Sussex schoolboys ticketed by police - for sledging

First published in News by

A group of boys playing in the snow with friends were ticketed by police – for sledging.

Jacob Mogre, 12, like most kids his age, was enjoying the time off from school by sledging down hills.

But just as he was about to set off on his next run two Police Community Support Officers quizzed him and issued a stop and search form.

Jacob's father Mike Mogré, a 43-year-old civil engineer, said: “My son's school was shut and he was with a friend sledging in Halewick Road in Lancing.

“They were at the top of the hill when one of the PCSO beckoned them down. They were asked a series of questions such as if they were playing truant and what school they went to and whether they had damaged a fence – which they hadn't.

“My son was then issued with a stop and search and street intervention form with his details which he had to sign. On the form the reason given for stopping him was 'sledging'.

“I am very surprised that they issued him with a stop and search form and the grounds for intervention was sledging down hill.

“Then they just left him feeling quite bemused.”

Jacob’s friend Charlie Stakim, 11, of Eighth Avenue, Lancing, was also issued a stop and search form for “sledging downhill towards a fence”.

Police said “several” youngsters had been issued the stop and search notices after being spoken to by PCSOs.

A spokesman said: “The word ‘sledging’ was used purely as a shorthand means of recording the event, as the relevant section of the form is not designed in a way that enables the full circumstances to be recorded.

“Clearly we do not stop people merely for sledging.”

Sussex Police said that the incident would not be stored on the boys’s criminal records, but that a record would be kept locally to say that they had been spoken to.

Comments (51)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:05pm Fri 15 Jan 10

Saulgone Petetong says...

curtain call for bibble.........
curtain call for bibble......... Saulgone Petetong
  • Score: 0

12:12pm Fri 15 Jan 10

VoodooGangbanger says...

The great thing about this is had the kid ignored the community support officer and left, they couldnt have done anything.

Community support only catch out people who do absolutely nothing wrong, because the people who do, do wrong know they have no power and would just go away from them.
The great thing about this is had the kid ignored the community support officer and left, they couldnt have done anything. Community support only catch out people who do absolutely nothing wrong, because the people who do, do wrong know they have no power and would just go away from them. VoodooGangbanger
  • Score: 0

12:16pm Fri 15 Jan 10

Saulgone Petetong says...

VoodooGangbanger wrote:
The great thing about this is had the kid ignored the community support officer and left, they couldnt have done anything. Community support only catch out people who do absolutely nothing wrong, because the people who do, do wrong know they have no power and would just go away from them.
Wha?
[quote][p][bold]VoodooGangbanger[/bold] wrote: The great thing about this is had the kid ignored the community support officer and left, they couldnt have done anything. Community support only catch out people who do absolutely nothing wrong, because the people who do, do wrong know they have no power and would just go away from them.[/p][/quote]Wha? Saulgone Petetong
  • Score: 0

12:52pm Fri 15 Jan 10

Thermo says...

so a complete non story.

they werent ticketed, they were given a form that the police are required to give them when they have been spoken to. they werent searched either.

and if the pcsos had walked past the kids sledging, they had been bunking off and had an accident then they would have been criticised for that.
All a load of half arsed reporting as usual
so a complete non story. they werent ticketed, they were given a form that the police are required to give them when they have been spoken to. they werent searched either. and if the pcsos had walked past the kids sledging, they had been bunking off and had an accident then they would have been criticised for that. All a load of half arsed reporting as usual Thermo
  • Score: 0

12:56pm Fri 15 Jan 10

Txa says...

That's so wrong! they are slowly pushing to good abiden citizens to break the law.
That's so wrong! they are slowly pushing to good abiden citizens to break the law. Txa
  • Score: 0

12:58pm Fri 15 Jan 10

Rita Snatch says...

I was at a meeting with Met Police and Event Organisers present.

Event Organisers asked the Police for extra PSCO's too assist with problems in the surrounding streets,such as stopping parking in a restricted area and controlling unruly behaviour.

The Police response was that additional SIA Door Supervisors (Bouncers) should be employed instead "as they had more powers than a PCSO".

Discuss!
I was at a meeting with Met Police and Event Organisers present. Event Organisers asked the Police for extra PSCO's too assist with problems in the surrounding streets,such as stopping parking in a restricted area and controlling unruly behaviour. The Police response was that additional SIA Door Supervisors (Bouncers) should be employed instead "as they had more powers than a PCSO". Discuss! Rita Snatch
  • Score: 0

12:58pm Fri 15 Jan 10

sugarhorse says...

I agree with Thermo. There seems to be a lot missing from this non story. Why were the PCSO's there in the first place?

If it's anything like Hove Park, there were kids sledging but a number of those apparently innocently sledging were also throwing ice at cars on the Old Shoreham Road and Goldstone Crescent which is far more serious.

Plus everybody knows if you're stopped by the Police or PCSO's a record of that stop has to be made. I don't see what the big deal is.

Coming soon to your great Argus, man and woman call Police after seeing something suspicious.
I agree with Thermo. There seems to be a lot missing from this non story. Why were the PCSO's there in the first place? If it's anything like Hove Park, there were kids sledging but a number of those apparently innocently sledging were also throwing ice at cars on the Old Shoreham Road and Goldstone Crescent which is far more serious. Plus everybody knows if you're stopped by the Police or PCSO's a record of that stop has to be made. I don't see what the big deal is. Coming soon to your great Argus, man and woman call Police after seeing something suspicious. sugarhorse
  • Score: 0

12:59pm Fri 15 Jan 10

smegbuster says...

I completely agree with Thermo. The idea of Community Policing is to build up a relationship with the community. I know we Southerners shy away from it, but that DOES mean occasionally speaking to random people.
I completely agree with Thermo. The idea of Community Policing is to build up a relationship with the community. I know we Southerners shy away from it, but that DOES mean occasionally speaking to random people. smegbuster
  • Score: 0

1:01pm Fri 15 Jan 10

sugarhorse says...

Rita Snatch wrote:
I was at a meeting with Met Police and Event Organisers present. Event Organisers asked the Police for extra PSCO's too assist with problems in the surrounding streets,such as stopping parking in a restricted area and controlling unruly behaviour. The Police response was that additional SIA Door Supervisors (Bouncers) should be employed instead "as they had more powers than a PCSO". Discuss!
Maybe they do in London, but we're not talking about London, we're talking about Lancing.

http://police.homeof
fice.gov.uk/publicat
ions/community-polic
ing/PCSOs_Audit_Tabl
e_May_2007_1.html

This document sets out a matrix of PCSO Powers Designated by Force Area in England and Wales (including British Transport Police) as at May 2007. Those powers that are proposed for inclusion in the standard set of powers for PCSOs are highlighted in red and green. Where a force entry shows 'Yes' this does not automatically mean that all PCSOs in the force area will have the power.
[quote][p][bold]Rita Snatch[/bold] wrote: I was at a meeting with Met Police and Event Organisers present. Event Organisers asked the Police for extra PSCO's too assist with problems in the surrounding streets,such as stopping parking in a restricted area and controlling unruly behaviour. The Police response was that additional SIA Door Supervisors (Bouncers) should be employed instead "as they had more powers than a PCSO". Discuss![/p][/quote]Maybe they do in London, but we're not talking about London, we're talking about Lancing. http://police.homeof fice.gov.uk/publicat ions/community-polic ing/PCSOs_Audit_Tabl e_May_2007_1.html This document sets out a matrix of PCSO Powers Designated by Force Area in England and Wales (including British Transport Police) as at May 2007. Those powers that are proposed for inclusion in the standard set of powers for PCSOs are highlighted in red and green. Where a force entry shows 'Yes' this does not automatically mean that all PCSOs in the force area will have the power. sugarhorse
  • Score: 0

1:04pm Fri 15 Jan 10

ambassador says...

Come on bibble, don't disappoint us...

You could also crucify the officers who were featured on the news yesterday sledging on their riot shields.... waste of police time/public money; they should be sacked/imprisoned; it demonstrates that there is a police conspiracy, etc., etc.

Loads of ammunition for you! Go for it!
Come on bibble, don't disappoint us... You could also crucify the officers who were featured on the news yesterday sledging on their riot shields.... waste of police time/public money; they should be sacked/imprisoned; it demonstrates that there is a police conspiracy, etc., etc. Loads of ammunition for you! Go for it! ambassador
  • Score: 0

1:11pm Fri 15 Jan 10

VoodooGangbanger says...

Rita Snatch wrote:
I was at a meeting with Met Police and Event Organisers present.

Event Organisers asked the Police for extra PSCO's too assist with problems in the surrounding streets,such as stopping parking in a restricted area and controlling unruly behaviour.

The Police response was that additional SIA Door Supervisors (Bouncers) should be employed instead "as they had more powers than a PCSO".

Discuss!
While I am SIA Licenced and trained myself and a highly trained martial artist etc etc I would like to think somehow masked vigilantes will retake the streets and solve all our problems, just seems more exciting that way (starts working on his armoured costume and wrist vambrace flamethrower).
[quote][p][bold]Rita Snatch[/bold] wrote: I was at a meeting with Met Police and Event Organisers present. Event Organisers asked the Police for extra PSCO's too assist with problems in the surrounding streets,such as stopping parking in a restricted area and controlling unruly behaviour. The Police response was that additional SIA Door Supervisors (Bouncers) should be employed instead "as they had more powers than a PCSO". Discuss![/p][/quote]While I am SIA Licenced and trained myself and a highly trained martial artist etc etc I would like to think somehow masked vigilantes will retake the streets and solve all our problems, just seems more exciting that way (starts working on his armoured costume and wrist vambrace flamethrower). VoodooGangbanger
  • Score: 0

1:24pm Fri 15 Jan 10

Granny says...

As much as I usually stand up for the police, I must say that I think these community support officers are getting a bit too big for their boots. It is a case of giving someone a bit of authority and they start to behave like little hitlers. By the way, where is bibble?????
As much as I usually stand up for the police, I must say that I think these community support officers are getting a bit too big for their boots. It is a case of giving someone a bit of authority and they start to behave like little hitlers. By the way, where is bibble????? Granny
  • Score: 0

1:48pm Fri 15 Jan 10

notaconspiracy says...

These two particular PCSOs sound like idiots.

Behaving like this will ruin the reputation of all the PCSOs and encourage the bigots/conspiracy theorists, as has happened with the police already, I think.
These two particular PCSOs sound like idiots. Behaving like this will ruin the reputation of all the PCSOs and encourage the bigots/conspiracy theorists, as has happened with the police already, I think. notaconspiracy
  • Score: 0

1:48pm Fri 15 Jan 10

sugarhorse says...

Granny wrote:
As much as I usually stand up for the police, I must say that I think these community support officers are getting a bit too big for their boots. It is a case of giving someone a bit of authority and they start to behave like little hitlers. By the way, where is bibble?????
Big for their boots? Little Hitlers? Come on Granny, I used to think highly of your comments until you came out with those little gems.

I've never known you to be sucked in by bad reporting before, and I'm sure you can see the slant that the Argus has put on this story and you've fallen into the trap.

The Argus are making a big deal out of something that probably happens every day. I suspect the only reason they've written this is because they were running out of snow stories.
[quote][p][bold]Granny[/bold] wrote: As much as I usually stand up for the police, I must say that I think these community support officers are getting a bit too big for their boots. It is a case of giving someone a bit of authority and they start to behave like little hitlers. By the way, where is bibble?????[/p][/quote]Big for their boots? Little Hitlers? Come on Granny, I used to think highly of your comments until you came out with those little gems. I've never known you to be sucked in by bad reporting before, and I'm sure you can see the slant that the Argus has put on this story and you've fallen into the trap. The Argus are making a big deal out of something that probably happens every day. I suspect the only reason they've written this is because they were running out of snow stories. sugarhorse
  • Score: 0

3:03pm Fri 15 Jan 10

bibble says...

I would question if the PCSOs had the power to "stop and search" in those circumstances. What law justified their stop and search?

Secondly, it seems that PCSOs are deliberately falsifying records by noting that the reason for stopping and searching somebody is "sledging". Whereas the police say that "Clearly we do not stop people merely for sledging.” So the stop form contains false and wrong information.

How many other forms are being falsely completed? It seems so trivial, but don't forget this sort of thing can be treated as "evidence" at some point. And now it has been admitted that the reasons being recorded are not just wrong, but actually false.
I would question if the PCSOs had the power to "stop and search" in those circumstances. What law justified their stop and search? Secondly, it seems that PCSOs are deliberately falsifying records by noting that the reason for stopping and searching somebody is "sledging". Whereas the police say that "Clearly we do not stop people merely for sledging.” So the stop form contains false and wrong information. How many other forms are being falsely completed? It seems so trivial, but don't forget this sort of thing can be treated as "evidence" at some point. And now it has been admitted that the reasons being recorded are not just wrong, but actually false. bibble
  • Score: 0

3:26pm Fri 15 Jan 10

JamesFarter says...

bibble wrote:
I would question if the PCSOs had the power to "stop and search" in those circumstances. What law justified their stop and search? Secondly, it seems that PCSOs are deliberately falsifying records by noting that the reason for stopping and searching somebody is "sledging". Whereas the police say that "Clearly we do not stop people merely for sledging.” So the stop form contains false and wrong information. How many other forms are being falsely completed? It seems so trivial, but don't forget this sort of thing can be treated as "evidence" at some point. And now it has been admitted that the reasons being recorded are not just wrong, but actually false.
Bibble, could I suggest that you read the article before introducing random comments. At no point does it say that the PCSO's had stopped and searched the youths. So whether they have the power to do so is irrelevant (as they didn't!). With regards to the incident I suspect that the call came about as some people sledging had taken it upon themselves to remove fencing part way down the hill so they can have a longer run. Therefore damage HAS occurred, and therefore police attending (in one guise or other) is inevitable and indeed expected. With regards to the street intervention form (not stop and search only), the reason put down is for a short description, I expect the officers explained fully why they were talking to the youths at the time (damage mentioned in the article. I agree that they should have put a little more, however both the officer and the youths would have known why they were spoken to, and this would have been enough for the officers to recall.

