lawfulneutralmage

The term used in the British police is "Member of the Public". Sometimes we would use "civilian", simple because it is easier to use/say. That is a statement I completely disagree with, sorry, especially for US officers (see below). That I completely agree with! Unfortunately, that is a function of how society is/behaves. Generally, the police is equipped to deal with what it faces in society. British police have, apart from a baton, never been armed. Then, pepper spray was introduced as a less "damaging" alternative. And believe me, you rather want to be hurt by pepper spray than a baton, yet it is qualified as a firearm under British law. Hence we had to lock it away which someone commented on earlier. When I started, having an incident involving a knife was very rare, when I quit 10 years later, we had one at least once a week. Facing someone with a knife is actually quite a thing ... if they know how to use it they are a real threat to any officer facing them and others, especially as you do not know why they use it i.e. their intention. You have to assume they want to take you out aka kill you. Literally! So, we got Taser officers. At least two per shift. It might sound like populism, but yes, I have witnessed an increase in violence and general resistance to the police over the course of my ten years. In the US where every idiot, sorry, Member of the Public, can draw an assault rifle on you, tactics, responses and equipment must be sufficient to enable a mostly single-crewed officer to deal with the situation. For me, it does look extremely intimidating, and I do not wish that for where I life. But that is not a police issue, but a societal one.

When I came home on Sunday night, I was shattered. Morris-Walker’s revelations and plan of action were painful to contemplate. It had occupied my mind for most of the drive back to the Home Office building and the subsequent drive home. Almost every police officer got more cynical over the course of their career when the reality of policing clashed with youthful dreams, when the dreams of chasing bandits in pursuits and catching criminals got replaced by the reality of paperwork and most of

Oh, the first two years out of the police were so hard! I still miss it.

Thanks everyone!

Sorry just saw the edit. No apologies necessary! I find the British system very interesting. The fact that the oldest law I once arrested someone for was the 1848 Town Police Clauses Act which also forbids people to drive cattle down the high street... I grew up in a completely different legal system. I had to learn all that stuff and that means for me, I had to understand it.

The Home Office has at least two Junior Ministers, one is the Minister of State for Crime, Policing, and Fire. Those are not members of the cabinet yet hold the title Minister.

Excellent questions! I must ask you to bear with me!

Yes, absolutely!

I see you are an incurable romantic

Ok, before this becomes a conspiracy theory, let me give an example. My force's domestic violence policy was one of "positive intervention" i.e. if there was something to go on by, we would need to open criminal proceeding against the offender. This is a good policy and is intended to protect victims. The problem is that it covers someone beating up their spouse as well as someone during an argument walking backwards and breaking a vase (if they do not live in the house, it would be criminal damage). We had exactly that. A couple had an argument and one stepped backwards, breaking something. Both parties independently stated that it was accidental. So, according to force policy I would have needed to arrest the perpetrator under the suspicion of Criminal Damage. Now that would not have helped anyone. Instead, we offered the perpetrator a ride home and agreed that the next time they met to finish some stuff about their relationship was with a police presence. Both agreed voluntarily. You hopefully see that this was a better outcome than following policy!

Jamie's powers were "switched on" when the ghost strangled him.

Interesting that you mention that, because actually ... no. Maybe that is a particularity of British law, but no superior rank can order a Constable to perform any action that in law requires the executing officer's "suspicion". This includes amongst others, arresting someone. Constables have the power to arrest someone if they suspect a crime having been committed and that the person is suspected of having committed that crime (double suspicion principle). Administrative orders have to be followed, of course. Technically, the royal powers and parliament's powers were outlined in the 1660(?) Act of Restoration when the British Parliament invested Charles II and subsequent legislation. There is Royal Prerogative i.e. the stuff the sovereign is allowed to do and to decide but parliament makes the laws in the country. The Prime Minister became an important post only in the Georgian period (staring around 1750 (???)) when the Hannoveran George I ruled a country whose language he didn't speak. Everything had to come through the prime minister. The prime minister is the first minister of the Crown and acts on behalf of the sovereign. Technically, what is known in other countries as "the cabinet" is the sovereign's "privy council". There is a nice administrative instrument called "order in council" with which the gouvernment aka the PM can order the administration to do stuff, even if parliament disagrees. This does not extend to breaking a law, but anything that is not covered by any law is fair game. Part of Royal Prerogative is foreign relations. This is how the Prime Minister of the UK can declare war without asking parliament, although there was debate about getting rid of that, but I do not know whether they have by now. This is how Britain participated in the Gulf war. Tony Blair just said so, and the British have never forgiven him for that. I love British law!

Well...no.

My favourite official truth is: "At no point in time has there been any threat to civilian life or safety."

That is a horrible situation to be in!

True. Jamie is doing something that violates his core being. Hence his conflicts. However, he cannot tell any of it without disclosing his paranormal abilities. Also, on a more sinister note, in the light of pure self preservation, one could argue that the less people know a secret the better. But that would be very egoistic, and I doubt that is Jamie's thinking.

Yep. When Jamie said that being with a police officers has its own challenges. That is one of them. However, I did not write that. That is my fault. It was too "clear" for me that confidentiality and withholding information are normal.

RMW is Minister of the Crown for Policing. His clearance is probably much higher than Jamie's But here it is RMW using Jamie because they both "know" of the paranormal. RMW has nobody else to confide in, it seems. Jamie maybe has.

Exactly! The normal policing rules apply i.e. data protection and confidentiality, and yes, it does require "lying" or withholding information. I had to do that! I have withheld information from my husband! Until we left the country, I had never told him that I had to attend two immediate response graded incidents at our direct neighbours! I have till now never told about the whole story surrounding that family. You must not divulge information!

Yes, just realised myself its the next chapter. Sorry! Mea culpa! I will edit the warning! [done]

True! There is no FDA/NIST for street drugs! Thank you!

Sounds like the perfect storm. All the best to all of you! Get it, thx!

Yes... The savings drive removed officers from VISOR units which deal with the sex offenders. So, there was a call to Specials whether they would accompany VISOR officers to perform house visits. My crewmate volunteered. It was an experience he could do without, he said. Luckily, in my case, when I told hubby about it he issued a veto for which I am still grateful.

Yes, that decision could have cost him his job. Technically though, alcohol is just a drug like ecstasy or cannabis. It is just that somebody declared one legal and the others not. I think is only legal, because prohibition cannot be enforced. Alcohol is too easy to manufacture. Religions have tried controlling sex and drugs for millennia. People will always fuck, and people will always get hammered. There will never be a drug free society. I hope you will like the next chapter. Yes! I do not envie him at all.