Body Cams For Rangers?

[Paladin]

I noted, in a recent thread, that a report, by a member, of a same-sex group acting in a perfectly acceptable, even praiseworthy, fashion, elicited a response “What a refreshing change it is to read a post about a same sex group being polite and having consideration for others.”

Yes, I know that we hear more about bad behaviour than we do about good behaviour, but it set my cogs whirring. 

Society in general appears to be getting more and more disorderly, resulting in the proliferation of body-worn video cameras (BWV) throughout the blue light services. They are also routinely used in the prison and probation services, by civil enforcement officers, private security, you name it.

While the majority of Broads’ users are law-abiding and well behaved, there is a minority which isn’t. Although we have the support of Broads Beat, as well as land-based police officers, it is not unusual for a Broads Authority Ranger to be the first on the scene of disorder. They are also tasked, on virtually a day-to-day basis, to deal with persistent overstayers and toll evaders. This can, and does, result in aggression being displayed towards the ranger, who is, after all, only doing his job. In my 24 years of boating as an owner, I have yet to encounter a ranger who has overstepped the mark in his dealings with me, yet an individual is to appear at Crown Court tomorrow, as a result of some alleged unsavoury incidents at Sutton Staithe.

Both sides will, of course, give their own version of events, and that is as it should be, but I can’t help wondering whether it might be beneficial for BWV to be available, on a voluntary basis, to the front-line rangers. They would not have to be switched on all the time, only when the wearer deemed it to be beneficial in the circumstances.

I know there are those who are implacably hostile to the proliferation of CCTV and other cameras, but they are a fact of life. My cars and boat are equipped with dash cams, simply as a form of protection, which I have needed more than once.

The benefits of BWV use are well documented. The prime benefit, for the purpose of this post, appears to be that individuals are less likely to become aggressive when they know their behaviour is being recorded.

There are, of course, procedural responsibilities, including those under the DPA, but there is so much guidance available on how to formulate BWV policies, from HMG and bodies that already use them, that it should be a very simply matter for the BA to produce a BWV policy. Cost is unlikely to be an issue.

Most importantly, perhaps, there is the question of whether the Broads Authority is giving sufficient consideration to the health and welfare of its front-line employees. I have searched the BA’'s web site and can find no instance where this matter has been the subject of a report or discussion. Are they waiting until a ranger is assaulted before taking action?

I am aware that the conflict resolution training the rangers are given is to walk away, but nevertheless they are expected to confront the situation in the first instance.

I make no apology for the length of this post, as I think this is a subject that has been totally ignored in the past, but which should be a matter for consideration going forward.

 I would be interested to hear the views of members. It would also be of value if the Broads Authority’s representative on here would give us the benefit of the Authority’s view of the subject, and, of course, I’d love to hear the views of any rangers who might like to risk sanctions by expressing an opinion.

 

 

 

[Mouldy]

Frankly, I would agree with your suggestion.  Thinking back to the video posted on YouTube of two ‘fishermen’ who were excessively aggressive towards someone attempting to moor at Irstead a couple of months ago, if that behaviour was displayed against a ranger, I can’t help thinking that it would be a good idea.

That was not an isolated incident as I know that shareholders on Moonlight Shadow were given the same hostile treatment by the very same characters on the same day.

We are recorded countless times a day in shops and towns all across the country which shouldn’t be a concern to any law abiding citizen.  I cannot envisage that rangers carrying a body cam would be a concern to the vast majority of the people on the rivers today.

If it helps to discourage some of the shameful behaviour that a minority of folk think is acceptable in today's society, or help with prosecution of the people concerned, then bring it on.

[dom]

1 hour ago, Paladin said:

I can’t help wondering whether it might be beneficial for BWV to be available, on a voluntary basis, to the front-line rangers. They would not have to be switched on all the time, only when the wearer deemed it to be beneficial in the circumstances.

BA shouldn't be putting rangers in places where there's a significant risk of harm. The Police should be present if they're going into a hostile situation. If that's not possible, BWV and body protection should be provided, in the same way it's provided to those doing land based enforcement. Failing to do so would almost certainly be gross negligence if someone were physically harmed. These risks should all be clearly identified in existing risk assessments.

Ultimately though, BA rangers aren't paid enough to face such risks, aren't properly trained and in some cases aren't physically up to the job of dealing with the threat of violence. EA have separate trained staff for higher risk enforcement work and quickly call in the Police in the event of any hint of escalation.

[YnysMon]

How do you know whether it’s going to be a hostile situation before you get there? You might be forwarned sometimes, but if the Ranger comes across a situation themselves without having been called on, I wouldn’t have thought they would know.

[dom]

Unfortunately, the situation these days is such that hostile situation training tends to be "walk away and call the Police" in most cases - even when dealing with young people. Body worn video won't provide any protection from weapons, which are all too common now.