Bibble, just because you appear to be anti-police at least try and base your prejudice on facts rather than what you think you read..
[quote][p][bold]bibble[/bold] wrote: I would question if the PCSOs had the power to "stop and search" in those circumstances. What law justified their stop and search? Secondly, it seems that PCSOs are deliberately falsifying records by noting that the reason for stopping and searching somebody is "sledging". Whereas the police say that "Clearly we do not stop people merely for sledging.” So the stop form contains false and wrong information. How many other forms are being falsely completed? It seems so trivial, but don't forget this sort of thing can be treated as "evidence" at some point. And now it has been admitted that the reasons being recorded are not just wrong, but actually false.[/p][/quote]Bibble, could I suggest that you read the article before introducing random comments. At no point does it say that the PCSO's had stopped and searched the youths. So whether they have the power to do so is irrelevant (as they didn't!). With regards to the incident I suspect that the call came about as some people sledging had taken it upon themselves to remove fencing part way down the hill so they can have a longer run. Therefore damage HAS occurred, and therefore police attending (in one guise or other) is inevitable and indeed expected. With regards to the street intervention form (not stop and search only), the reason put down is for a short description, I expect the officers explained fully why they were talking to the youths at the time (damage mentioned in the article. I agree that they should have put a little more, however both the officer and the youths would have known why they were spoken to, and this would have been enough for the officers to recall. Bibble, just because you appear to be anti-police at least try and base your prejudice on facts rather than what you think you read.. JamesFarter
  • Score: 0

3:29pm Fri 15 Jan 10

smegbuster says...

According to the article, the form is actually a "stop and search and street intervention form". ...So, might this be a multi-purpose form, with the "street intervention" perhaps being for talking to the public about an incident under investigation (eg, damage to a fence has been intimated)? In which case, might the details to be filled in not need to be quite the same as for a "stop and search"? It may just be a matter of confusing paperwork.
According to the article, the form is actually a "stop and search and street intervention form". ...So, might this be a multi-purpose form, with the "street intervention" perhaps being for talking to the public about an incident under investigation (eg, damage to a fence has been intimated)? In which case, might the details to be filled in not need to be quite the same as for a "stop and search"? It may just be a matter of confusing paperwork. smegbuster
  • Score: 0

3:39pm Fri 15 Jan 10

emma barnes says...

title should read - ".......given a form they are required to supply when they stop someone".
title should read - ".......given a form they are required to supply when they stop someone". emma barnes
  • Score: 0

3:46pm Fri 15 Jan 10

yorkie44 says...

Shouldn't the form be redesigned so that it can record the reasons why people are stopped?
Shouldn't the form be redesigned so that it can record the reasons why people are stopped? yorkie44
  • Score: 0

3:59pm Fri 15 Jan 10

bibble says...

JamesFarter wrote:
bibble wrote: I would question if the PCSOs had the power to "stop and search" in those circumstances. What law justified their stop and search? Secondly, it seems that PCSOs are deliberately falsifying records by noting that the reason for stopping and searching somebody is "sledging". Whereas the police say that "Clearly we do not stop people merely for sledging.” So the stop form contains false and wrong information. How many other forms are being falsely completed? It seems so trivial, but don't forget this sort of thing can be treated as "evidence" at some point. And now it has been admitted that the reasons being recorded are not just wrong, but actually false.
Bibble, could I suggest that you read the article before introducing random comments. At no point does it say that the PCSO's had stopped and searched the youths. So whether they have the power to do so is irrelevant (as they didn't!). With regards to the incident I suspect that the call came about as some people sledging had taken it upon themselves to remove fencing part way down the hill so they can have a longer run. Therefore damage HAS occurred, and therefore police attending (in one guise or other) is inevitable and indeed expected. With regards to the street intervention form (not stop and search only), the reason put down is for a short description, I expect the officers explained fully why they were talking to the youths at the time (damage mentioned in the article. I agree that they should have put a little more, however both the officer and the youths would have known why they were spoken to, and this would have been enough for the officers to recall. Bibble, just because you appear to be anti-police at least try and base your prejudice on facts rather than what you think you read..
But it's not enough to simply rely on two parties recollection of events. That is precisely why things ARE written down. Things written down at the time have more evidential value. And if what is being written down is wrong and false that is a serious matter.

So I ask again, what else is being wrongly and falsely recorded?
[quote][p][bold]JamesFarter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bibble[/bold] wrote: I would question if the PCSOs had the power to "stop and search" in those circumstances. What law justified their stop and search? Secondly, it seems that PCSOs are deliberately falsifying records by noting that the reason for stopping and searching somebody is "sledging". Whereas the police say that "Clearly we do not stop people merely for sledging.” So the stop form contains false and wrong information. How many other forms are being falsely completed? It seems so trivial, but don't forget this sort of thing can be treated as "evidence" at some point. And now it has been admitted that the reasons being recorded are not just wrong, but actually false.[/p][/quote]Bibble, could I suggest that you read the article before introducing random comments. At no point does it say that the PCSO's had stopped and searched the youths. So whether they have the power to do so is irrelevant (as they didn't!). With regards to the incident I suspect that the call came about as some people sledging had taken it upon themselves to remove fencing part way down the hill so they can have a longer run. Therefore damage HAS occurred, and therefore police attending (in one guise or other) is inevitable and indeed expected. With regards to the street intervention form (not stop and search only), the reason put down is for a short description, I expect the officers explained fully why they were talking to the youths at the time (damage mentioned in the article. I agree that they should have put a little more, however both the officer and the youths would have known why they were spoken to, and this would have been enough for the officers to recall. Bibble, just because you appear to be anti-police at least try and base your prejudice on facts rather than what you think you read..[/p][/quote]But it's not enough to simply rely on two parties recollection of events. That is precisely why things ARE written down. Things written down at the time have more evidential value. And if what is being written down is wrong and false that is a serious matter. So I ask again, what else is being wrongly and falsely recorded? bibble
  • Score: 0

4:00pm Fri 15 Jan 10

bibble says...

smegbuster wrote:
According to the article, the form is actually a "stop and search and street intervention form". ...So, might this be a multi-purpose form, with the "street intervention" perhaps being for talking to the public about an incident under investigation (eg, damage to a fence has been intimated)? In which case, might the details to be filled in not need to be quite the same as for a "stop and search"? It may just be a matter of confusing paperwork.
I think your explanation about the form is likely. But that doesn't excuse recording information which is both wrong and false.
[quote][p][bold]smegbuster[/bold] wrote: According to the article, the form is actually a "stop and search and street intervention form". ...So, might this be a multi-purpose form, with the "street intervention" perhaps being for talking to the public about an incident under investigation (eg, damage to a fence has been intimated)? In which case, might the details to be filled in not need to be quite the same as for a "stop and search"? It may just be a matter of confusing paperwork.[/p][/quote]I think your explanation about the form is likely. But that doesn't excuse recording information which is both wrong and false. bibble
  • Score: 0

4:03pm Fri 15 Jan 10

bibble says...

It is a good idea that if ever you are stopped by the police or PCSOs, to get out a pen and notebook. Note down everything that is said, and don't be put off from doing so. Don't forget, the policeman or PCSO may well do the same, and they may record both wrong and false information.
It is a good idea that if ever you are stopped by the police or PCSOs, to get out a pen and notebook. Note down everything that is said, and don't be put off from doing so. Don't forget, the policeman or PCSO may well do the same, and they may record both wrong and false information. bibble
  • Score: 0

4:04pm Fri 15 Jan 10

Frankie's Post says...

Sno way to treat kids
Sno way to treat kids Frankie's Post
  • Score: 0

4:17pm Fri 15 Jan 10

markokeeffe says...

Well the whole lot will have to be redesigned now that the European Court of Human Rights has decided that Stop and Search is a breach of human rights, and therefore illegal - see the law report in the Times today!!
Well the whole lot will have to be redesigned now that the European Court of Human Rights has decided that Stop and Search is a breach of human rights, and therefore illegal - see the law report in the Times today!! markokeeffe
  • Score: 0

4:17pm Fri 15 Jan 10

markokeeffe says...

Well the whole lot will have to be redesigned now that the European Court of Human Rights has decided that Stop and Search is a breach of human rights, and therefore illegal - see the law report in the Times today!!
Well the whole lot will have to be redesigned now that the European Court of Human Rights has decided that Stop and Search is a breach of human rights, and therefore illegal - see the law report in the Times today!! markokeeffe
  • Score: 0

4:45pm Fri 15 Jan 10

pun master says...

Ok lets get some perspective here... One of the roles of a PCSO is to ensure that children who are truanting are taken back to school/home. The other is to investigate and deal with low level anti-social behaviour. They needed to talk to the boys about the status of their school opening to ensure that they were not truanting (as a lot of kids did from the school I work at) and they also talked to them about a fence that had been damaged, At no time were these boys accused or charged with anything. The form that was given to them is designed to protect the public, as it provides them with evidence as to who stopped them, why and what happened. The forms are also used to monitor the activities of both PCSO's and police officers to ensure that powers are not abused. If my son got stopped like this, and had done nothing wrong, I certainly would not go bleating to the press about it, I would simply ensure that he had done nothing wrong, and more importantly that he was polite and respectful to the officers involved, and understood why they were doing it, and hopefully educate him to respect the role of the police, thus hopefully providing another member of society who doesn't grow up thinking he can do what he wants, when he wants. And this is where society is going wrong; bleating and moaning rather than respecting and understanding authority...
Ok lets get some perspective here... One of the roles of a PCSO is to ensure that children who are truanting are taken back to school/home. The other is to investigate and deal with low level anti-social behaviour. They needed to talk to the boys about the status of their school opening to ensure that they were not truanting (as a lot of kids did from the school I work at) and they also talked to them about a fence that had been damaged, At no time were these boys accused or charged with anything. The form that was given to them is designed to protect the public, as it provides them with evidence as to who stopped them, why and what happened. The forms are also used to monitor the activities of both PCSO's and police officers to ensure that powers are not abused. If my son got stopped like this, and had done nothing wrong, I certainly would not go bleating to the press about it, I would simply ensure that he had done nothing wrong, and more importantly that he was polite and respectful to the officers involved, and understood why they were doing it, and hopefully educate him to respect the role of the police, thus hopefully providing another member of society who doesn't grow up thinking he can do what he wants, when he wants. And this is where society is going wrong; bleating and moaning rather than respecting and understanding authority... pun master
  • Score: 0

4:46pm Fri 15 Jan 10

Big Nasty says...

VoodooGangbanger wrote:
Rita Snatch wrote:
I was at a meeting with Met Police and Event Organisers present.

Event Organisers asked the Police for extra PSCO's too assist with problems in the surrounding streets,such as stopping parking in a restricted area and controlling unruly behaviour.

The Police response was that additional SIA Door Supervisors (Bouncers) should be employed instead "as they had more powers than a PCSO".

Discuss!
While I am SIA Licenced and trained myself and a highly trained martial artist etc etc I would like to think somehow masked vigilantes will retake the streets and solve all our problems, just seems more exciting that way (starts working on his armoured costume and wrist vambrace flamethrower).
They will mate, they will, only a matter of time!.
[quote][p][bold]VoodooGangbanger[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rita Snatch[/bold] wrote: I was at a meeting with Met Police and Event Organisers present. Event Organisers asked the Police for extra PSCO's too assist with problems in the surrounding streets,such as stopping parking in a restricted area and controlling unruly behaviour. The Police response was that additional SIA Door Supervisors (Bouncers) should be employed instead "as they had more powers than a PCSO". Discuss![/p][/quote]While I am SIA Licenced and trained myself and a highly trained martial artist etc etc I would like to think somehow masked vigilantes will retake the streets and solve all our problems, just seems more exciting that way (starts working on his armoured costume and wrist vambrace flamethrower).[/p][/quote]They will mate, they will, only a matter of time!. Big Nasty
  • Score: 0

4:46pm Fri 15 Jan 10

simon195 says...

good job im not in control of the police, there would be no swanning around in panda cars all day looking for victims to harrass etc and charge for going over mph.. oh no id have every single one of em on the streets night and day, no more joy riding im afraid...no more warm offices and those that target innocent kids like they have done here will be kicked out the force pronto !!!
good job im not in control of the police, there would be no swanning around in panda cars all day looking for victims to harrass etc and charge for going over mph.. oh no id have every single one of em on the streets night and day, no more joy riding im afraid...no more warm offices and those that target innocent kids like they have done here will be kicked out the force pronto !!! simon195
  • Score: 0

5:10pm Fri 15 Jan 10

bibble says...

pun master wrote:
Ok lets get some perspective here... One of the roles of a PCSO is to ensure that children who are truanting are taken back to school/home. The other is to investigate and deal with low level anti-social behaviour. They needed to talk to the boys about the status of their school opening to ensure that they were not truanting (as a lot of kids did from the school I work at) and they also talked to them about a fence that had been damaged, At no time were these boys accused or charged with anything. The form that was given to them is designed to protect the public, as it provides them with evidence as to who stopped them, why and what happened. The forms are also used to monitor the activities of both PCSO's and police officers to ensure that powers are not abused. If my son got stopped like this, and had done nothing wrong, I certainly would not go bleating to the press about it, I would simply ensure that he had done nothing wrong, and more importantly that he was polite and respectful to the officers involved, and understood why they were doing it, and hopefully educate him to respect the role of the police, thus hopefully providing another member of society who doesn't grow up thinking he can do what he wants, when he wants. And this is where society is going wrong; bleating and moaning rather than respecting and understanding authority...
What an old curmudgeon.

If PCSOs stopped my children, I would ensure that they had done nothing wrong. But I would also ensure that the police had done nothing wrong, that the police spoke to my kids in a polite and respectful manner, and that the police had not acted either illegally or heavy-handedly.

