Jump to content
Experience the Altis Life
keyboard_arrow_right
ALTIS LIFE 1
...
ALTIS LIFE 2
...
DAYZ UK
...
TEAMSPEAK
...
...

We are currently undergoing maintenance

The forums are available for use, yet please do not expect full functionality.

YoCo

Change to policing guidelines

Recommended Posts

YoCo
Posted (edited)

In regards to a recent PCC, I believe there should be changes to the policing guidelines on scrapping vehicles.

 

I quote:

“Police Command has reviewed your complaint and has come to the following conclusion:

Officers: Sergeant SinLess [5756] and Inspector Jason Wild [8777] have not breached any of the police guidelines as you provided no information regarding the incident to police. 

With that said Officers: Sergeant SinLess [5756] and Inspector Jason Wild [8777] will be spoken to by myself regarding alternate methods when dealing with similar situations in the future. 

Police Complaint Closed.
Best Regards, 

Assistant Chief Constable Shepherd.”

 

 

well, if they haven’t broken police procedures, why would you speak to them regarding alternate methods? Unless there is something inherently wrong with the handbook/guidelines.

 

I believe the way it is currently set up gives police complete immunity to act however they choose with no repercussions. It’s not the first instance of wrongful scrapping (particularly of expensive vehicles) where although ‘wrong’ it fell within police guidelines and as such nobody is to remain culpable. 

 

change the handbook to make police officers/APD more accountable for the vehicles they scrap. Obviously without just telling you to change it: I’ll other some solutions that I think might work.

 

- Only scrap when identity can be confirmed and the individual spoken to (exclusions to this would be the vehicle used as part of a gunfight where the assailant perished and vehicle not reported stolen)

- (//bit of a dev suggestion) when the driver/pilot can’t be found add ‘perma notes’ to specific vehicles that persist through death or whatever and can only be removed if the individual comes to speak to the cops about it (three strikes equals a scrap)

 

(Not even gonna go into the fact that four questions from the complainant went unanswered and the incident was just brushed aside without proper response probably because they knew how much BS it was themselves) @ACC Shepherd

Edited by YoCo
  • Like 21
  • Facepalm 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sciencefreak74

Just going to point it out that the pilot in question was still in breach of civil aviation act which is grounds to scrap. The fact that he was flying in a position that meant he could not deal with an emergency without his aircraft ending up in what is defined as a "built up area" is, in fact, a crime in itself. The only exception to this is when the aircraft in question is itself being used as part of emergency services/emergency rescue. If the pilot was flying without breaking this law, when he had the emergency he would have been able to follow correct emergency procedures as evident in the "flight reference cards" and specific "airspace safety books", which are both mandatory to have read before solo flying, and be able to land or abandon the aircraft without interfering with a built-up area.

  • Love 1
  • Hype 1
  • Facepalm 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
YoCo
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, sciencefreak74 said:

Just going to point it out that the pilot in question was still in breach of civil aviation act which is grounds to scrap. 

 

Just going to point out if I get threatened and forced to rob a fuel station. I’m still commiting a crime, but you’re hardly gonna send me to jail for it are you?

 

I feel like you’ve missed the point of my post entirely and have in fact proved it. Cops have unlimited powers to scrap, pretty much anything warrants a scrap according to the handbook. And they distinguish based on extinuating circumstances, they treat the law as black and white (just have you did in your reply) when In fact it isn’t. 

 

Since youre the first officer to reply; I’ll ask you simple. Do you see any issues with the current guidelines on scrapping? @sciencefreak74

 

 

Edited by YoCo
  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CC Tadworth

Yoco,

Firstly, I'd like to address your following point:

 
 
 
2 hours ago, YoCo said:

well, if they haven’t broken police procedures, why would you speak to them regarding alternate methods? Unless there is something inherently wrong with the handbook/guidelines.

The fact that they haven't broken Police Procedure is a testament to how our officers follow the rules and guidelines set by Police Command, they followed the current rules regarding the scrapping of the jet to a tee, whilst also remaining in line with the legislative processes set out by the Civil Aviation Act.

We're always open to working with officers to ensure that the legislation they use day in, day out is applicable to the situations they find themselves in and will advise on best practice regarding guidelines when possible, however, you must know that our officers have a massive degree of discretion when it comes to applying the law to these offences, as every situation varies, it would be impossible to standardise each and every factor involved in coming to a decision, this is why officers are required to be able to justify their actions in relation to the NDM (shown below).

NEW-National-decision-model1.png

The chat we had with the officers regarding the "alternative options" they could've taken, is included in the "review what happened" section of the NDM, it's there to ensure that organisationally we're always improving; by giving each other new ideas and advising change or indeed, agreeing that prior actions were justified, even if other officers in the same situation may have taken "alternative" actions.

Regarding your next point:

2 hours ago, YoCo said:

I believe the way it is currently set up gives police complete immunity to act however they choose with no repercussions. It’s not the first instance of wrongful scrapping (particularly of expensive vehicles) where although ‘wrong’ it fell within police guidelines and as such nobody is to remain culpable. 

Officers are naturally given a certain degree of protection, if they followed the guidelines, it would be absolutely preposterous for us to find them in breach of their duty, and would almost certainly lead to a massive degree of inconsistency, as people would just make up their own rules and guidelines as they went along. Officers will always be dealt with in the appropriate manner, if they have failed to fulfil their duty or have not correctly followed guidelines, we will never reprimand officers for following the guidelines we set out correctly.

Regarding the "wrongful scrapping", as I've already stated, these officers followed rules, guidelines and legislation around the subject, and the "wrongful scrapping" is entirely subjective and based around the ethics of the scrapping of the vehicle, not the factual rules, guidelines or legislation once again.

The price of vehicles has no affect on how the law is applied, it's like a Ford Fiesta going 200mp/h and a Ferarri going 200mp/h down the M1, they'd both be dealt with in the same way, just because one is a Ferrari doesn't mean it gets special considerations, the law is equal for all people, rich or poor, student or bricklayer etc etc.

I hope this answers your questions,

Kind Regards,
CC Tadworth.

 

  • Like 8
  • Love 2
  • Facepalm 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
YoCo
Posted (edited)

@CC Tadworth

Thank you for the detailed reply. I feel like if the following questions were answered in response to the PCC, it would help me greatly in understanding the 

 

“1. You admit you were at the scene of an accident, why did you not attempt to contact me? Why did you not check local hospitals for recent victims of air crashes? (The jet is registered, it would have been easy enough to get a hold of me).

2. You admit it was a crash landing and that I didn't willingly break the law but yet you chose to scrap regardless. What 'common sense' did you employ that? How is an  impounding  the vehicle not more suitable to the situation?

3. You use laws as your defence. Do you scrap every vehicle that is parked at the side of the road? Because according to your handbook that wouldn't 'break any police procedure either'

4. And finally, did you check my name on the PNC, see that I was a law abiding citizen and decided to scrap regardless?”

 

these are all questions posed in the PCC. And if you can answer these and then tell me there is not an issue with the current guidelines on scrapping. Then I would most certainly tell you that you’re wrong. 

 

 

Also as you state “the price of vehicles has no effect on how the law is applied”. This may be true in real life, but this is a game after all And I would say that’s nonsense giving that every vehicle driven off road, is a scrappable offence but yet they’re never scrapped. (Unless they’re a 20 mill aircraft 😂)

 

what we have in the given situation, is two over zealous and scrap happy cops who see the opportunity to take away a 20 mil vehicle from an individual because the autocratic guidelines allow them to do so. 

 

 

 

As a last point, I would like to state that;

A. Within RP, I don’t believe the officers followed correct procedures in scrapping as they chose not to contact the individual despite having his identity, they chose to ignore the fact that it was obviously the scene of an accident, they chose to ignore the fact the individual wasn’t wanted. 

They took the lazy route as allowed by the silly guidelines. 

 

B. Out of RP, 20 million is a lot of money, more than the majority the server has in their bank, and it takes a lot of time to acquire. The current police guidelines allow someone to take that away in an instant, even when its unjustified. 

Edited by YoCo
  • Like 19
  • Facepalm 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CC Tadworth

Yoco,

 
 
 
22 hours ago, YoCo said:

Thank you for the detailed reply. I feel like if the following questions were answered in response to the PCC, it would help me greatly in understanding

 
 
 
22 hours ago, YoCo said:

these are all questions posed in the PCC. And if you can answer these and then tell me there is not an issue with the current guidelines on scrapping. Then I would most certainly tell you that you’re wrong. 

