will drop Hampshire Constabulary blaming them for using her to further their careers and embarrassing her on the telly.
written by Surrey Constabulary Blog on the 19th May 2012 at 8:45
The public would be less likely to report a crime if a private firm was in charge of their personal data, a survey suggested.
The Unite union said the poll of more than 1,200 people in the West Midlands showed unease over a proposed £1.5bn police privatisation scheme.
The West Midlands and Surrey forces have delayed the process to bring private firms further into policing.
But West Midlands Police said the force remained “committed to the project”.
‘Breathing space’
The scheme was not aimed at outsourcing particular jobs or roles, but instead using firms’ expertise, systems and technology to transform the way forces do things, the forces have said.
Three in five of more than 1,200 people questioned would be less likely to report a crime if their personal information was being accessed by a third party, the survey showed.
The same proportion also said they were not comfortable with private firms handling 999 calls, crime detection or investigations.
Peter Allenson, Unite’s national officer, said: “West Midlands and Surrey police forces have realised that the public do not want privatisation but they have not dropped the plans altogether.
‘Very dangerous’
“They are simply buying themselves breathing space but no length of time will convince people that profit and policing are a good fit.”
He added that this was “a very dangerous move” which its survey showed “risks alienating the public from the police force that is meant to serve it”.
The two forces delayed the process to bring private companies further into policing on Thursday “to allow engagement with the market, public consultation and to allow both forces to contribute to a safe and secure Olympics”.
Surrey Chief Constable Lynne Owens said there was a need to pause for further consultation in the face of concern among officers and the public.
West Midlands Police insisted it remained “committed to exploring with the private sector the potential to transform policing and to improve services to the public”.
written by Surrey Constabulary Blog on the 19th May 2012 at 8:35
Bill clause would allow home secretary to transfer responsibility for anti-terror policing to national crime agency
Theresa May says there will be no wholesale review of the Met’s anti-terrorism role until after the Olympics.
The home secretary, Theresa May, has quietly taken powers to strip Scotland Yard of its national counter-terrorism role in the aftermath of the Olympics.
The move, which could lead to counter-terrorism policing being assigned to the new national crime agency (NCA) after it is set up next April, is contained in an enabling clause in the crime and courts bill, which is to be given a second reading in the House of Lords on Monday 28 May.
The 2,000-strong counter-terrorism command of the Metropolitan police was created in 2006 but has its roots in the early 1970s when the anti-terrorist branch and the “bomb squad” was set up to counter the threat from anarchist groups, such as the Angry Brigade, as well take part in the campaign against the IRA.
The home secretary has publicly said that no wholesale review of the future of the Met’s anti-terrorism role will be undertaken until after the Olympics but there is growing belief within Scotland Yard that a firm view already exists within the Home Office.
The national crime agency will include separate commands covering organised crime, border policing, economic crime and child exploitation. It will also include the national cybercrime unit and will for the first time have a national police intelligence role with the authority to “task” other police forces and law enforcement agencies.
Clause two of the crime and courts bill gives the home secretary the power to transfer counter-terrorism functions to the NCA by making an order. The enabling clause specifically rules out any NCA officers conducting operations in Northern Ireland without the express agreement of the chief constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland.
A decision to remove such a key national function from the Met is likely to fundamentally change the nature of the force. Cressida Dick, the assistant commissioner in charge of the Met’s specialist operations, which includes the counter-terrorism command, holds a higher rank than Keith Bristow, the Warwickshire chief constable, who is due to become the head of the national crime agency when it is set up next April.
A Home Office spokesman said: “The government has been clear that decisions on the future of counter-terrorism policing will not be taken until after the 2012 London Olympic and Paralympic Games and the NCA is fully established.”
The possibility that the home secretary would seek parliamentary approval for the power to strip Scotland Yard of this role was first set out in the Home Office’s plan for the national crime agency that it published last year. Home Office sources said that it simply negates the need for primary legislation should a decision be taken in future.
John Graham, director of the Police Foundation, an independent criminal justice thinktank, said counter-terrorism work was one of the things that the Met did extremely well. But he said that it took up a large share of resources and if the force were no longer responsible it might lead to an improved performance in its other roles.
Graham added that those setting up the NCA were already “running to catch up” and had a lot of work to do to prepare it for the functions already assigned to it.
Some senior Scotland Yard sources are concerned at the possible disruption to the existing working relationships between the Met and MI5, the regional special branch network, and other police forces. But it is understood that the Met police commissioner, Bernard Hogan-Howe, is relaxed about whether the move goes ahead or not.
Theresa May takes powers to strip Met of counter-terrorism role
written by 200 Weeks on the 19th May 2012 at 0:30
We had the financial arrangements letter from the Education Department through recently.
I recall, when the government said that they were allowing universities to up their charges to 9 grand, they said that universities actually charging 9 grand would be the exception to the rule. Yeah, right.
My first child was paying just over 3 grand a year for her tuition fees. My second child starts when my first finishes, just one year later my second child will be paying £8,500 tuition fees. Technically, the government were right in that her fees aren’t the maximum. This is true, over three years she gets to pay a whopping £1,500 less than the maximum £24,000. A bargain.
I never went to uni, I sometimes wish I had, mainly so that I could have gotten a different career. In just one generation we have gone from a free education, to one where a child will come out of uni with a minimum of £36,000 in debt.
But it’s OK though, because not only do the government loan the kids the money for the course, they’ll also loan them money for living expenses. Mine will get £4,500. The trouble is that her accommodation will cost almost £4,000, leaving her £450 for the year to buy food, books, transport.
So when anyone asks why I still bother to do the job I do, when I could be laying back 7 days a week on a police pension, I point them to the above figures.
written by Surrey Constabulary Blog on the 18th May 2012 at 18:48
Police officers chasing speeding criminals are too frightened to put their foot down for fear of being prosecuted for dangerous driving.
Yesterday the Police Federation said hundreds of officers around the country were worried about undertaking high speed pursuits due to the risk of them being hauled before the courts.
The Director of Public Prosecutions Keir Starmer, QC, is now carrying out an urgent review after the Federation warned that officers could refuse to pursue fugitives, burglars, carjackers and other dangerous offenders if the law on dangerous driving is not changed to provide exemptions for 999 emergencies.
Police officers chasing speeding criminals are too frightened to put their foot down for fear of being prosecuted for dangerous driving
The extraordinary move comes after the prosecution of a police patrol officer for dangerous driving even though no complaint was made about his driving and no members of the public were injured.
PC James Holden was following a serial burglar who raced through several red lights and went the wrong way along a section of dual carriageway before his stolen van crashed through a railway barrier in Cosham, Hampshire.
No one was injured and the officer from Hampshire Constabulary stopped the pursuit before he reached the railway barrier.
The thief who ran from the scene was caught by another patrol on the other side of the railway.
The Director of Public Prosecutions Keir Starmer, QC, is now carrying out an urgent review
Despite no complaints being made, senior officers, who routinely review police pursuits, deemed that the chase had gone on too long and had put lives and properties at risk.
An independent review by another force expert described PC Holden’s driving as ‘admirable’, ‘not careless, reckless or dangerous’ and ‘typical of an urban pursuit’.
However Hampshire Police referred the case to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) who decided to prosecute the officer for dangerous driving.
After just two hours of deliberations, a jury cleared the constable of any wrongdoing at Guildford Crown Court in February this year.
But the landmark case has raised fears that dozens of other police patrol officers could face prosecution simply for trying to catch a fleeing criminal.
More than a hundred rank and file officers have contacted the Police Federation to say they are worried about putting their foot down when chasing an offender.
There are also fears that the case could deter surveillance teams from tailing terrorist suspects in the run-up to the Olympics if the officers feel that they are vulnerable to prosecution.
Paramedics and firefighters have also expressed concerns about the case.
Mr Starmer is now carrying out a review of CPS guidance after the case was raised Sir Hugh Orde, head of the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO).
The national ACPO lead on police driving Assistant Chief Constable Andy Holt has also written to all chief constables regarding a review of the legislation.
Yesterday Chairman of the Hampshire Police Federation John Apter said: ‘In some cases police officers are saying I do not want to go through what PC Holden went through just for doing my job.
‘I am not going to put my foot down.’ He went on: ‘Some officers have decided that the risk to them is not worth it. I understand that position.
‘You are trained to do a job and if you do it you are worried about gripping a rail in a dock.’
Mr Apter stressed that the federation was not calling for an total exemption on prosecution for police officers, but that it was necessary to provide allowances for 999 emergencies.
He said: ‘I think that the reality is if nothing is done, police officers will lose faith in the system.
‘If police officers lose faith and do not feel they have any support, they will minimise the risks to themselves.
‘I can see officers refusing to pursue which would be very sad for the police and for the public- it would be Christmas for criminals.’
Currently members of the emergency services have no special exemption from prosecution when responding to 999 calls, they owe the same duty of care as a member of the public.
But yesterday Mr Starmer said: ‘A number of concerns have been raised with me about the case of PC Holden.
‘I do not propose to comment on the case itself, but I have decided that CPS policy guidance in relation to dangerous driving should be reviewed, including the way in which it is applied to members of the emergency services.
‘The CPS will consult with the police before finalising the revised policy guidance.’
Police afraid car chases will land them in court are avoiding high-speed pursuit of criminals
See also: End of the road for police pursuits?
written by Surrey Constabulary Blog on the 18th May 2012 at 15:54
Forces set out next stages of £1.5bn private partnership scheme which they say is necessary in face of reduced funding
Chris Sims, the West Midlands chief constable, with David Cameron last August.
Two chief constables have warned that the next round of police spending cuts could be deeper than the 20% reductions currently faced by forces in England and Wales.
The most senior officers of the West Midlands and Surrey forces outlined the next stages of their joint £1.5bn business partnering programme, which will give the private sector its largest ever role in policing.
Both chief constables said they were not engaged in privatising core policing functions. The West Midlands police plans included privately owned city centre police bases with “virtual receptions” and private “prisoner removal units”.
Surrey’s chief constable, Lynne Owens, told her police authority that the savings from the programme were needed because “it is clear that the financial situation for forces … is unlikely to improve. Indeed, early indications are that cuts in the next comprehensive spending review could be even more significant.
“My absolute priority must be to protect our frontline policing, undertaken by Surrey police and staff with the support of partners, and I need to reflect on every opportunity that enables me to do that.”
Chris Sims, the West Midlands chief constable, warned his police authority that the private partnership programme was needed as part of a “major transformation” in the way his force works, to deliver the probable “further public spending reductions” in the next comprehensive spending review.
The 20% cut in Whitehall police grants to forces in England and Wales applies to the Treasury’s current comprehensive spending review period, which covers four years until 2014. The outcome of the next round of public spending cuts is expected to be announced next autumn.
The two forces are to agree a shortlist of suitable bidders for the contract on Friday. In the face of widespread criticism that the plan risks crossing the line into the privatisation of core police services, both forces have decided to slow the timetable to allow more public consultation over the summer.
The exercise will test, among other things, the public appetite for greater private-sector involvement in policing.
The inclusion of patrolling and criminal investigation services in the original contract specification led to suggestions the two forces were planning to privatise policing on an unprecedented scale. Surrey police have gone so far as to say that they regard the “reputation impact of continued media interest incorrectly referring to the programme as ‘police privatisation’” as a formal risk. “This has been placed on the force risk register and a series of control measures have been put in place,” says the official police authority report.
Sims challenged the privatisation claim. “We are the experts at policing. Policing will not be privatised and is not for sale,” he said. Officers would continue to respond to calls, patrol the streets and investigate crimes.
“We recognise there are many areas where we are not the experts … We have many functions that help our organisation run that are not unique to policing … A private partner could continue to work alongside us for a number of years providing services, running support functions and adding their creativity or technology to help us improve core policing,” Sims said.
The West Midlands force says it does not want specify in detail what is involved, but instead offers five different case studies, most of them involving the use of new technology. One scenario involves a travelling football fan who after attending a match at Wolves’s Molineux stadium drops into a privately owned city centre police base to ask about becoming a special constable.
“Mark [the fictitious football fan] is instantly at ease and impressed by the accessible, open and vibrant environment. To his surprise the location is a shared venture in partnership and not owned by the police. Mark is even more impressed by the options available to interact and explore his query to get the answers required. Using an informative virtual reception area with access to face-to-face advice if appropriate, Mark is able to obtain the information needed to progress his application.”
In a second scenario a private “prisoner removal unit” is sent to pick up a suspect who has been arrested by a neighbourhood patrol officer, so that he no longer has to go back to the station.
Labour’s policing spokesman, David Hanson, said it was clear that fear of further government cuts was pushing the police to consider private contracts that crossed the line into core public policing. “We already know that 16,000 officers will be lost as a result of current cuts. Now it is clear that senior police officers believe further substantial cuts are on the horizon and that they are pursuing private contracts for large sections of policing as a result,” he said.
“Public private partnerships can play a really important role, especially on new technology and new ways of working. However, there have to be safeguards. And core public policing should not be contracted out in the interests of justice and public confidence,” he said.
A Home Office spokesman said: “It is too early to predict what the next spending review will hold for the police, but the government will always ensure forces have the resources required to carry out their vital role.”
written by Trauma Queen on the 18th May 2012 at 15:35
It’s better to ask forgiveness than permission, or at least that’s what we figured when we arranged (somewhat outside the knowledge of the greenkeeper…) for the helicopters to land on the hotel golf course so we could all deploy straight from breakfast on day one.
Waiting for the three of them to come in, Wayne gives a quick briefing to the team…
then talks me through selecting a landing site.
“Pick your site. Then stand in front of it with your hands in the air like this. If they don’t like the spot, they won’t land there and you’ll stand there with your arms up looking like a cock.”
At every possible moment I’m at him, asking questions, clarifying points. If I could have get away with it I’d scalp him and eat his brains in an attempt to learn everything I could about SAR-ing (its a new word, shut up, I’m the writer).
Watching the three helos coming in in formation is undeniably awesome, watching them line up along the fairway in line and spin down, ready for action, is spine-tingling.
A hotel guest in a golf buggy comes over the rise and cruises past, laughing.
“Did you guys see me skip a stroke?”
Yes sir, we’re the golf course police, flying squad, you’re coming with us. Leave your nine iron.
We chat to the pilots, agree our first way point and I hover on the side like an irritating little brother, reshuffling bags in the cabin, tightening straps. In truth I’m doing nothing of value, but more showing that look look, I’m SAR too….
Sure kid.
Get in.
In the back we sit down, strap in and I look over at Lilli who is, as far as I can tell, about ready to pee her pants.
I take a moment from trying to learn everything there is to know about not crashing a helicopter by thinking the wrong thing and instead remember my first flight with Christina three years ago.
The buzz of the lift off, the lurch of the cabin as the ground drops away, pressing your face against the window and pinching yourself that, my god, this is for real.
I take a picture on Lilli’s camera for her.
She’s grinning like an idiot.
Her excitement settles me down, encourages me to enjoy the moment and I take advantage of the minutes before take off to drop my worries about this new role and instead luxuriate in her buzzing anticipation.
written by Surrey Constabulary Blog on the 18th May 2012 at 15:30
Home Secretary Theresa May has rejected an accusation of a conflict of interest in Lincolnshire Police’s decision to award a £200m contract to G4S.
The home secretary said Mr Winsor was “entirely independent”
At the Police Federation conference, Mrs May was asked about Tom Winsor, a partner of a law firm which advised the security company on the deal.
In 2010, Mr Winsor was appointed by the government to author an independent report on police reform.
Mrs May told the conference there was no overlap between Mr Winsor’s roles.
In February, Lincolnshire Police agreed a deal to pay G4S £200m over 10 years to deliver a range of services, including human resources, finance and IT.
Mr Winsor, whose review proposed changes in how the police are paid, is a partner at White and Case but the firm said he played no part in its work advising G4S.
Before joining the firm Mr Winsor spent five years as a rail regulator.
‘Vested interest’
The home secretary was asked about his appointment by delegate Sarah Adams at the conference in Bournemouth.
Ms Adams said: “When you appointed Tom Winsor to carry out your independent review of policy, did you know that the law firm Tom Winsor is part of, which is White and Case, was negotiating the multi-million groundbreaking deal for G4S with Lincolnshire Police?
“How can it be fair and independent if there’s a vested interest?”
Mrs May said: “Tom Winsor did his review entirely independently. He did not do that review as part of the firm – he did it as an individual.
“You might not like all the answers that came out of the Winsor Review but there is a process whereby the federation’s voice will be heard in response to these proposals.”
‘No contact’
Barry Young, chairman of Lincolnshire Police Authority, agreed there had been no conflict of interest.
He said: “My understanding is the work he’s done for the government in relation to his report on pay and conditions was as Tom Winsor and not the firm White and Case. I see no conflict of interest whatsoever.”
A spokesperson for White and Case said: “The firm rejects any suggestion of a conflict of interest between Tom Winsor’s independent police pay review and any of the firm’s clients.
“The police pay review was undertaken by Mr Winsor in his personal capacity and who was appointed, in such capacity as an impartial reviewer, by the home secretary.”
A spokesperson for G4S said: “There has been absolutely no conflict of interest: Mr Winsor has not been involved in any capacity with the legal team which advised us on our contract with Lincolnshire Police.
“Furthermore no member of the G4S policing team has even had contact with Mr Winsor.”
Theresa May denies conflict of interest in Lincolnshire Police deal
written by Surrey Constabulary Blog on the 18th May 2012 at 10:32
As sweeteners go it was a pretty sour one.
Home Secretary Theresa May attempted to appease the lion’s den of the the Police Federation of England and Wales conference by saying officers with less than 10 years to serve will not have their pensions touched by this government.
If you are over 45 you are safe, she added in her keynote speech.
Did she want a round of applause? Was this a calculated move to please an angry audience?
Most delegates at the conference in Bournemouth probably fit into one if not both of those two categories – so maybe she was trying to stop them giving her a hard time.
It didn’t work.
What it has done is immediately divide the service. Those that will have, and have it soon, and those that will have to wait – and work – a lot longer to have it.
There are now thousands of officers in England and Wales who know their police pensions will be changed. The goal posts will be moved. And they will have to work until 60 to get a full pension.
Understandably they are furious. Those who joined the job at any point from 1992 feel like the contract they signed has been changed.
While police officers are peeved about the government attacks on their pay, it is their future pensions that seem to most concern them.
Increase contributions or tax their lump some payouts and they will fight tooth and nail against it.
Unlike their pay, police officers have no power of negotiation with the government over what happens to their pensions. The Home Office can do what it wants after consultation with relevant stake holders.
So if they want to make police officers increase their contributions they will. And they have.
If they want to change the pensions “deal” then they will. And they are planning to.
This week’s conference heard John Giblin, chairman of the federation’s Sergeants’ Central Committee state: “Our pensions are a fair reward for a job well done after a lifetime of public service. We earn every penny of that pension.”
But this week we found out that many tens of thousands of the country’s cops are going to have to work longer to earn that pension and it does not seem there is much they can do about it.
That will leave a very bad taste in the mouth.
written by Surrey Constabulary Blog on the 18th May 2012 at 10:29
A police officer has been reprimanded after tweeting that he had “arrested the offenders” who battered a 93-year-old woman, and that they were “guilty by suspicion”.
Pc Hanif Sanghar’s tweets have been removed
Pc Hanif Sanghar even alluded to the fact the arrests were going to be made, telling his 2,700 followers that he was “due to be up very early” yesterday morning.
At 5.06am, just over an hour before a 56-year-old woman and a 28-year-old man were arrested on suspicion of assault, he tweeted to a colleague that he was “on an operation”.
Emma Winnall was left with a severed finger, a broken arm and wrist after the attack in her ground-floor flat in Moseley, Birmingham, on May 1.
Police said the arrested woman was not Miss Winnall’s daughter Joyce Blencoe, who is also 56.
Chief Insp Sally Seeley, from West Midlands Police, said: “The man and woman arrested in connection with the attack on Emma Winnall are suspects. They are innocent until proven guilty.”
She said in Pc Sanghar’s keenness to update the public “he used terminology which was wholly inappropriate”.
She added: “The officer has been advised and the tweets removed.”
Police officer reprimanded for tweeting he had arrested offenders who battered 93-year-old woman
written by Surrey Constabulary Blog on the 18th May 2012 at 10:00
A police force has agreed to pay damages to a serving officer of £10,000 after the appeal court ruled that he had been supplied with unsuitable riding boots on the day he had a motorbike crash.
PC Robert Blair, a Sussex Police officer, broke his leg in May 2009 during an off-road training exercise.
He sued the force claiming that he should have been given motocross boots before the ride instead of classic clubman tourer boots, also known as Alt-berg boots.
The motocross boots would have helped prevent the injury, the ruling accepted, after an orthopaedic surgeon said they provided “enhanced protection”.
“It was possible to prevent significant injury to trainees by proving them with stronger boots than the Alt-berg boots and the chief constable is therefore liable.”
PC Blair’s case had initially failed at County Court level but the Court of Appeal reversed the decision on Tuesday (May 15)– accepting his argument that the boots were contrary to the Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992.
Sussex Police says it is now reviewing its policy over the PPE it provides its officers.
A statement said: “Sussex Police respects the decision of the court.
“We will be reviewing our policy regarding equipment issued to officers to see if any changes need making.”
The ruling said the Chief Constable of Sussex Police, Martin Richards, was liable.
Lord Justice Longmore concluded: “It was possible to prevent significant injury to trainees by proving them with stronger boots than the Alt-berg boots and the chief constable is therefore liable.
“I emphasise that this is not to say that the chief constable was in any way negligent at common law.”
PC Blair, a trainee at the time, had successfully negotiated the first part of the track during the advanced motorcycle course.
But the second was heavily rutted, the court ruling said, and the ruts were full of water. While trying to change gear he lost control and the motorbike tilted.
PC Blair then lost control and fell over with the motorbike on top of his lower leg – causing him to sustain the injury. He broke his ankle and his tibia.
Police motorcyclist is handed £10,000 after suing his force following training crash.
Blogger Rankings
Follow us on Twitter
Join us on Facebook
Link to Us