I would educate my kids that the role of the police is not to serve the public in an impartial way. Instead they are self-serving people who often lie, cheat, break the law with impunity and are answerable to nobody but themselves. Trust them at your peril.
[quote][p][bold]pun master[/bold] wrote: Ok lets get some perspective here... One of the roles of a PCSO is to ensure that children who are truanting are taken back to school/home. The other is to investigate and deal with low level anti-social behaviour. They needed to talk to the boys about the status of their school opening to ensure that they were not truanting (as a lot of kids did from the school I work at) and they also talked to them about a fence that had been damaged, At no time were these boys accused or charged with anything. The form that was given to them is designed to protect the public, as it provides them with evidence as to who stopped them, why and what happened. The forms are also used to monitor the activities of both PCSO's and police officers to ensure that powers are not abused. If my son got stopped like this, and had done nothing wrong, I certainly would not go bleating to the press about it, I would simply ensure that he had done nothing wrong, and more importantly that he was polite and respectful to the officers involved, and understood why they were doing it, and hopefully educate him to respect the role of the police, thus hopefully providing another member of society who doesn't grow up thinking he can do what he wants, when he wants. And this is where society is going wrong; bleating and moaning rather than respecting and understanding authority...[/p][/quote]What an old curmudgeon. If PCSOs stopped my children, I would ensure that they had done nothing wrong. But I would also ensure that the police had done nothing wrong, that the police spoke to my kids in a polite and respectful manner, and that the police had not acted either illegally or heavy-handedly. I would educate my kids that the role of the police is not to serve the public in an impartial way. Instead they are self-serving people who often lie, cheat, break the law with impunity and are answerable to nobody but themselves. Trust them at your peril. bibble
  • Score: 0

5:25pm Fri 15 Jan 10

Btn-Adie says...

It actually makes me laugh that the same poeple on here slating the police would be ringing 999 for help if they are being punched and attacked on the street. Or lets perhaps see about wanting to make a claim on the insurance that you have lost your phone or some idiot has thrown a brick through your window and you need it repaired by the council or insurers.

Oh oh.. i know, kick every police officer out onto the street. so who then spends the time investigating and building a case for court? (not every crime actually happens infront of you)

The PCSO's in question were doing the job they are paid to do. they had asked the group questions in relation damage. In view of that, the group were entitled to a copy of the stop form, oh someone forgot to mention IT'S THEIR LEGAL RIGHT TO HAVE A COPY.

Once again The Argus has spun some non story because it cant actually send its reporters to do real reporting. If they were to get it right in the first place, the group were NOT given a ticket for playing, merely a reciept that they were spoken to.

Try looking at the Police Reform Act for the powers of PCSO's.
It actually makes me laugh that the same poeple on here slating the police would be ringing 999 for help if they are being punched and attacked on the street. Or lets perhaps see about wanting to make a claim on the insurance that you have lost your phone or some idiot has thrown a brick through your window and you need it repaired by the council or insurers. Oh oh.. i know, kick every police officer out onto the street. so who then spends the time investigating and building a case for court? (not every crime actually happens infront of you) The PCSO's in question were doing the job they are paid to do. they had asked the group questions in relation damage. In view of that, the group were entitled to a copy of the stop form, oh someone forgot to mention IT'S THEIR LEGAL RIGHT TO HAVE A COPY. Once again The Argus has spun some non story because it cant actually send its reporters to do real reporting. If they were to get it right in the first place, the group were NOT given a ticket for playing, merely a reciept that they were spoken to. Try looking at the Police Reform Act for the powers of PCSO's. Btn-Adie
  • Score: 0

5:56pm Fri 15 Jan 10

Dee Zelastra says...

Thermo wrote:
so a complete non story. they werent ticketed, they were given a form that the police are required to give them when they have been spoken to. they werent searched either. and if the pcsos had walked past the kids sledging, they had been bunking off and had an accident then they would have been criticised for that. All a load of half arsed reporting as usual
I`ll go with that. Typical bleating parents too!
[quote][p][bold]Thermo[/bold] wrote: so a complete non story. they werent ticketed, they were given a form that the police are required to give them when they have been spoken to. they werent searched either. and if the pcsos had walked past the kids sledging, they had been bunking off and had an accident then they would have been criticised for that. All a load of half arsed reporting as usual[/p][/quote]I`ll go with that. Typical bleating parents too! Dee Zelastra
  • Score: 0

6:34pm Fri 15 Jan 10

puddingandpi says...

This is appalling. We complain about how kids are fat, virtual prisoners in their own homes, then when they *do* play out, this happens.
This is appalling. We complain about how kids are fat, virtual prisoners in their own homes, then when they *do* play out, this happens. puddingandpi
  • Score: 0

6:48pm Fri 15 Jan 10

mangothecat says...

It beggars belief - the police have to regain the support and trust of the public this is not the way to do it. It just makes law abiding citizens lose more and more confidence in them.
It beggars belief - the police have to regain the support and trust of the public this is not the way to do it. It just makes law abiding citizens lose more and more confidence in them. mangothecat
  • Score: 0

6:54pm Fri 15 Jan 10

pun master says...

mangothecat wrote:
It beggars belief - the police have to regain the support and trust of the public this is not the way to do it. It just makes law abiding citizens lose more and more confidence in them.
And why does this do that?
[quote][p][bold]mangothecat[/bold] wrote: It beggars belief - the police have to regain the support and trust of the public this is not the way to do it. It just makes law abiding citizens lose more and more confidence in them.[/p][/quote]And why does this do that? pun master
  • Score: 0

8:31pm Fri 15 Jan 10

chroma says...

