Police are AFRAID to stop and search suspected cannabis users, officers say
Chief constables have called for those on the frontline to take a tougher line on the class B drug.
But concerns were raised by Brian Booth, deputy national chairman of the Police Federation of England and Wales.
Head of the College of Policing Sir Andy Marsh has urged officers to act when they smell cannabis on the street as it is a 'sign of crime and disorder'.
He told the Mail the stench makes even him 'feel unsafe'.
The call from Britain's longest-serving chief constable, backed by the heads of Greater Manchester Police and Merseyside Police, has been welcomed by public safety experts.
But yesterday the Police Federation, which represents rank and file officers, revealed many are worried they could lose their jobs if a complaint is made about the search, which could take the police watchdog years to investigate.
Mr Booth said: 'As an organisation, our position is that if this is a priority for senior officers, then make it a priority and we will deal with it.
'The problem is officers are afraid to stop and search, there has been so many high-profile cases and complaints that are officers going to take a risk by stopping someone for the smell of cannabis?
'There are so many priorities, we do not have the capacity to deal with everything.
'If you look at stop and search rates they have plummeted as there have been so many complaints and judicial challenges.
'If you have a group of people and you smell cannabis, do you search everyone?
'Do you risk then being accused of carrying out an unlawful search?'
He added: 'You have people who will resist, you may be filmed and it will put on social media... A low-level drug like cannabis, which often ends in a person receiving a caution, officers will be considering the implications if they get it wrong.... Is it worth your job, that's what officers will be feeling.'
In the past, the Independent Office for Police Conduct has said it is 'not good practice' for an officer to stop and search someone on the basis of the smell of cannabis alone.
Yesterday Rory Geoghegan, of the Public Safety Foundation and a former Met officer and ex-adviser to the Home Office, backed the call by police chiefs.
He said: 'Too many politicians, police chiefs and members of the public have been duped into believing cannabis causes little or no harm.
'It is refreshing to see police chiefs coming forward to make clear the importance of tackling the illegal use and supply of this drug.
'Be under no illusion cannabis ruins lives and brings crime and disorder to neighbourhoods.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
32 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Why FBI dropping Epstein case is bad news for Prince Andrew
The Duke of York is off the hook. After more than five years of him living under suspicion, fearing that knock at the door, the FBI has drawn a line under its investigation into Jeffrey Epstein's network of friends and associates. It will release no more files nor pursue any 'third parties'. But there should be no popping of champagne corks at Royal Lodge, the Duke's Windsor home. Rarely has there been such a pyrrhic victory. For while the decision not to pursue those connected to Epstein may well be a weight off the Duke's shoulders, it changes nothing. In fact, one could argue the decision to close the case does not help him at all. If the Duke is innocent, as he has long protested, he would have been better served by the FBI either opening its files to the public or conducting a thorough investigation. Put him through the wringer and then exonerate him once and for all. This was exactly the Duke's aim when he insisted on pursuing the late Virginia Giuffre's high-profile civil case through the courts. He vehemently denied her allegations that he had raped and abused her three times when she was 17. Utterly convinced that he would clear his name, he was determined to take it to trial, to let a jury hear the evidence and decide his fate. In the event, Queen Elizabeth II had other ideas. After a bruising few months of legal tit-for-tat that saw a steady stream of sordid details dominate the news agenda, the Duke's mother finally had enough and demanded the matter was brought to a swift end. Ms Giuffre was given an out-of-court payout reported to be around £12 million. Stripped of his military titles, his charity affiliations and his pride, the Duke was cut adrift. The phrase 'innocent until proven guilty' had never seemed less apt. But in reality, the damage to the Duke's reputation had been inflicted a long, long time ago. From the moment Ms Giuffre told her story to a newspaper in 2011, it was hit by hammer blow after hammer blow. It was then that the world first saw the photograph of Prince Andrew with his arm wrapped around the waist of the teenage Ms Giuffre, who claimed to have been trafficked around the world by Epstein and his close friend, British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell. Ms Giuffre stopped short of alleging that she was forced to have sex with the Duke in London in March 2001. That would come later. But if there was any goodwill left for this errant royal, any shred of doubt about his accuser's version of events, that too appeared to evaporate following the Duke's disastrous Newsnight interview in 2019. More was to come. In January 2020, Geoffrey Berman, a US attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced that the FBI and US prosecutors had asked to interview the Duke about Epstein but had received 'zero cooperation.' The Duke was said to be 'angry and bewildered' by the claims, insisting he had received no such request. Mr Berman returned to the theme two months later, asserting again that contrary to Prince Andrew's 'very public offer to cooperate' he had completely shut the door, raising the prospect that he could be subpoenaed to give evidence. Given the Duke's performance on Newsnight, no lawyer would have recommended he engage with the US authorities at that time. But with hindsight, given the FBI's declaration that it has no evidence warranting investigation, those closest to him will now be asking whether things could have been different. Legal team's litany of failings Similarly, Ms Giuffre's civil claim could have had a very different outcome. The Duke's close friends have criticised the litany of failings in the way his sex abuse case was managed by his own legal team and Buckingham Palace. The decision not to engage with Ms Giuffre's lawyers from the outset, to stonewall in a bizarre effort to avoid the inevitable service of legal papers, did him no favours. Ms Giuffre was left with no choice but to come at him publicly by filing a civil suit in which she claimed she was forced to have sex with the Duke on three separate occasions in 2001, when she was 17, in London, New York and on Epstein's private Caribbean island. Had that been managed differently, not least given the latest development, there may have been closure, if not exoneration. Ms Giuffre's death by suicide in April drew a line under any lingering hope of redemption. The Duke has already lost everything. Reduced to pottering around the expansive grounds of his Windsor mansion, riding his horses and playing golf, he can barely raise his head above the parapet. His brand has never been more toxic. For a senior member of the Royal family who so clearly loved his once lofty status, it has been a punishing lesson. He can barely dabble in even the most low-profile business venture these days without someone being spooked by his association. The most recent scandal, involving his business links to Yang Tengbo, an alleged Chinese spy, did nothing to move the dial. One thing is sure. Given the price he has already paid, the FBI's decision not to pursue an investigation will be perceived by his closest circle of friends and advisors as an exoneration. They will want it recognised in the form of a public apology. They may even believe that he should be reinstated to his former position within the Royal family. That will never happen. This latest, and perhaps final development, will mean that the whole Epstein show finally moves on. But it is far too late for the Duke, for whom moving on has never been such a distant prospect.
Daily Mail
33 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Top City banker who cheated on his pregnant wife with junior colleague sues for sex discrimination after being sacked over affair
A senior City banker who cheated on his pregnant wife with a junior colleague is suing for sex discrimination after he was sacked over the affair. Stanislav Stepchuk, a former director at American investment bank Merrill Lynch, sent an unsolicited 'intimate photograph' of himself to the younger woman just four days after they began messaging. He started exchanging 'sexually explicit and highly personal' WhatsApp texts with the woman, known as Colleague A, in January 2023, where she revealed to him she was a virgin who lacked sexual experience, an employment tribunal heard. The pair pursued a relationship for several months, and were sexually intimate on two occasions, before the banker tried to break things off in the summer of 2023 after learning his wife was pregnant, the hearing was told. Mr Stepchuk, who became a director at the financial institution in March 2018, alleges that at the beginning of August Colleague A had responded to his attempts to end the affair with 'hostility, taunts and threats'. She suggested that if she disclosed the relationship to their employer it would have 'consequences' for his wife, her pregnancy, his child, his parents and even put his life in danger, the banker told the tribunal. However, an internal disciplinary process found that the father of two had actually been the one to threaten her and sacked him for 'acting inappropriately' by embarking on the affair. Now, the City banker is suing Merrill Lynch International for sex discrimination and harassment, age discrimination, and unfair dismissal. Merrill Lynch International say their HR team had spoken to Colleague A as early as March 2023 about sexual harassment by Mr Stepchuk. In August she raised a formal grievance alleging she had been sexually harassed and that Mr Stepchuk had threatened her when she said she was going to HR. In January 2024 the banker was dismissed following a disciplinary procedure which found he had 'acted inappropriately' in pursuing a sexual relationship with Colleague A and had threatened her. However, they did not uphold the complaint of sexual harassment, finding the relationship had been consensual. At the tribunal Mr Stepchuk claims that he was discriminated against by a failure to investigate his grievance. He claimed their approach was 'tainted' by the assumption he was the perpetrator as a more senior man, however the bank said his dismissal was 'wholly proper'. Details of the affair emerged during a preliminary hearing to determine if Mr Stepchuk or his junior colleague were entitled to anonymity. While he demanded that her identity be made public, he applied to have his name remain a secret to protect his family - a request that was denied by a judge. In granting anonymity to Colleague A, Employment Judge Christabel McCooey found that her identity is 'irrelevant' to the dispute. She reasoned that the junior colleague had not been called as a witness by the bank, and further concluded that the nature messages entitling her to privacy. 'In particular, it mentions her virginity and lack of sexual experience which is of a highly personal and intimate nature. I ask whether she had a reasonable expectation of privacy in this context,' she said. 'I consider the expectation of privacy lower in an extra-marital affair at work, where the risk of discovery is acknowledged by [Mr Stepchuk] and Colleague A in the Whatsapp messages. 'However, as a third-party to these proceedings, I do not find it foreseeable that discussion of her sexual inexperience would be before a public employment tribunal.' However, EJ McCooey found that Mr Stepchuk could not be granted anonymity in largely because he had chosen to bring the proceedings and therefore accepted their 'public nature'. Mr Stepchuk did not make his application until he had seen Colleague A's suggestion that the impact on his family was not as 'pressing on his mind' as he claimed and that them finding out was a consequence of him starting the affair in the first place. 'Whilst I fully accept that the sexual information contained in the Whatsapp messages is highly sensitive and intimate, I am not persuaded that[Mr Stepchuk] had a reasonable expectation of privacy in a context where he chose to begin an extra-marital affair at work and chose to send intimate photos of himself, which were unsolicited, within four days of communicating with Colleague A,' EJ McCooey said. 'He, like her, acknowledges that the affair could become known. He also knew that his work policy discouraged relationships with more junior colleagues. 'Whilst I make no substantive findings about the relationship itself, it does seem at face value that the claimant took a risk by entering the extra marital affair, knowing that the messages could become known to his wife and colleagues. She continued: 'The impact of [his] affair on his sons' and their potential knowledge of its details is largely a consequence of the claimant's decision to engage in the affair, accepting the risks involved in that. 'I also consider again the late stage of [Mr Stepchuk's] application and find that, were the harm serious to the claimant's wife and sons, this would have been pressing on the claimant's mind and relief sought prior to seeing Colleague A's application five days ago, particularly in circumstances where [he] is assisted by very capable lawyers... 'I consider it a significant factor that, unlike Colleague A, [he] has chosen to bring these proceedings. 'It is not unreasonable to regard the person who initiates proceedings as having accepted the normal incidence of the public nature of court proceedings.'
BBC News
34 minutes ago
- BBC News
Reading man arrested after motorcyclist dies in collision
A man has been arrested following a traffic collision which killed a motorcyclist.A red Yamaha motorcycle and black Ford Galaxy collided on the A33, at the junction of Island Road and Lindisfarne Way in Reading, at about 23:40 BST on rider of the motorbike, an 18-year-old man from Reading, was given emergency medical treatment, but died at the scene, Thames Valley Police said.A 39-year-old man from Reading was arrested on suspicion of causing death by careless driving, and driving a motor vehicle with a controlled drug above the specified limit. He remains in police custody. The motorcyclist's next of kin have been informed and are being supported by Sgt Matt Cadmore, of the serious collision investigation unit, said "We are investigating this incident in which a motorcyclist has sadly died."Our thoughts are with his family at this extremely difficult time."He asked for anyone who was driving in the area at the time who may have information, or has dash-cam footage, to come forward. You can follow BBC Berkshire on Facebook, X (Twitter), or Instagram.
