I do wonder if the Daily Mail has it in for the police, and why?. There was an awful crash earlier this week when 6 people were killed in a collision with a truck. It now turns out that four of them were left stranded, after police seized the car they were travelling in for having no insurance. Read Here.
Are we to blame for not sorting them a lift back home? I can understand the families being upset, however we can't be responsible for everything that happens afterwards can we? Duty of care springs up - I think again this derives from that lovely Socialist creation The Human Rights Act. Well if the seized car was being driven without insurance, what about the rights of the rest of us to be protected.
There are already procedures in some forces for release risk assessments to take place after contact with police. These are usually after a spell in custody, where we should offer suitable contact numbers to stop people doing something stupid. I don't know if this also means we are responsible for the person getting home safely.
The old instruction manual IM 2.16 only applied to allay a sense of grievance, if we'd cocked up and made steps to smooth things over. If you were guilty of an offence or in custody through your own stupidity the record was marked released no charge 2.16 does not apply. You were on your own. Nowadays It's all a backside covering policy to show we've acted in a reasonable way.
Standby for a change in the seizure form so we can tick another box saying we pointed the uninsured driver in the direction of a taxi firm. Perhaps the Daily Mail should be attacking the madness which is the Human Rights Act. This single piece of legislation has resulted in the police fannying around with every procedure we do, and NOT for the better.