Btn-Adie wrote:
It actually makes me laugh that the same poeple on here slating the police would be ringing 999 for help if they are being punched and attacked on the street. Or lets perhaps see about wanting to make a claim on the insurance that you have lost your phone or some idiot has thrown a brick through your window and you need it repaired by the council or insurers. Oh oh.. i know, kick every police officer out onto the street. so who then spends the time investigating and building a case for court? (not every crime actually happens infront of you) The PCSO's in question were doing the job they are paid to do. they had asked the group questions in relation damage. In view of that, the group were entitled to a copy of the stop form, oh someone forgot to mention IT'S THEIR LEGAL RIGHT TO HAVE A COPY. Once again The Argus has spun some non story because it cant actually send its reporters to do real reporting. If they were to get it right in the first place, the group were NOT given a ticket for playing, merely a reciept that they were spoken to. Try looking at the Police Reform Act for the powers of PCSO's.
When I was a police officer, we had to have reasonable grounds to interview anyone in relation to any crime. I thought it was one of the justice system's better ideas, as it meant your mum, dad, sister or gran wouldn't be stopped willy-nilly by coppers on fishing trips.
In this case, the police were called to investigate/report on criminal damage which happened to a fence the day PRIOR to them stopping and interviewing these two boys - aged 11 and 12.
The PCSOs or Sussex police haven't provided any evidence as to why these two boys were stopped. Indeed, they haven't provided any witness evidence to suggest it was two boys, and that they were between the ages of 10-13.
As I said when I was a police officer, we had to have reasonable grounds to interview someone regarding an offence, or ask them questions.
It was a good idea really, as it stopped the police pulling any of us aside asking us questions about crimes we couldn't that were unconnected to us.
In this example, the PCSO weren't doing the job, as you claim. They were harrassing two very young boys, which is entirely unacceptable and should worry every law abiding person in this country.
In your post above - you shout as us that IT's THEIR LEGAL RIGHT TO HAVE A COPY. That's not entirely correct. These two boys are children in the eyes of the law and as such their legal rights must be given to them in the presence of an appropriate adult (which as you probably know is a legal term). They only instances that I know of where these rights can be overriden is the event/scenario where it's necessary to question them to save life or limb, or serious damage to property. In this story, none of these apply.
There's no getting away from it - the PCSOS are a nuisance to real police work. The sooner this lot is thanked and sent on their way, the better for us all - police included.
[quote][p][bold]Btn-Adie[/bold] wrote: It actually makes me laugh that the same poeple on here slating the police would be ringing 999 for help if they are being punched and attacked on the street. Or lets perhaps see about wanting to make a claim on the insurance that you have lost your phone or some idiot has thrown a brick through your window and you need it repaired by the council or insurers. Oh oh.. i know, kick every police officer out onto the street. so who then spends the time investigating and building a case for court? (not every crime actually happens infront of you) The PCSO's in question were doing the job they are paid to do. they had asked the group questions in relation damage. In view of that, the group were entitled to a copy of the stop form, oh someone forgot to mention IT'S THEIR LEGAL RIGHT TO HAVE A COPY. Once again The Argus has spun some non story because it cant actually send its reporters to do real reporting. If they were to get it right in the first place, the group were NOT given a ticket for playing, merely a reciept that they were spoken to. Try looking at the Police Reform Act for the powers of PCSO's.[/p][/quote]When I was a police officer, we had to have reasonable grounds to interview anyone in relation to any crime. I thought it was one of the justice system's better ideas, as it meant your mum, dad, sister or gran wouldn't be stopped willy-nilly by coppers on fishing trips. In this case, the police were called to investigate/report on criminal damage which happened to a fence the day PRIOR to them stopping and interviewing these two boys - aged 11 and 12. The PCSOs or Sussex police haven't provided any evidence as to why these two boys were stopped. Indeed, they haven't provided any witness evidence to suggest it was two boys, and that they were between the ages of 10-13. As I said when I was a police officer, we had to have reasonable grounds to interview someone regarding an offence, or ask them questions. It was a good idea really, as it stopped the police pulling any of us aside asking us questions about crimes we couldn't that were unconnected to us. In this example, the PCSO weren't doing the job, as you claim. They were harrassing two very young boys, which is entirely unacceptable and should worry every law abiding person in this country. In your post above - you shout as us that IT's THEIR LEGAL RIGHT TO HAVE A COPY. That's not entirely correct. These two boys are children in the eyes of the law and as such their legal rights must be given to them in the presence of an appropriate adult (which as you probably know is a legal term). They only instances that I know of where these rights can be overriden is the event/scenario where it's necessary to question them to save life or limb, or serious damage to property. In this story, none of these apply. There's no getting away from it - the PCSOS are a nuisance to real police work. The sooner this lot is thanked and sent on their way, the better for us all - police included. chroma
  • Score: 0

8:41pm Fri 15 Jan 10

The Brighton Bear says...

How unfortunate for these innocent young boys. If the teachers had got off their backsides and opened their school then this wouldn’t have happened.
How unfortunate for these innocent young boys. If the teachers had got off their backsides and opened their school then this wouldn’t have happened. The Brighton Bear
  • Score: 0

8:47pm Fri 15 Jan 10

chroma says...

Rita Snatch wrote:
I was at a meeting with Met Police and Event Organisers present. Event Organisers asked the Police for extra PSCO's too assist with problems in the surrounding streets,such as stopping parking in a restricted area and controlling unruly behaviour. The Police response was that additional SIA Door Supervisors (Bouncers) should be employed instead "as they had more powers than a PCSO". Discuss!
You don't make clear what event it was you're talking about.
However, there's nothing new in this approach and it was met police policy some years ago when I was with the met.
I've always agreed with this policy, as it makes perfect sense.
For example, if you organise an event, you as an organiser can impose conditions on those attending your event. For example, night clubs reserve the right to search everyone going into the club - the power to do this doesn't come from an Act of Parliament, but a condition of entry, thus a bouncer would be entitled to search those entering the club with having to suspect they've got drugs, while a police officer wouldn't be able to search them unless he had reasonable grounds, or was given special authority via one of the newer police acts.
As for parking in a restricted street - if the street comes under the local authority/council and they have opted to take over parking enforcement, then parking violations are a civil matter, and not criminal, therefore again the event's own staff would be better able to police it.
[quote][p][bold]Rita Snatch[/bold] wrote: I was at a meeting with Met Police and Event Organisers present. Event Organisers asked the Police for extra PSCO's too assist with problems in the surrounding streets,such as stopping parking in a restricted area and controlling unruly behaviour. The Police response was that additional SIA Door Supervisors (Bouncers) should be employed instead "as they had more powers than a PCSO". Discuss![/p][/quote]You don't make clear what event it was you're talking about. However, there's nothing new in this approach and it was met police policy some years ago when I was with the met. I've always agreed with this policy, as it makes perfect sense. For example, if you organise an event, you as an organiser can impose conditions on those attending your event. For example, night clubs reserve the right to search everyone going into the club - the power to do this doesn't come from an Act of Parliament, but a condition of entry, thus a bouncer would be entitled to search those entering the club with having to suspect they've got drugs, while a police officer wouldn't be able to search them unless he had reasonable grounds, or was given special authority via one of the newer police acts. As for parking in a restricted street - if the street comes under the local authority/council and they have opted to take over parking enforcement, then parking violations are a civil matter, and not criminal, therefore again the event's own staff would be better able to police it. chroma
  • Score: 0

8:50pm Fri 15 Jan 10

Debt Master says...

I think that the blame comes down the parents. When I were a lad a good back hander did you the world of good and you felt better for it.
The children shoud have been giving a thick ear and taken home to their father (if that could find out who their father was)
I think that the blame comes down the parents. When I were a lad a good back hander did you the world of good and you felt better for it. The children shoud have been giving a thick ear and taken home to their father (if that could find out who their father was) Debt Master
  • Score: 0

9:00pm Fri 15 Jan 10

chroma says...

markokeeffe wrote:
Well the whole lot will have to be redesigned now that the European Court of Human Rights has decided that Stop and Search is a breach of human rights, and therefore illegal - see the law report in the Times today!!
You sound more like a Daily Mail reader than a Times reader. I'm sure you won't take offence at that, and if you do I apologise now, but the European Court of Human Rights have not said it's illegal for police to stop and search - what they have said is that the new powers hastily introduced by Tony Blair and his chums that allow any one of us to be stopped and searched without a reason under the prevention of terrorism act, to be illegal.
Personally, I believe this is a good thing as of late the police have been able to harrass and stop anyone they like, for whatever reason, and they explain it way under the prevention of terrorism act.
Examples of this include a story not so long ago on here where an amateur photographer was stopped taking pictures of Christmas lights in Crawley or somewhere under the prevention of terrorism act.
I've no problem with stop and search, but it has to be used only where reasonable grounds exist. Otherwise we revert back to what was known as the 'sus laws', which as those of us who've been around for a while led to rioting all over the country, and the death of PC Keith Blakelock.
[quote][p][bold]markokeeffe[/bold] wrote: Well the whole lot will have to be redesigned now that the European Court of Human Rights has decided that Stop and Search is a breach of human rights, and therefore illegal - see the law report in the Times today!![/p][/quote]You sound more like a Daily Mail reader than a Times reader. I'm sure you won't take offence at that, and if you do I apologise now, but the European Court of Human Rights have not said it's illegal for police to stop and search - what they have said is that the new powers hastily introduced by Tony Blair and his chums that allow any one of us to be stopped and searched without a reason under the prevention of terrorism act, to be illegal. Personally, I believe this is a good thing as of late the police have been able to harrass and stop anyone they like, for whatever reason, and they explain it way under the prevention of terrorism act. Examples of this include a story not so long ago on here where an amateur photographer was stopped taking pictures of Christmas lights in Crawley or somewhere under the prevention of terrorism act. I've no problem with stop and search, but it has to be used only where reasonable grounds exist. Otherwise we revert back to what was known as the 'sus laws', which as those of us who've been around for a while led to rioting all over the country, and the death of PC Keith Blakelock. chroma
  • Score: 0

11:26pm Fri 15 Jan 10

pun master says...

chroma wrote:
Btn-Adie wrote:
It actually makes me laugh that the same poeple on here slating the police would be ringing 999 for help if they are being punched and attacked on the street. Or lets perhaps see about wanting to make a claim on the insurance that you have lost your phone or some idiot has thrown a brick through your window and you need it repaired by the council or insurers. Oh oh.. i know, kick every police officer out onto the street. so who then spends the time investigating and building a case for court? (not every crime actually happens infront of you) The PCSO's in question were doing the job they are paid to do. they had asked the group questions in relation damage. In view of that, the group were entitled to a copy of the stop form, oh someone forgot to mention IT'S THEIR LEGAL RIGHT TO HAVE A COPY. Once again The Argus has spun some non story because it cant actually send its reporters to do real reporting. If they were to get it right in the first place, the group were NOT given a ticket for playing, merely a reciept that they were spoken to. Try looking at the Police Reform Act for the powers of PCSO's.
When I was a police officer, we had to have reasonable grounds to interview anyone in relation to any crime. I thought it was one of the justice system's better ideas, as it meant your mum, dad, sister or gran wouldn't be stopped willy-nilly by coppers on fishing trips.
In this case, the police were called to investigate/report on criminal damage which happened to a fence the day PRIOR to them stopping and interviewing these two boys - aged 11 and 12.
The PCSOs or Sussex police haven't provided any evidence as to why these two boys were stopped. Indeed, they haven't provided any witness evidence to suggest it was two boys, and that they were between the ages of 10-13.
As I said when I was a police officer, we had to have reasonable grounds to interview someone regarding an offence, or ask them questions.
It was a good idea really, as it stopped the police pulling any of us aside asking us questions about crimes we couldn't that were unconnected to us.
In this example, the PCSO weren't doing the job, as you claim. They were harrassing two very young boys, which is entirely unacceptable and should worry every law abiding person in this country.
In your post above - you shout as us that IT's THEIR LEGAL RIGHT TO HAVE A COPY. That's not entirely correct. These two boys are children in the eyes of the law and as such their legal rights must be given to them in the presence of an appropriate adult (which as you probably know is a legal term). They only instances that I know of where these rights can be overriden is the event/scenario where it's necessary to question them to save life or limb, or serious damage to property. In this story, none of these apply.
There's no getting away from it - the PCSOS are a nuisance to real police work. The sooner this lot is thanked and sent on their way, the better for us all - police included.
Funny, because all of my friends who are police officers (and there are quite a few) have no problem with the PCSO's and their role, as they see that they free them up from menial tasks such as scene guarding, dealing with minor anti-social behaviour and the like, freeing them up to tackle more useful policing roles. There may be an argument for better training or clearer defined roles, but there are plenty of OCSO's who take their job seriously, and are working bloody hard to do it professionally. I am grateful for anybody who is prepared to try and make society better...
[quote][p][bold]chroma[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Btn-Adie[/bold] wrote: It actually makes me laugh that the same poeple on here slating the police would be ringing 999 for help if they are being punched and attacked on the street. Or lets perhaps see about wanting to make a claim on the insurance that you have lost your phone or some idiot has thrown a brick through your window and you need it repaired by the council or insurers. Oh oh.. i know, kick every police officer out onto the street. so who then spends the time investigating and building a case for court? (not every crime actually happens infront of you) The PCSO's in question were doing the job they are paid to do. they had asked the group questions in relation damage. In view of that, the group were entitled to a copy of the stop form, oh someone forgot to mention IT'S THEIR LEGAL RIGHT TO HAVE A COPY. Once again The Argus has spun some non story because it cant actually send its reporters to do real reporting. If they were to get it right in the first place, the group were NOT given a ticket for playing, merely a reciept that they were spoken to. Try looking at the Police Reform Act for the powers of PCSO's.[/p][/quote]When I was a police officer, we had to have reasonable grounds to interview anyone in relation to any crime. I thought it was one of the justice system's better ideas, as it meant your mum, dad, sister or gran wouldn't be stopped willy-nilly by coppers on fishing trips. In this case, the police were called to investigate/report on criminal damage which happened to a fence the day PRIOR to them stopping and interviewing these two boys - aged 11 and 12. The PCSOs or Sussex police haven't provided any evidence as to why these two boys were stopped. Indeed, they haven't provided any witness evidence to suggest it was two boys, and that they were between the ages of 10-13. As I said when I was a police officer, we had to have reasonable grounds to interview someone regarding an offence, or ask them questions. It was a good idea really, as it stopped the police pulling any of us aside asking us questions about crimes we couldn't that were unconnected to us. In this example, the PCSO weren't doing the job, as you claim. They were harrassing two very young boys, which is entirely unacceptable and should worry every law abiding person in this country. In your post above - you shout as us that IT's THEIR LEGAL RIGHT TO HAVE A COPY. That's not entirely correct. These two boys are children in the eyes of the law and as such their legal rights must be given to them in the presence of an appropriate adult (which as you probably know is a legal term). They only instances that I know of where these rights can be overriden is the event/scenario where it's necessary to question them to save life or limb, or serious damage to property. In this story, none of these apply. There's no getting away from it - the PCSOS are a nuisance to real police work. The sooner this lot is thanked and sent on their way, the better for us all - police included.[/p][/quote]Funny, because all of my friends who are police officers (and there are quite a few) have no problem with the PCSO's and their role, as they see that they free them up from menial tasks such as scene guarding, dealing with minor anti-social behaviour and the like, freeing them up to tackle more useful policing roles. There may be an argument for better training or clearer defined roles, but there are plenty of OCSO's who take their job seriously, and are working bloody hard to do it professionally. I am grateful for anybody who is prepared to try and make society better... pun master
  • Score: 0

11:27pm Fri 15 Jan 10

pun master says...