I'm going to start by noting that these two statements are completely contradictory of each other, you state that you'd like for me to answer the questions, but even if I do so, then you're going to tell me that I'm wrong anyways?

Irregardless of the fact that you've already made your mind up that my answers will be wrong, here they are.

22 hours ago, YoCo said:

You admit you were at the scene of an accident, why did you not attempt to contact me? Why did you not check local hospitals for recent victims of air crashes? (The jet is registered, it would have been easy enough to get a hold of me)

Should you have been in an air crash, the duty of care for the pilot is to himself, his crew and his aircraft, in this case, the pilot states

Quote

I hurt my head very bad after that rough landing so my friend dragged me to Agios, where the medic was treating me. While I was on the floor getting treated by the medic I received a notification on my iPad that my jet in Athira was scrapped by the police.

Considering that, Athira and Agios are at least 7km from each other, and the pilot was "dragged" from Agios to Athira, it is only natural to expect that during that time (especially considering the pilots consciousness) it is only fair to say that you had ample opportunity to inform the relevant organisations of the unfortunate turn of events leading up to the crash, being the Police & Air Traffic Control, once again it is your jet, it is your responsibility, rules & regulations were followed correctly and decisions were made in line with the National Decision Model.

22 hours ago, YoCo said:

You admit it was a crash landing and that I didn't willingly break the law but yet you chose to scrap regardless. What 'common sense' did you employ that? How is an  impounding  the vehicle not more suitable to the situation?

As stated by @SGT SinLess in the original complaint, his reasons behind the scrap were as follows:

  • You were assisted by a friend of yours and later on taken to Agios to receive the proper medical assistance that you required within all of this time surely your partner sure could've find a bit of time to send in a police dispatch regarding the what happened with you and the To-199 Neophron CAS
  • "You are an experienced pilot and that you have the required Aviation License to be flying helicopters and planes/jets in the island of Altis as so, I believe you also have the common sense not to land a jet within city limits"
    • Athira is a town surrounded by open fields which would've made a much more "Common Sence" place to land a failing aircraft, and if you were not able to divert towards one of these, you must've been flying the aircraft at either
      • a) reckless speed (be that high or low)
      • b) reckless altitude (extremely low to the ground)
  • The aircraft was stationary in the middle of the road as the picture that was provided shows.

I think this reasoning is very common sense, any reasonable man would've flown at a correct altitude and speed as to ensure that in a case where there was a failure, they would be able to correctly account for such failure and divert to a more proper emergency landing point, be it a nearby airfield (the main airport is at most 3km from Athira) or even simply an open field, your choice of Athira was poor and negligent.

22 hours ago, YoCo said:

You use laws as your defence. Do you scrap every vehicle that is parked at the side of the road? Because according to your handbook that wouldn't 'break any police procedure either'

Officers are required to follow procedure, law and guidelines correctly, discretion is given and this is evaluated on a case by case basis, the points above outline @SGT SinLess's use of his discretion and these, once again, show a decision making process in line with the National Decision Model, therefore it is deemed that this is a lawful use of his power to scrap your aircraft.

22 hours ago, YoCo said:

And finally, did you check my name on the PNC, see that I was a law abiding citizen and decided to scrap regardless

Although this has not been established in fact on the original PCC, it would be noted that being a "law-abiding citizen" intelligence gathered by ourselves and partner agencies suggests that Eemil has previously taken part in an execution and is affiliated with the group "The Plebs", which completely disregards this point as being complete nonsense, there is nothing law-abiding about either of those two points.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I will deal with the following points separately to my prior answers, as they are not statements of fact, but instead are opinion.

 
 
1
22 hours ago, YoCo said:

what we have in the given situation, is two over zealous and scrap happy cops who see the opportunity to take away a 20 mil vehicle from an individual because the autocratic guidelines allow them to do so. 

 
 
 
22 hours ago, YoCo said:

A. Within RP, I don’t believe the officers followed correct procedures in scrapping as they chose not to contact the individual despite having his identity, they chose to ignore the fact that it was obviously the scene of an accident, they chose to ignore the fact the individual wasn’t wanted. 

22 hours ago, YoCo said:

B. Out of RP, 20 million is a lot of money, more than the majority the server has in their bank, and it takes a lot of time to acquire. The current police guidelines allow someone to take that away in an instant, even when its unjustified. 

Firstly, calling my officers over zealous and scrap happy is not appropriate whatsoever, you are yet to establish any facts which disprove or nullify the decision making the officers took.

The guidelines are there to ensure that officers remain within the law and follow procedure, if they remain within these guidelines, yes they are largely safe, mainly because, as you point out, this is a game, if we had the same implementation of rules as an actual police force, nobody (or at least very few people) would play as police officers, having the degree of discretion adds freedom to officers within the game. You seem to fail to realise that if there had been any attempt to contact the police (which there was ample opportunity to do so), the outcome of this PCC would likely have been different, however, due to your own inaction, the officers used the information which they had and were reasonably able to obtain and used it to ratify their decision-making process, which is all that can be expected of them. 

Regarding your point B, Out of RP if you may, yes, I certainly agree £20 million is a lot of money, hence why the jet that I own:

  1. Has never been damaged
  2. Has never touched the ground outside an airport
  3. Would've been immediately reported as having being crashed should it have had to make an emergency landing

I'd really suggest you think for a second what you're suggesting, the Altis Police cannot be held accountable beyond reasonability, for your property, especially if it is left in an unlawful position without good reason, as I have stated, with good reason being identified to the officers WHICH IS THE PILOTS RESPONSIBILITY, the outcome of this PCC would likely have been different. It is unfair to impose liability on our officers for your unlawful use of your property.

Kind Regards,
Tadworth.

  • Like 2
  • Facepalm 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
YoCo
Posted (edited)

 

“You seem to fail to realise that if there had been any attempt to contact the police.... the outcome of this PCC would likely have been very different”

 

To keep it simple, you’re saying that had the pilot informed the cops of his crash landing then they wouldn’t have scrapped. 

But yet the cop himself admitted he knew it was crash landed.... so what difference does it make had he text him telling him something he already knew. No common sense there.

 

 

as stated before, they took the easy way, the lazy way. Because, I repeat; they were over-zealous and scrap happy cops. And this is only acceptable because of overpowered ‘guidelines’ that give immunity.

 

@CC Tadworth anyways, I feel enough been said. If you don’t see an issue then I guess that’s that. Have a good one.

Edited by YoCo
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CC Tadworth
 
 
 
2
1 minute ago, YoCo said:

“You seem to fail to realise that if there had been any attempt to contact the police.... the outcome of this PCC would likely have been very different”

 

To keep it simple, you’re saying that had the pilot informed the cops of his crash landing then they wouldn’t have scrapped. 

But yet the cop himself admitted he knew it was crash landed.... so what difference does it make had he text him telling him something he already knew. No common sense there.

 

 

as stated before, they took the easy way, the lazy way. Because, I repeat; they were over-zealous and scrap happy cops. And this only acceptable because of overpowered ‘guidelines’ that give immunity.

I've answered all of your above points in my previous statement.

1 minute ago, YoCo said:

@CC Tadworth anyways, I feel enough been said. If you don’t see an issue then I guess that’s that. Have a good one.

Thanks for your clarification, my apologies that the decision made wasn't the one which you wanted.

Regards,
Tadworth.

  • Like 2
  • Facepalm 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aiden

Is it not the duty of the police to launch a prompt and effective investigation of the crash landed jet? If officers have stated they were aware a crash took place,

Quote

I do understand that your landing was rushed due to an emergency of some sort regarding the aircraft and that you got injured while doing so - SGT SinLess

but yet did nothing to investigate that fact, would that not be a dereliction of their duties, tantamount to misconduct in a public office? This could be due to negligence, corruption or budget restrictions.

The police do not seem to have done the minimum to investigate any potential offence.

  • They failed to contact the National Health Service to see if anyone had presented with injuries exhibited during a crash
  • They failed to contact the owner of the jet to ascertain the details of the incident

The police who knowingly scrapped a jet that was crash landed, by their own admission, because it was obstructing the public highway and wasn't declared to the police, in doing what the police require the pilot may not have had enough time to prevent the jet and it's capacity of aviation fuel to explode on impact with the ground within city limits. Is it the Altis Police Service's opinion that the explosion would have been preferable outcome, as long as the police had been informed of the crash? As a concerned citizen and resident of Athira, I must say that the pilots actions to avoid a full aviation disaster was surely a testament to their ability and concern for public safety. Furthermore the police's decision to scrap what they clearly deem as an emergency landing, again by their own admission, strikes me as a trophy hunting exercise to scrap a high value vehicle for no legitimate purpose where an impound would serve exactly the same purpose. 

