Police officers who chase criminals could face sack

 

Glen Smyth, chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation, says policing is a dangerous business

 

 

 

Police officers who launch chases over roofs, railway lines and busy roads could be sacked for putting the health and safety of criminals at risk, it has emerged.

New Home Office proposals say that any officer who knowingly flouts guidelines designed to protect themselves and the public could face dismissal for "gross misconduct".

The suggested new rule has infuriated rank-and-file officers who feel that it amounts to a "criminal's charter".

The fear is that police will be too scared to give chase to a suspected thief, burglar or mugger because their own job could be at risk if anyone is injured.

Scenarios outlined to the Daily Mail which could be affected include any confrontations which involve running across roofs, railway lines or busy roads.

The idea is contained in the Home Office's "draft police misconduct procedure" - which was circulated in July this year.

Underneath the heading of "gross misconduct", it lists all the offences which could lead to officers being sacked from their force.

One of the suggested new offences says: "Non compliance with health and safety rules and regulations where it endangers the well being of the police officer or others."

Last night a police source said: "This is madness. It will leave officers in two minds when they are embarking on a potentially dangerous chase.

"The last thing officers need is to be worrying about their job when they are out on the front line tackling potentially violent criminals.

"These are split second decisions we are talking about and the chances are that some officers will decide it is not worth the risk."

Glen Smyth, chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation, said: "Policing is a dangerous business. You simply cannot eliminate risk. If a suspect jumps into a river flowing faster than they realised and subsequently drowns, is that an officer's fault?

"Also, if officers think they will be punished for making health and safety mistakes, they are less likely to own up to them. Health and safety matters should be left to the Health and Safety Executive. If someone is successfully prosecuted, they can then be dealt with by their force."

David Davies, Tory MP for Monmouth who is currently spending several days observing front line officers, said: "Having seen the very strict rules and safety considerations already taken into account by officers when they make an arrest, the last thing they need is another worry.

"The moment of arrest prompts a mixture of fear and adrenalin. This new regulation appears to have been dreamt up by someone sat in a comfortable office in Whitehall."

The proposals are currently out to consultation for several more weeks.

In June, it emerged that forces across the country have already been told not to chase after motobike thieves who do not wear a helmet.

Heating engineer Max Foster, 18, was informed officers would not pursue two youngsters who stole his moped because, in the event of injury, the riders could sue the force.

Last year it was also revealed that Immigration Service officials had been told not to chase suspected illegal immigrants who run away from them.

The extraordinary instruction from senior officials warned of health and safety concerns for officers visiting addresses where suspects are living.

It also said that police, who sometimes accompany immigration officers, should be told in advance that if the suspect runs away the officer may not follow.

The new row comes three years after former Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir John Stevens and Lord Condon both faced an Old Bailey trial after being prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive.

The £3 million case ended with both men being cleared after they were accused of failing in their duty to protect two constables who plunged through roofs while chasing suspects.

One of the officers died and the other almost died. The force is facing a new health and safety prosecution next year over the shooting of innocent Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes who was shot eight times because police mistook him for a suicide bomber.

I wish the health and safety people would get a life. Do they live wrapped up in cotton wool? I bet they do.

 

I hope whoever decided this, gets mugged and watches the police just stand there.

 

The health and safety brigade - W*****s

lol I'm a health and safety inspector, am I a wanker :rolleyes:

 

Most coppers though can't scale a 6ft wall, because of their beer gut :dozey:

Well depends - do you make kids wear goggles when playing conkers?

The suggestion that children should wear safety goggles whilst playing conkers is just the type of thing that gives sensible health and safety a bad name.

 

The issue of requiring Head Teachers to ensure children wear safety goggles whilst playing conkers is not something we would ever be involved in, the notion that inspectors monitoring playground activities across the country is crap. Obviously safety goggles are very important within the correct environment, for example, whilst using cutting equipment.

 

You've been reading to many ill-written articles general smut ;)

Even when i use nail clippers to cut my toe nails?

that's not a work activity, unless you do it for a living?

I do it on my own.

 

:-(

The suggestion that children should wear safety goggles whilst playing conkers is just the type of thing that gives sensible health and safety a bad name.

 

The issue of requiring Head Teachers to ensure children wear safety goggles whilst playing conkers is not something we would ever be involved in, the notion that inspectors monitoring playground activities across the country is crap. Obviously safety goggles are very important within the correct environment, for example, whilst using cutting equipment.

 

You've been reading to many ill-written articles general smut ;)

 

What about three-legged races, sack races, and sometimes entire school sports days being cancelled for "health and safety" reasons?:thinking:

that's down to the schools or the local authority, since I don't work for either it's not for me to comment

that's down to the schools or the local authority' date=' since I don't work for either it's not for me to comment[/quote']

 

But you could offer your opinion!!:D

I could, yes ;)

Ah the good new days, if they get the thief it would be polite to offer tea and cookies, or the thief might get emotionaly hurt due to police's rude behaviour.

Meh!

cookies are wholly unacceptable sustainance to offer a criminal, should they put on weight they could sue ;)

Best to hire a nutrician in that case.