Inept PSNI

The general view is that the PSNI are so badly managed and the morale of the officer on the beat is so poor it seems as if the PSNI are making it up as they drive along. The PSNI are at best amateur or at worse totally inept.

Let’s not lose sight of the fact that the PSNI’s clear up rate for domestic burglaries
Is a pathetic 10%

I feel that the PSNI are a totally inept police service if it can be described as a service.

I would also like to ask why in this era of peace and a new police beginning, PSNI officers can drive around without seatbelts, drive around with driver or passenger doors ajar, park illegally, visit vehicle insurance companies to arrange their personal insurance, hide behind walls and street furniture, or hide in gardens or just into an area that has a reduced speed to conduct speed traps.

Why does it takes two officers to visit chip shops, sandwich bars, coffee shops and other types of take-a-way establishments when all we hear is that the PSNI are busy and need to prioritize their response to emergency calls?

Call for them to attend an incident and it takes hours if not days. I suppose it depends on the queue in the take-a-way as to the PSNI response?

Why when we have crimes taking place under the PSNI’s noses, crimes like drug dealing, burglary, car crime, crime against property, general anti social behavior, fighting on the streets, drinking in the streets, and the most insidious crime of violence against the elderly, resulting in the elderly being beaten in their homes or murdered protecting their property, this inevitability results in the elderly feel like prisoners in their own homes. Why do we have PSNI officers at midnight on a Friday, operating a speed trap on the Lisburn Road Belfast. It seems the PSNI are putting the gathering of a Tax before protecting the elderly the public, property and before proper road safety! Have these officers nothing better to do.

We all know of the need for speeders to be fined however, how relevant is it to catch a driver doing 4 or 5 miles over the speed limit at midnight on an all most deserted road, is there not a better time and place for this activity. It comes as no surprise that we see the PSNI conducting a speed trap at this time of the night. It can only be seen as an easy option and confirms our view that the PSNI would rather take the easy option rather than protect the vulnerable and terrified in the own homes.

Can I draw this comparison; we have areas of Belfast and Northern Ireland that are well known race tracks for the car thieves and we can all see the tyre marks on the road to prove it and we have well known roads that are race tracts. Yet we find the PSNI on one of Belfast’s most popular thoroughfares conducting a covert speed trap.

This speed trap would not help reduce the speed of the passing traffic. The speed trap was conducted covertly therefore this exposes the PSNI’s propaganda on reducing speeding as a lie. It seems the PSNI are more interested in a Tax Revenue gathering exercise than being actively visible and reducing speeding motorists.

This particular speed trap on the Lisburn Road was conducted by two officers sitting in their marked patrol car facing city bound out side a well known restaurant that sells finger lick-n-chicken. The officer in the driver’s seat was holding the speed camera out the window of the patrol car at traffic travelling city bound. So he was trying to take the speed of vehicles travelling toward him form behind. How can this officer gain prior opinion that a vehicle is exceeding the speed limit and get a proper fix on the vehicle with the camera to obtain a correct speed reading.

I quote form the Chief Police Officers Approved Codes of Practice for hand held speed cameras “Hand-held radar guns should only be operated by an officer on foot“.

I would like to refer you to the Chief Police Officers Approved Codes of Practice

http://www.acpo.police.uk/asp/policies/Data/RPET%20Manual%20version%202-3.pdf

The PSNI should be catching speeding motorists however conducting speed traps at this time in this manor and at this time only leads to the perception that the PSNI are only interested on the easy option and that they are Tax Revenue collectors for the government and making irrelevant quotas.

It seems the correct interpretation of how the PSNI operate is crime is an inconvenience to the police officers duty however, motor crime a nice little earner.

The PSNI would be better concentrating on putting real criminals behind bars or setting up speed traps in country roads catching the speeders, rather racking up fines from drives doing 34 in a 30 zone at midnight!

Questions for the PSNI:
Who is on the Speed Camera Scheme-Partnership and when and where do they meet.
Was there any public consultation on the makeup or operation of this Scheme-partnership?
Can members of the public join this Scheme-partnership?
How much revenue do the speed cameras accumulate, and how much and were does the money go?
Does the money get reinvested in reengineering roads to make them safer?
Does the money get invested into programs for the young on educating them about the dangers of speeding?
Is the money divided between the members of the speed camera scheme-partnership and what are the amounts?
Does the money go directly too central government?
We have a police force that seem to have only one function, that of covertly catching speeding motorists doing a few miles over the speed limit.
Not only that, the PSNI and the Courts bring the whole weight of the police and the judicial system to bear on the motorist for doing 35 in a 30 zone at midnight.
The perception people have of the PSNI is that they don’t want to catch the scum that murder, rape, shoot, stab, rob, steal and destroy the lives of ordinary decent folk.
The PSNI’s double standards, selective sight and inaction is infecting all aspects of PSNI life!