So my questions are as follows

Did the police do all they could to thoroughly investigate the alleged offense of landing a jet within city limits?
Did the admission of Sergeant SinLess that he understood that the "landing was rushed due to an emergency" bear any weight of the outcome of the complaint?
If police are found to have failed in their ability to investigate the alleged offence, are the officer or officers guilty of negligence?

I refer you to the Code of Conduct for Police Officers that states: 

Quote

This Code sets out the principles which guide police officers’ conduct. It does not seek to restrict officers’ discretion: rather, it aims to define the parameters of conduct within which that discretion should be exercised. However, it is important to note that any breach of the principles in this Code may result in action being taken by the organisation, which, in serious cases, could involve dismissal.

Does that discretionary power apply to accidents, collisions and such when applied to vehicles landed within city limits, defined by the Civil Aviation Act 1982?

Does the Altis Police Service value procedure over preservation of life?
Does the Altis Police Service expect the pilot to risk the lives of residents of Athira by attempting to contact the police instead of controlling his aircraft?
Additionally does the Altis Police Service reasonably expect the aggrieved's friend to call in before he has him assisted by a medical professional?

 

  • Like 9
  • Love 7
  • Facepalm 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CC Tadworth

@Aiden

Firstly, thanks for your concern, some very good points which I'll go through now.

5 hours ago, Aiden said:

Is it not the duty of the police to launch a prompt and effective investigation of the crash landed jet?

I'll refer you to my point in the second response I made, 

7 hours ago, CC Tadworth said:

As stated by @SGT SinLess in the original complaint, his reasons behind the scrap were as follows:

  • You were assisted by a friend of yours and later on taken to Agios to receive the proper medical assistance that you required within all of this time surely your partner sure could've find a bit of time to send in a police dispatch regarding the what happened with you and the To-199 Neophron CAS
  • "You are an experienced pilot and that you have the required Aviation License to be flying helicopters and planes/jets in the island of Altis as so, I believe you also have the common sense not to land a jet within city limits"
    • Athira is a town surrounded by open fields which would've made a much more "Common Sence" place to land a failing aircraft, and if you were not able to divert towards one of these, you must've been flying the aircraft at either
      • a) reckless speed (be that high or low)
      • b) reckless altitude (extremely low to the ground)
  • The aircraft was stationary in the middle of the road as the picture that was provided shows.

Firstly, "a prompt and effective investigation" as stated by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act Code G, usually pertains to a necessity of arrest being made for the purpose of such an investigation, however, I will take your point as you mean, suggesting that these officers should've conducted an effective investigation of the facts.

Regarding the gathering of information relating to the crash landing, it has always been standard Police Procedure, for the duration of the time I've spent in the Police, to

  1. within reason, check the surrounding areas for any sign of the owner
  2. for any reports of crashes, thefts etc of vehicles matching or similar in description to the vehicle in question.

I will bring this point up with the rest of Gold Command, as I do agree to an extent that this isn't enough and we should be doing more to ascertain the facts of these incidents, I still stand by my point however that it would be unfair to state that in this case there was,

5 hours ago, Aiden said:

a dereliction of their duties, tantamount to misconduct in a public office

As the officers in question followed the requirements currently set out of a reasonable officer in the situation, therefore removing any possible accusations of wrongdoing, they did what a reasonable police officer would've done in this situation (as currently outlined by the precedent set over the past five years of policing Altis).

If the guidelines regarding the scrapping or impounding of vehicles have changed and I will note, you are likely to see a heightened amount of vehicles littering the streets of the major towns and cities such as Kavala and Athira, as officers may find it hard if not impossible with the limited resources available to fit in fully fledged investigations regarding the impounding or scrapping of vehicles, I agree that officers could do more, it's finding the right balance of using officers time to affect investigations regarding (easily avoidable) incidents such as this one, and issues of making the people of Altis safer from crime that affects them more directly, such as armed robberies.

