Blog

By TREVEL HENRY 22 May, 2017

How often have we heard friends, colleagues or family members say, “if someone is about to do this or that then I’m going to punch them where it hurts” . The question is, where does the idea of the potential dangers you might face come from?

“If you have an honestly held belief, that you or another are in imminent danger you may use such force as is reasonable to avert that danger”. You may recognise the last sentence as that of ‘common law – self-defence’. 

But, how do you determine whether reasonable force is subjective or objective?   How do you determine whether the proposed danger is real or imagined?

This will be through evidence (ie; facts), I hear you thinking ‘but where do those facts come from’? Factors will include, but will not be restricted to, the other person’s behaviours, the locality, environmental factors and possible escape routes! Therefore, the question is, are a person’s views about what they believe they would do based on personal experiences and situations they have previously faced? or are they based on someone else's experiences or what they have read, heard or seen?

When considering whether a person’s decision to use force was necessary in the first instance, you have to try and put yourself in their position. Often without that known experience it becomes difficult to come to terms with the actions taken by another person under the heading of 'self-defence'.

Take a moment to remember those occasions when you have heard, read or seen footage of road rage, burglary or mugging when one person has used force upon another to defend themselves. Irrespective of how the information is presented in the media, our worldview determines whether we think the person was right or wrong in what they did, based on how the story was presented to us.

Whether during a discussion with friends or colleagues at a workplace hearing or court process, will your honestly held belief of the threat the person faced (your subjective views), and the actions they subsequently took, be believed to be actions of self-defence by others (objective opinion)?.

It could therefore be argued that whilst one person's perception may equal reality, does that necessarily make it the truth?

By TREVEL HENRY 07 Sep, 2016
Today we read that the Metropolitan Police are about to trial the use of spit hoods within the area of custody suites across their Boroughs and once again the emotive issues of them being primitive, cruel and degrading come up for discussion.  Balanced against the fact that officers have the right to be protected when carrying out their duties.

You may recall that i posted an article about the use of spit hoods on LinkedIn regarding the emotive issues which surround there use. There was also news regarding a number of incidents during the recent Notting Hill carnival some involving officers being spat at.  .A number of key questions arise; one very significant one being that post officers restraining a person who still is still remains resistant, in this instance spitting, what options are currently open to preserve the safety of all concerned within the incident.

Although the pilot is specifically planned for the controlled environments of custody suites, what about the following:

  • What about incidents involving restraints when officers are performing their duties in and around the local communities.  That is to say, post restraining (and handcuffing) a person remains resistant and starts spitting.  Is there a planned intervention option open to officers or are they to deal with it from an unplanned (dynamic risk assessment) point of view?
  • Who will be issued with the spit hoods?  Will they only be located within the custody suite areas, under the supervision of a custody sergeant or will they be issues to supervisory officers who are commenting between custody suites and community areas?
  • What consultation has taken place with the Independent Advisory Group regarding human rights, issues, concerns and perceptions from people within the local community areas?
Interestingly, I have just read on Sky News (8:40am) that the Metropolitan Police are putting the pilot on hold until further consultation has taken place.

What are your views regarding the use of spit hoods:

  1. Should spit hoods be an item of equipment open to officers; as a use of reasonable force option or should they not form part of the personal protective equipment (PPE) option for use by officer?
  2. If you did support their use, should they be limited to use within the custody suite areas or should they be available, with supervision across the wider community areas?

By TREVEL HENRY 31 Aug, 2016
SECAMB paramedics could start wearing body cameras in the south east of England as part of efforts to tackle a 46% rise in assaults on them.  The trust data showed attacks rose yearly from 98 in 2011-12 to 184 in 2015-16, including a jump from 126 in 2014-15 to 184 last year.  The introducing body-worn camera's will help reduce the number of assaults that are occurring to ambulance staff as they provide medical care and support to patients.  

As with all work-sector staff who now as part of their risk management strategy are required to wear body-worn camera's, this equipment should form one part of the overall data analysis review.  The body-worn camera's must be part of the broader strategy which will include information, instruction, supervision and training to recognise, avoid, defuse and/or manage challenging behaviours.   Post incident data recordings will in turn ensure that the outcome of  future reviews provide accurate and timely data for the ongoing training needs analysis to appropriately match employees to the identified required level(s) of training. 

By TREVEL HENRY 22 May, 2017

How often have we heard friends, colleagues or family members say, “if someone is about to do this or that then I’m going to punch them where it hurts” . The question is, where does the idea of the potential dangers you might face come from?

“If you have an honestly held belief, that you or another are in imminent danger you may use such force as is reasonable to avert that danger”. You may recognise the last sentence as that of ‘common law – self-defence’. 

But, how do you determine whether reasonable force is subjective or objective?   How do you determine whether the proposed danger is real or imagined?

This will be through evidence (ie; facts), I hear you thinking ‘but where do those facts come from’? Factors will include, but will not be restricted to, the other person’s behaviours, the locality, environmental factors and possible escape routes! Therefore, the question is, are a person’s views about what they believe they would do based on personal experiences and situations they have previously faced? or are they based on someone else's experiences or what they have read, heard or seen?

When considering whether a person’s decision to use force was necessary in the first instance, you have to try and put yourself in their position. Often without that known experience it becomes difficult to come to terms with the actions taken by another person under the heading of 'self-defence'.

Take a moment to remember those occasions when you have heard, read or seen footage of road rage, burglary or mugging when one person has used force upon another to defend themselves. Irrespective of how the information is presented in the media, our worldview determines whether we think the person was right or wrong in what they did, based on how the story was presented to us.

Whether during a discussion with friends or colleagues at a workplace hearing or court process, will your honestly held belief of the threat the person faced (your subjective views), and the actions they subsequently took, be believed to be actions of self-defence by others (objective opinion)?.

It could therefore be argued that whilst one person's perception may equal reality, does that necessarily make it the truth?

By TREVEL HENRY 07 Sep, 2016
Today we read that the Metropolitan Police are about to trial the use of spit hoods within the area of custody suites across their Boroughs and once again the emotive issues of them being primitive, cruel and degrading come up for discussion.  Balanced against the fact that officers have the right to be protected when carrying out their duties.

You may recall that i posted an article about the use of spit hoods on LinkedIn regarding the emotive issues which surround there use. There was also news regarding a number of incidents during the recent Notting Hill carnival some involving officers being spat at.  .A number of key questions arise; one very significant one being that post officers restraining a person who still is still remains resistant, in this instance spitting, what options are currently open to preserve the safety of all concerned within the incident.

Although the pilot is specifically planned for the controlled environments of custody suites, what about the following:

  • What about incidents involving restraints when officers are performing their duties in and around the local communities.  That is to say, post restraining (and handcuffing) a person remains resistant and starts spitting.  Is there a planned intervention option open to officers or are they to deal with it from an unplanned (dynamic risk assessment) point of view?
  • Who will be issued with the spit hoods?  Will they only be located within the custody suite areas, under the supervision of a custody sergeant or will they be issues to supervisory officers who are commenting between custody suites and community areas?
  • What consultation has taken place with the Independent Advisory Group regarding human rights, issues, concerns and perceptions from people within the local community areas?
Interestingly, I have just read on Sky News (8:40am) that the Metropolitan Police are putting the pilot on hold until further consultation has taken place.

What are your views regarding the use of spit hoods:

  1. Should spit hoods be an item of equipment open to officers; as a use of reasonable force option or should they not form part of the personal protective equipment (PPE) option for use by officer?
  2. If you did support their use, should they be limited to use within the custody suite areas or should they be available, with supervision across the wider community areas?

By TREVEL HENRY 31 Aug, 2016
SECAMB paramedics could start wearing body cameras in the south east of England as part of efforts to tackle a 46% rise in assaults on them.  The trust data showed attacks rose yearly from 98 in 2011-12 to 184 in 2015-16, including a jump from 126 in 2014-15 to 184 last year.  The introducing body-worn camera's will help reduce the number of assaults that are occurring to ambulance staff as they provide medical care and support to patients.  

As with all work-sector staff who now as part of their risk management strategy are required to wear body-worn camera's, this equipment should form one part of the overall data analysis review.  The body-worn camera's must be part of the broader strategy which will include information, instruction, supervision and training to recognise, avoid, defuse and/or manage challenging behaviours.   Post incident data recordings will in turn ensure that the outcome of  future reviews provide accurate and timely data for the ongoing training needs analysis to appropriately match employees to the identified required level(s) of training. 

Share by: