Staffordshire Police

With reference to:
https://twitter.com/staffssabs/status/11...

Please respond to the following:

1. An ARV officer was present and wearing his force identification or collar number (A-91).
The ARV officer depicted above was also present but had removed his epaulette with his collar number so cannot be identified. Please advise what Home Office or other instruction/policy/procedure permits any police officer to remove any form of identification when in uniform and during working hours.

2. How many ARV officers are deployed in your force?

3. Please advise what Home Office or other instruction/policy/procedure (if any) defines the level of threat which requires an ARV unit to attend a reported incident in lieu of standard police officers.

4. Please advise if 101 call handlers are empowered to request ARV response to a reported incident in lieu of standard police officers or if the assessment of risk decision is referred to a higher level.

5. Please advise what Home Office or other instruction/policy/procedure (if any) defines the level of threat which requires an ARV unit to attend a reported incident in lieu of standard police officers should the presence of hunt saboteurs be indicated during the call to 101.

6. It is noted that the unidentifiable ARV officer is wearing an unofficial lanyard obtained from the British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC). This could be seen as provocative, given the politics and activities surrounding bloodsports and particularly in the presence of hunt saboteurs.
Under your force's copy of ACPO (now NPCC) Guidelines on gifts and hospitality (https://beta.staffordshire.police.uk/med...) is it appropriate for this item to be worn when the officer is on duty and in uniform?

S Rhosier

Staffordshire Police

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Staffordshire Police's handling of my FOI request 'ARV officers removing ID when attending incidents'.

1. The final response letter dated 31 December 2019 falsely states that my original request was received by your force on 25 December 2019 when in fact I submitted it on 23 November 2019. The response is therefore outside the lawful timescale for such requests.

2. With reference to your response of 'no information' to my Question 1, that is unacceptable on the basis that, as with the armed forces, police wear regulation issue uniform and equipment in order to appropriately and identifiably represent their force to others. There must be procedures either national, local or both, which inform all police personnel of the dress codes for their roles. I therefore request a review on this specific issue to establish why one attending ARV officer was correctly accoutred and one was not inasmuch as he had removed his epaulette force identification number and was wearing a non-standard issue lanyard advertising the British Association for Shooting and Conservation. Is it illegal under any UK law for officers to remove or cover up their identification numbers or are there exemptions/circumstances when they may be allowed to do so? If so what legislation, policy or procedure permits an officer the option to do so - perhaps a local procedure authorised by the force Chief Constable or Police College?

3. This concerns your response to my Question 6 which rejected that question on the basis that I did not ask for 'recorded information'. I deny this, as I specified a document (your force's copy of ACPO (now NPCC) Guidelines on gifts and hospitality (https://beta.staffordshire.police.uk/med...) and asked for clarification in the public interest regarding an officer wearing non-standard items such as a lanyard promoting a British organisation dedicated to sport shooting when attending an incident where such an item would carry strong connotations to all parties present of police/political bias. I believe that my use of the word 'appropriate' was interpreted as a means of finding a reason to reject my question despite my clear request for information from the document I specified. Using semantics against me is unacceptable. As a member of the public I expect police to be accountable, open and transparent in order to maintain public trust.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/a...

S Rhosier