The Crime Statistics in the Chief Constables report is a litany of failure.
The general view is that the PSNI are so badly managed and the morale of the officer on the beat is so poor it seems at times as if the PSNI are making it up as they drive along. The PSNI are at best amateur or at worst totally inept.
Why does it take two officers to visit chip shops, sandwich bars, coffee shops and other types of take-a-way establishments when all we hear is that the PSNI are busy. However make a call for them to attend an incident and it takes hours if not days. I suppose it depends on the queue in the take-a-way as to the PSNI response?
The PSNI need to get out of the Chippies and catch criminals rather than catching Battered Cods!

If they were serious about vehicle crime why don’t the have a purge against people who put everyone at danger in untaxed and uninsured cars and the locally named run-arounds.
However this type of operation would require effort and thought, both of which seem to be lacking in the PSNI.

The PSNI’s clear up rate for crime is akin to that of a third world country. This is not what we expect from an allegedly highly trained highly skilled police force. Its time the PSNI had a good hard look at themselves from the highest ranking officer to the officer on the beat and assess were the priorities are and why the public has no confidence on the PSNI.
At this point I would like to refer you to the PSNI’s Chief Constables Annual Report. It makes some shocking reading!
http://www.psni.police.uk/psni_cc_report_06-07.pdf

PSNI have significantly changed the way they detect speeding motorists. The PSNI have gone from Overt speed traps to Covert speed traps so the motorist can only draw the conclusion that the PSNI are acting as Tax Collectors and are acting in contravention of their own handbook?
The covert speed trap is in contravention of Health and Safety Guidelines and the PSNI’s own Safety Camera Scheme Handbook and the ACPO Code of practice for the operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology.

http://www.acpo.police.uk/asp/policies/Data/RPET%20Manual%20version%202-3.pdf

http://www.psni.police.uk/index/safetycameras/pg_scheme_handbook.htm

Here are several quotes from the handbook the first is from the forward, the second is from section 4 and section 4rule 2 of the PSNI’s Safety Camera Scheme:
Northern Ireland Safety Camera Scheme.3/10/07
#As part of a programme to deliver The Northern Ireland Road Safety Strategy 2002 – 2012, a Safety Camera Scheme is being operated in Northern Ireland. Its underlying principles are that:
Safety cameras (which include speed and red light cameras) are used only on those roads where there is a history of road traffic collisions that result in death or serious injury. This means that safety camera resources are targeted where they are most likely to have an impact.
The cameras, both fixed and mobile, are clearly visible, and their locations are signed and put on the Police Service of Northern Ireland web site. The intention of the Scheme is to change driver behaviour at camera locations by reducing speed and thereby reducing the number and severity of collisions.
In order to finance the Scheme, monies collected by way of Conditional Offer Fixed Penalty Notice fines are credited back into the Scheme by Government funding. This provides coverage of running costs, thus making the Scheme self-funding.
Section 4:
Scheme Rules
In the 1998 Public Expenditure Survey, HM Treasury identified certain conditions that would allow fines and penalties to be ‘netted off’ Departmental Expenditure Limits, namely where:
Performance against policy objectives is likely to be improved
Arrangements are in place to ensure that the activity will not lead to the abuse of fines and penalty collection as a method of revenue raising, and that operational priorities remain undistorted
Revenues will always be sufficient to meet future costs, with any excess revenues over costs being surrendered
Costs of enforcement will be readily identified and apportioned without undue bureaucracy, and with interdepartmental and inter-agency agreement, where necessary
Savings can be achieved through change and there are adequate efficiency regimes in place to control costs, including regular efficiency reviews.
This chapter sets out seven rules that govern the operation of the Northern Ireland Safety Camera Scheme to ensure that the above HMT criteria are met (and thus to allow cost recovery). These rules and guidelines do not constitute a legal requirement. Therefore compliance with these rules and guidelines bears no significance on the detection and enforcement of offences so detected by safety camera operations. To this end, non-compliance does not provide for any mitigation in defence for an offence committed by a driver in breach of current legislation.

4.2 Rule 2: Visibility and conspicuity
The aim of the scheme is to reduce the number of people killed and seriously injured on the roads through:
Targeting speed enforcement at those locations where there is a proven injury collision history and evidence of speeding
Telling drivers where speed enforcement will take place, for example through the media, road signs and painting fixed cameras bright yellow.
This will give motorists the opportunity to slow down and observe the speed limits at these locations. If they do not, then they could be caught speeding and prosecuted. Thus the message to motorists is “we don’t want to catch you speeding, we want to stop you speeding”. Specific requirements on visibility of camera sites and camera conspicuity are as follows:

All fixed site camera housings must be backed by high visibility yellow paint or self-adhesive retro-reflective material
All fixed site camera housings should be visible to road users and not hidden behind bridges, signs, trees, bushes or any other type of obstacle that would reduce the site’s visibility. The minimum visibility distance should be 60 metres where the speed limit is 40 mph or less and 100 metres for all other limits
For mobile enforcement, camera operatives must abide by all Health and Safety requirements and wear fluorescent clothing except where the local security situation makes this inappropriate
For mobile enforcement, safety camera vehicles should be clearly marked, identifying them as safety camera enforcement vehicles, except where the local security situation makes this inappropriate. Vehicles should not be hidden behind obstructions. The minimum visibility distance should be 60 metres where the speed limit is 40 mph or less and 100 metres for all other limits
Camera warning signs must be placed in advance of fixed, mobile or digital speed enforcement taking place
For fixed sites, signs must be placed between 500m and 1km in advance of camera housings. Signs cannot be placed over 1km away from a fixed site camera
For mobile and digital enforcement sites, fixed signs must be placed at the beginning of a targeted route. As guidance, repeater signs are also encouraged along these routes, particularly close to stated enforcement sites
For red-light camera sites, signs should be placed between 500m and 1km away from the camera
Signs must only be placed in areas where camera housings are present or along routes where mobile enforcement will be targeted
Signs must comply with those specified in the relevant Road Traffic Regulation (Northern Ireland) Order 1997. Further information on signing can be found in the Director Of Engineering Memorandum - 56/03, as listed in Appendix C.
Where, because of the local security situation, safety cameras are not conspicuous a record must be made of this. Further, each site should be reviewed on a six-monthly basis to ensure that conditions on conspicuity, visibility, marking and signing have not changed or do not require alteration or maintenance. It may be necessary to increase the number of site visits in conjunction with the time of year e.g. during spring and summer when foliage growth is prolific.

It can only be seen as an easy option and confirms our view that the PSNI would rather take the easy option rather than protect the vulnerable terrified in the own homes.

We need the PSNI to do more Kojak and less Kodak!

The perception rightly or wrongly (I think rightly) is that the PSNI are more interested in a Tax Revenue gathering exercise than being visibly and actively reducing the killer speeding motorists on the road.
I would like to refer you to the Chief Police Officers Approved Codes of Practice and the PSNI’s safety cameras scheme handbook.

I would like to know if the Chief Constable or the Head of the Traffic Branch could inform the Northern Ireland motorist if their officers conform to the Chief Police Officers Approved Codes of Practice and the PSNI’s safety cameras scheme handbook for conducting speed traps.
In addition, what measures are taken by the PSNI to ensure the Chief Police Officers Approved Codes of Practice and the PSNI’s safety cameras scheme handbook are followed!

So how about this as a novel idea, government and police of the people for the people by the people! There again too much to ask for I know.


Killer roads: Government campaign highlights hidden dangers of speeding on rural roads You are three times more likely to be killed on a rural road than an urban one while in a car warns a Government educational campaign launched today. The Department for Transport's THINK! Rural Speed Campaign, warning drivers not to go faster than the conditions allow, can be heard on radio stations around the country this month. Rural areas can tempt motorists into driving too fast for the conditions they are facing. Long straights and demanding bends, as well as less traffic and fewer pedestrians can make drivers believe it is 'safe' to go faster than they normally would. But the stark reality is actually the opposite - the risk of fatally injuring yourself or your passengers increases three-fold on a rural road. This is backed by the evidence that there is often only one car involved in rural accidents, making it likely that drivers have been tempted to push themselves or their car beyond their limits. Road Safety Minister Jim Fitzpatrick said: "Driving on rural roads can be deceiving. It is important that motorists drive with as much care on a rural road as they would in a more built-up area. The 'national' 60mph speed limit is a maximum, not an expectation, and drivers must match their speed to the road characteristics and weather conditions they are experiencing as well as factoring in unpredictable hazards - like sharp bends, limited visibility or even animals - which can require a quick reaction." Figures for 2006 show that nationally 325 car users were killed on rural roads when speeding or driving too fast for the conditions. All too often it is the Fire and Rescue Services who have to attend these incidents and deal with the consequences of speed related rural accidents. The campaign also has the backing of Fire and Rescue Services. Claire Tovey, head of prevention at Northamptonshire Fire and Rescue Service said: "As with fires, we would always rather help to prevent road traffic incidents than attend the aftermath. All too often we have to try and free people from horrific wreckages. Myself and colleagues at the community safety teams work closely with road safety experts to try and educate drivers that rural roads have to be driven at a speed appropriate to the road characteristics and weather conditions." ---- There's still a bit of "speeding" spin but the message seems to be much more sensible than what we've heard in the past...