I will note two things here, 

  1. The PCC never actually proves that the vehicle was in the air, there have been accusations that the pilot may have been driving the vehicle along the road prior to the crash as opposed to flying it (these carry just as much weight as the theory that the aircraft was flying, as no evidence can be provided to prove either), and in this case the pilot was most certainly in breach of his duty of care to members of the public and any passengers he may have had with him on that day.
  2. The police do not have access to unlimited time nor resources, officers are asked to use their judgement to find a reasonable compromise, and the officers, in this case, reached that standard as set by the precedent of any officers in the same situations previously
    1. As previously discussed, I will discuss this matter further with Police Command to ensure that we believe that the current standard is enough, however, I will note this will only lead to a change in procedure, not a change in the outcome of this PCC, it would be wrong to impose liability on prior cases where precedent at the time was correctly followed.

This is a public policy issue as I'm sure you're fully aware, the police have just as much responsibility to keep everybody's eyes running at a decent frame-rate and help to decrease the slideshow effect found in many of the larger towns, such as Kavala and in this case Athira as they do to ensure that the investigations that they run are in fair usage of their time and are of perceptual importance to the public good.

5 hours ago, Aiden said:

The police do not seem to have done the minimum to investigate any potential offence.

  • They failed to contact the National Health Service to see if anyone had presented with injuries exhibited during a crash
  • They failed to contact the owner of the jet to ascertain the details of the incident

I agree with your stated facts to a degree, however, would dispute the evidence regarding a "crash". As previously stated the liability to report the crash is on the owner of the vehicle, as you will understand is stated by Section 170 of the Road Traffic Act 1988

 
 
 
 
3
 
 
 
Quote

170 Duty of driver to stop, report accident and give information or documents.

(1)This section applies in a case where, owing to the presence of a [mechanically propelled vehicle] on a road [or other public place], an accident occurs by which—

(a)personal injury is caused to a person other than the driver of that [mechanically propelled vehicle], or

(b)damage is caused—

(i)to a vehicle other than that [F1mechanically propelled vehicle] or a trailer drawn by that [mechanically propelled vehicle], or

(ii)to an animal other than an animal in or on that [F1mechanically propelled vehicle] or a trailer drawn by that [mechanically propelled vehicle], or

(iii)to any other property constructed on, fixed to, growing in or otherwise forming part of the land on which the road [F3or place] in question is situated or land adjacent to such land.

(2)The driver of the [mechanically propelled vehicle] must stop and, if required to do so by any person having reasonable grounds for so requiring, give his name and address and also the name and address of the owner and the identification marks of the vehicle.

(3)If for any reason the driver of the [mechanically propelled vehicle] does not give his name and address under subsection (2) above, he must report the accident.

(4)A person who fails to comply with subsection (2) or (3) above is guilty of an offence.

Furthermore, under Section 185 of the Road Traffic Act, a "mechanically propelled vehicle" can be defined in a number of ways, the one of interest would be found in 185(1) Para. 2

 
 
 
Quote

“heavy motor car” means a mechanically propelled vehicle, not being a motor car, which is constructed itself to carry a load or passengers and the weight of which unladen exceeds 2540 kilograms,

A motor car is defined as

 
 
1
Quote

“motor car” means a mechanically propelled vehicle, not being a motor cycle or an invalid carriage, which is constructed itself to carry a load or passengers and the weight of which unladen—

I think it would be fair to say that this jet exceeds 2540kg unladen, is not a motor car, and which is constructed to carry a load or passengers. Therefore the above Section 170 of the Road Traffic Act would apply in this case.

I may stand corrected but my interpretation of the above legislation would be that in this case, the jet is referred to as a heavy motor car, and therefore is subject to the Road Traffic Act, even if this is not the case, the intention of the Road Traffic Act is indeed to ensure that accidents are reported and I'm sure that the legislative parliaments involved would expect that the same applies to any vehicles upon their crash, as a matter of public safety, and to ensure that correct people/businesses can be informed, such as insurance companies etc.

Now that I've run through your concerns and statements of fact, I'll answer your more direct questions in as little text as possible.

5 hours ago, Aiden said:

Did the police do all they could to thoroughly investigate the alleged offense of landing a jet within city limits?

5 hours ago, Aiden said:

If police are found to have failed in their ability to investigate the alleged offence, are the officer or officers guilty of negligence?

My answer to the following will be what it has remained throughout these posts, although the officers did not do all they could do to thoroughly investigate the alleged offence, they did meet the reasonable standard of the reasonable man, as shown through the previous precedent and therefore cannot be found "guilty of negligence", however, as I have pointed out, the standard of a reasonable man will be reviewed by Gold Command, which may lead to a change in future expectations.

5 hours ago, Aiden said:

 Did the admission of Sergeant SinLess that he understood that the "landing was rushed due to an emergency" bear any weight of the outcome of the complaint?

This is a statement of opinion, as previously stated, the officers in question followed the National Decision Model, and took the reasonably required steps to deal with the situation, many factors go into determining the outcome of complaints, and, considering I did not deal with the original complaint it would be unfair for me to address this point, however as I stated before, changes will be looked into regarding the impounding and scrapping of vehicles in cases such as this one.

5 hours ago, Aiden said:

Does that discretionary power apply to accidents, collisions and such when applied to vehicles landed within city limits, defined by the Civil Aviation Act 1982?

I will note, this is stated in the notes of a schedule of legislation, as opposed to being written directly into the legislation itself, as is clearly stated

Quote

It does not seek to restrict officers' discretion

Officers are able to exercise a reasonable degree of discretion where would be deemed appropriate in legislation and procedure. It would've been almost impossible for these officers to deal with the situation without the use of their discretion, as each incident is different and is affected by a multitude of factors.

6 hours ago, Aiden said:

Does the Altis Police Service expect the pilot to risk the lives of residents of Athira by attempting to contact the police instead of controlling his aircraft?

No, however, we do expect that pilots fly (or possibly drive) in a reasonable manner, which will provide alternative options which don't involve landing in a highly built-up area such as Athira, which is surrounded by much more suitable fields, where the pilot would've caused no danger to members of the public and could've easily avoided built-up areas and roadways.

6 hours ago, Aiden said:

 Additionally does the Altis Police Service reasonably expect the aggrieved's friend to call in before he has him assisted by a medical professional?

A matter to be discussed will be how Police and NHS can better pass information, regardless of injuries to the pilot, driver etc, liability is nevertheless imposed on them to report the crash or have it reported at the first possible instant, considering that the pilot was speaking on his way to the hospital, he could've easily communicated this fact to the medics, it is nobody but the driver/pilots liability to report the crash to the police, as shown previously in the Road Traffic Act.

Discussions will take place with Police Command at the next possible convenience, any changes (if done) made are unlikely to be publicised to the general public, but will be propagated through police channels.

I hope this answers your questions in a more detailed manner, many of the points which you've made have already been partially answered above in my previous two responses, so I would advise that you take these responses into account alongside this response to ensure a wholesome point of view.

Kind Regards,
Tadworth.

  • Like 5
  • Facepalm 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aiden

It is good to hear that the Altis Police Service is looking into more robust processes and procedures with regards to the clearance and disposal of vehicles. This complaint has caused a great amount of public support for the aggrieved whom it is still believed by many that he has lost his £10,000,000 Jet on a balance of guilty until proven innocent.

It would not surprise me that off the back of this event that civilians may begin petitioning for both a local election for a local Police and Crime Commissioner and a closer working relationship with the IOPC to hold officers from top to bottom to account as I am led to believe that faith in the Police Complaints Commission is at an all time low.

  • Like 10
  • Facepalm 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CC Tadworth
 
 
1
18 hours ago, Aiden said:

It would not surprise me that off the back of this event that civilians may begin petitioning for both a local election for a local Police and Crime Commissioner and a closer working relationship with the IOPC to hold officers from top to bottom to account as I am led to believe that faith in the Police Complaints Commission is at an all time low.

The nature of any complaints system is that one person will usually come out dissatisfied with the outcome in some way or another, Police Command is already working towards the aforementioned solutions, as always we are working to implement positive change to ensure officers are performing to the high standards which are rightly expected by members of the public.

I'll get back to you regarding any progress which is made, but as you know with any systematic change we must ensure it executed as properly as possible to ensure minimal speedbumps are encountered in its implementation.

Kind Regards,
Tadworth.

  • Like 1
  • Facepalm 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×