I know brightonbear, I know; should have been PCSO's, not OCSO's. Must have been all that time off I had...
I know brightonbear, I know; should have been PCSO's, not OCSO's. Must have been all that time off I had... pun master
  • Score: 0

8:46am Sat 16 Jan 10

kevg says...

Yawn yawn yawn... Brilliant story argus!!!!
Before I left Sussex police to work for another force, all police and pcso's were required to fill out a form for every single member of the public they spoke to... In theory that would include when someone stopped you to ask the time or directions somewhere. This was as a direct result of the Stephen Lawrence enquiry... Recording every detail including ethnic appearance. Clothing hair colour etc etc. This was to provide figures on the numbers of people stopped and from which part of the community they come from. It is also a requirement to inform the person spoken to that they have a right to a copy of the form... So they can make representations should they feel victimised.
It sounds to me that these pcso's have done exactly what they are paid to do... Check on two lads. At a time when they could have been at school if it wasn't closed due to the weather. Check they weren't doing anything wrong and then letting them carry on having fun.
Yawn yawn yawn... Brilliant story argus!!!! Before I left Sussex police to work for another force, all police and pcso's were required to fill out a form for every single member of the public they spoke to... In theory that would include when someone stopped you to ask the time or directions somewhere. This was as a direct result of the Stephen Lawrence enquiry... Recording every detail including ethnic appearance. Clothing hair colour etc etc. This was to provide figures on the numbers of people stopped and from which part of the community they come from. It is also a requirement to inform the person spoken to that they have a right to a copy of the form... So they can make representations should they feel victimised. It sounds to me that these pcso's have done exactly what they are paid to do... Check on two lads. At a time when they could have been at school if it wasn't closed due to the weather. Check they weren't doing anything wrong and then letting them carry on having fun. kevg
  • Score: 0

1:00pm Sat 16 Jan 10

Jay-kay says...

JUST LET THE KIDS PLAY FOR GOODNESS SAKES WITHOUT ALL THE DO GOODERS
JUST LET THE KIDS PLAY FOR GOODNESS SAKES WITHOUT ALL THE DO GOODERS Jay-kay
  • Score: 0

2:23pm Sat 16 Jan 10

leeeeee says...

Police Community Support Officers = so useless you cant even be real pigs
Police Community Support Officers = so useless you cant even be real pigs leeeeee
  • Score: 0

3:22pm Sat 16 Jan 10

Gubbins says...

I think something has been overlooked in this article ?

At the end of it

"the incident would not be stored on the boys’s criminal records, but that a record would be kept locally to say that they had been spoken to"

The PCSO were only following up on a damaged fence report.

The inferrence in this article is that these boys had criminal records ?

Non-story but dodgy none the less.
I think something has been overlooked in this article ? At the end of it "the incident would not be stored on the boys’s criminal records, but that a record would be kept locally to say that they had been spoken to" The PCSO were only following up on a damaged fence report. The inferrence in this article is that these boys had criminal records ? Non-story but dodgy none the less. Gubbins
  • Score: 0

5:27pm Sat 16 Jan 10

tombraider59 says...

This is typical of the police in this area - I live near to where this happened and I walk over this field everyday.
On a daily basis, it is normal for us walkers to risk life and limb, almost being mown down by motorbikes and 4x4s who are using the Downs illegally.
What is it about 4x4 drivers - they seem to think they can drive wherever they like, even where vehicles are prohibited?
The police don't respond to calls where lives are in danger, they'd rather waste their efforts on two harmless kids having a bit of fun. It's no wonder people take the law into their own hands.
This is typical of the police in this area - I live near to where this happened and I walk over this field everyday. On a daily basis, it is normal for us walkers to risk life and limb, almost being mown down by motorbikes and 4x4s who are using the Downs illegally. What is it about 4x4 drivers - they seem to think they can drive wherever they like, even where vehicles are prohibited? The police don't respond to calls where lives are in danger, they'd rather waste their efforts on two harmless kids having a bit of fun. It's no wonder people take the law into their own hands. tombraider59
  • Score: 0

5:32pm Sat 16 Jan 10

tombraider59 says...

Debt Master wrote:
I think that the blame comes down the parents. When I were a lad a good back hander did you the world of good and you felt better for it. The children shoud have been giving a thick ear and taken home to their father (if that could find out who their father was)
Why would you give a back-hander to an innocent person? Surely sledging in the snow isn't illegal now, is it?

I'm surprised the police attended a report of criminal damage, you've got more chance of being whisked away by a Martian than getting police response in this area!
[quote][p][bold]Debt Master[/bold] wrote: I think that the blame comes down the parents. When I were a lad a good back hander did you the world of good and you felt better for it. The children shoud have been giving a thick ear and taken home to their father (if that could find out who their father was)[/p][/quote]Why would you give a back-hander to an innocent person? Surely sledging in the snow isn't illegal now, is it? I'm surprised the police attended a report of criminal damage, you've got more chance of being whisked away by a Martian than getting police response in this area! tombraider59
  • Score: 0

10:38pm Sat 16 Jan 10

JamesFarter says...

But it's not enough to simply rely on two parties recollection of events. That is precisely why things ARE written down. Things written down at the time have more evidential value. And if what is being written down is wrong and false that is a serious matter.

So I ask again, what else is being wrongly and falsely recorded?

Bibble, to respond to your last; Most of your comments on this particular article? Can I ask what else you wrongly record in your current employment? Assuming you work..

Security word for Bibble.

Pot-Kettle
But it's not enough to simply rely on two parties recollection of events. That is precisely why things ARE written down. Things written down at the time have more evidential value. And if what is being written down is wrong and false that is a serious matter. So I ask again, what else is being wrongly and falsely recorded? Bibble, to respond to your last; Most of your comments on this particular article? Can I ask what else you wrongly record in your current employment? Assuming you work.. Security word for Bibble. Pot-Kettle JamesFarter
  • Score: 0

11:34am Sun 17 Jan 10

D Merrett says...

From this story and others like this - there is a clear message to Chief Constables around the country. The public do not want or need PCSO. They have limited powers and articles like this underline the thinking on these half pint PC's. We would rather save on 4 PCSO's and have properly trained clear thinking Full Time PC'S, all be they less in numbers
From this story and others like this - there is a clear message to Chief Constables around the country. The public do not want or need PCSO. They have limited powers and articles like this underline the thinking on these half pint PC's. We would rather save on 4 PCSO's and have properly trained clear thinking Full Time PC'S, all be they less in numbers D Merrett
  • Score: 0

2:41pm Sun 17 Jan 10

Barney McGrew says...

Absolutely pathetic! Code word : jobsworths!! d'uh...
Absolutely pathetic! Code word : jobsworths!! d'uh... Barney McGrew
  • Score: 0

10:25pm Sun 17 Jan 10

emma barnes says...

Sussex Police said it was investigating reports of criminal damage
Sussex Police said it was investigating reports of criminal damage emma barnes
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree