Ok I've snipped and left in the relevant parts of your post.
This is BS.
The police cannot arrest "anyone they see necessary". There is strict criteria for an arrest and it has to be met. Police can arrest for *any offence* now in effect, but the reason for arrest HAS to be one or more of the following things (following the offence);
- Ascertain the persons name
- Ascertain the persons address
- Prevent physical harm to self or another or suffering physical injury
- Prevent loss of or damage to property
- Prevent an offence against public decency
- Prevent an unlawful obstruction of the highway
- Protect a child or vulnerable person
- prevent any prosecution being hindered by the disappearance of the person in question
- Allow a prompt and effective investigation of the offence or of theconduct of the person in question.
Whilst some previously non arrestable offences can now be arrested for under the above circumstances, a lot more offences that were arrestable now become non arrestable as if none of the above applies you can't arrest and the person would then come to the station voluntarily. So actually, it could be argued they have less power. Work that out.
Please post evidence of the increase in complaints due to the change in law. That just isn't true. In fact complaints overall have gone down.
As for spit hoods, these are in use and have been roiled out for normal use by a lot of forces and quite rightly. Why should an officer be spat at and receive nasty communicable diseases such as aids, hepatitis, etc just for doing their job and trying to protect the public?? How can you tell if they're going to spit?? Well, perhaps they've already spat a glob of blood filled sputum at you or your colleagues and is intent on continuing to do so? That would be a pretty good indicator. And there is NO risk to an individual by having one placed on their heads. Again, their use is regulated and it has to be justified and recorded after their use, you can't just put these on anyone. Recently the first police death occurring as a direct result of catching a communicable disease by being spat on was recorded. So yes, they are a necessity evil enforced on us by society.
And taser (as it's spelt) isn't to replace or use against someone using a firearm. It never has been intended for that, and You would never use a taser for this (for one thing, you can only use it within a very short range), you'd use another firearm. They can be used in any situation the officer decides as long as it's justifiable and proportionate, exactly as if the officer was to use their baton or CS spray. It's a very useful tool and used by police, airline stewards and security worldwide, but the UK has the strictest restrictions on use. Remember here were talking about police officers, who deal with very violent individuals on a daily basis, not primary school teachers, a little perspective goes a long way.
What has the Police Federation got to do with anything? They are independent of the police and a separate organisation set up to support officers. They have no sway with regards to how officers are disciplined or set up of complaints procedures, they are just there to support the rights and welfare of officers if a complaint is made against them or they are subject to an investigation. Believe me, when officers are subject of a complaint, professional standards departments are ruthless in their attempts to prove the case, even if it's malicious against the officer. I'm sure if the Polfed could instigate a fully independent process for complaints they would. But again I'm not sure why the Fed have been brought into this thread.
I try to avoid posting in anything that becomes an anti police tirade, but reading rubbish like this is starting to get my goat.