The majority of ranger's work has minimal risk of hostility. Some people can become confrontational when challenged about things like speeding, but I suspect real conflict is rare. Rangers are generally solo working, so shouldn't have to go into high risk situations. Anti-social behaviour is supposed to be an issue for BroadsBeat, though whether they have enough resources is another matter.

The one area where risk of conflict is high is obviously dealing with vessels without tolls/BSS/insurance used as residences. I suspect BA's new head of safety ought to suggest all serving of notices should be done in conjunction with BroadsBeat to mitigate risk to staff.

[MauriceMynah]

16 minutes ago, dom said:

The one area where risk of conflict is high is obviously dealing with vessels without tolls/BSS/insurance used as residences. 

Really Dom ????? Do you have just one thread of evidence to back that up. Even a bit of hearsay will do.

I think you may well find that the vast majority of untolled, un BSSed, uninsured boats being used as residences are on first name terms with the rangers, certainly all the ones I know are.

For any one of them to be "Confrontational" would be massively against their interests. Something they know only too well.

[dom]

12 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

Really Dom ????? Do you have just one thread of evidence to back that up. Even a bit of hearsay will do.

It would be against the ToS for the forum to discuss individual cases, but one has been mentioned by someone else which involved some fairly serious threats against a BA staff member. It's not the only recent incident.

I think you also need to bear in mind the fact my father was a liveaboard and I pretty much lived with him at one point in time. I chose the turn of phrase very carefully to try and avoid using the term liveaboard in a negative context. I don't have any issue with liveaboards. I do have issue with those causing damage to the environment, or who avoid paying their way, ultimately costing legitimate boat owners more money. The cost of a Broads toll is, roughly speaking, the cost of running BA's navigation, divided by the number of boats. The more people evade tolls, the more cost is passed on to others, including you.

[rightsaidfred]

Ì  have no problem with this, not all confrontational situations lead to violence, abuse in any form is unacceptable and this could provide invaluable evidence in a case of prosecution.

Fred 

[Broads01]

2 hours ago, dom said:

BA shouldn't be putting rangers in places where there's a significant risk of harm. The Police should be present if they're going into a hostile situation.

I agree but a significant risk of harm can't always be anticipated, so rangers are at risk just as much as anyone who works in a public environment.

I would support the use of body cameras for the reasons already mentioned.

 

[dom]

11 minutes ago, Broads01 said:

I agree but a significant risk of harm can't always be anticipated, so rangers are at risk just as much as anyone who works in a public environment.

Trouble is, where do you draw the line? If you give the water based rangers cameras, do you have to do the same with people like the staff at Ranworth? If you give them to everyone, you're adding another significant cost over time, which has to be paid for by an already excessive toll charge. With this type of scenario, you need decent quality kit, as something cheap off eBay will inevitably fail when you need it most. The ancilliary costs often tend to be the biggest factor, ie. replacement batteries, SD cards, etc, plus ongoing maintenance, checking, archiving data and responding to GDPR requests, etc.

I don't really find the idea objectionable - but I think maybe it's premature to be implementing them at this point in time given the relatively low risks involved in most areas. No doubt the way things are headed, they'll be unavoidable in future.

[kpnut]

I would have thought somewhere like Ranworth would have plenty of witnesses to deter anyone going over the top in their reaction to a request by/discussion with a ranger. 

But a ranger trying to negotiate with a boat moving at speed while flouting regs, or performing dangerous manoeuvres, or pulling up to a lone boat for some reason (I can think of bbq being used on the roof by people with too much pop inside them an obvious scenario, which I’ve personally seen) would be more likely to find themselves on the wrong end of an abusive tirade or whatever and perhaps be grateful for the footage for later use.

[Vaughan]

Thank you Paladin, for raising a very important matter which must be seriously considered, in these changing times.

We cannot say that the BA should not be putting their staff in harm's way, since the whole job of a Ranger is to ensure that the rules of the Broads are being properly followed. This, luckily, mostly involves friendly advice but it can also lead to the need to enforce those rules.  Especially for public safety, such as the bbq on deck situation, mentioned above.  So they definitely are in the "front line" and would almost certainly be the first to arrive at an incident but have little or no legal authority, except as citizens.

I know how they must feel, as I was a special constable on the Broads, at Ludham, for 7 years.  But that was way back, in the days when the simple arrival on scene of the Queen's uniform would immediately restore order.  What has changed - and is still changing very rapidly - is respect for authority.  Whether that has as much to do with modern policing as with public attitude, is not for discussion here!

All of us on this forum know that the Broads rivers can be a lonely and deserted place, far from any "civilisation".  In fact, that's what we like about them!  Unfortunately this also gives the opportunity for certain elements to take the law into their own hands, knowing that there are no witnesses and no-one else for miles.  I am talking of course, of fishermen on moorings.  If a Ranger on a BA mooring calls for back-up, this could take literally hours to arrive, especially in the evening.  The first to turn up might well be the Hemsby Lifeboat!  Mind you, I imagine those lads can take care of themselves!

Being of the Baby Boomer generation I am naturally uncomfortable with the thought of being recorded when I go out in public but I am afraid it is the only way these days.  Dashcams and bodycams have become a part of our daily lives.  In fact, we should not need to be having this discussion at all.  It should be "bleedin' obvious" to the BA that their rangers need to have them!

I have only one caveat, as an ex policeman myself. We should not get to the point where the rangers have to start dressing up in all the hi-vis, the stab vests and all the other protection that the police feel the need for these days, since by doing so, they would take on an aggressive appearance themselves.

I seriously believe that the modern appearance of police officers separates them from normal social interaction with the public.

[Gracie]

I support the use of body cameras too. Thank you for posting Paladin (nice to see you posting again)

The evidence these cameras can provide can also prove someone's innocence in whatever confrontations the Rangers may come across

Grace x

[CambridgeCabby]

Any public official , sadly, should be equipped with a body cam nowadays . We live in an unpredictable society and with the seemingly endless habit of litigation the body cam can be seen as essential for that let alone for the individuals protection . 

[MauriceMynah]

12 hours ago, dom said:

The one area where risk of conflict is high is obviously dealing with vessels without tolls/BSS/insurance used as residences. 

Dom, sorry to rattle on about this but I have requoted your point, emboldening the aspects that raised my hackles.

Firstly I think that the people you refer to are the least likely to be guilty of such conduct,  and second to say "obviously" most certainly tars all such liveaboards with the same brush. 

The views you have of these people, and the costs pushed onto the toll payers may be true, but not the risks to BA rangers.

You say there have been reported incidents of this nature, and I respect your point about ToS, but I would have to stand by my point that such behaviour would have to be such a tiny minority, that the BA would not need to see them generally as a threat.

[dom]

29 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

You say there have been reported incidents of this nature, and I respect your point about ToS, but I would have to stand by my point that such behaviour would have to be such a tiny minority, that the BA would not need to see them generally as a threat.

You may well be correct that the majority are good natured and unlikely to become a threat. When working with risk assessment and mitigation though, you work with the worst case scenario - so you have to treat all as if they're in that tiny minority.

Going in over-equipped in cases where the situation doesn't escalate generally does no harm. Going into a situation which does escalate inappropriately prepared and having someone suffer injury (or worse) is quite simply unacceptable these days, as the cost of liability can be huge. Everything in public sector work is now dictated by risk assessments, and even just the risk of being in proximity to water elevates baseline risks significantly, before factoring in people. Interactions with the public are often considered high risk in general. Dealing with someone's place of residence inevitably increases the risk of escalation.

[Vaughan]

47 minutes ago, dom said:

Interactions with the public are often considered high risk in general.

What a dreadfully sad refection on the state that police/public relations have got themselves into.  If this is really how you see modern "risk assessment" then perhaps it explains a lot.

Those who remember the early programmes of the TV series "Heartbeat" will know what policing was like in Ludham "in my day".  The equipment we were issued consisted of a truncheon in a special pocket down your trousers ; a whistle, a notebook and a pencil.  Mobile phones were years into the future.  We had a radio in the Mini-van but that didn't work if you were in the low ground around the Broads.  So if you had to attend a disturbance in the car park at the Thurne Lion and needed back-up, you would have to get back in the van and drive up the hill to the church before you could speak to anyone!

At the risk of sounding sentimental, your real "equipment" was the Queen's crown on the badge of your cap.

I am sorry old chap, but you and I seem to have grown up in different worlds.  Real policing is all about interaction with the public.  As well as gaining the trust of the public.

[Troyboy]

Interesting subject. I think it's a must for rangers and anyone else who deals with the public as part of their job where there might be a hint of confrontation. Protection for all concerned. 

[dom]

9 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

I am sorry old chap, but you and I seem to have grown up in different worlds.  Real policing is all about interaction with the public.  As well as gaining the trust of the public.

Growing up in Wroxham, myself and my friends were all on first name terms with local coppers. Sadly, those days are long gone. I think society has gone downhill dramatically. That's not to say that good police officers couldn't still build rapport with decent members of the general public, but the infrastructure of forces simply doesn't allow it to become reality in most cases. Back then, we had police houses in Wroxham and Horning. If you drove through the village, there was a good chance of seeing a copper. These days, you barely see them.

I think it's also important to distinguish between police and BA in the context of this thread. Police are employed to face risk and expect to do so on a regular basis. Rangers are engaged to participate in mostly risk free activities. If you look at BA's website, the ranger role is described in very much positive terms, whilst anti-social behaviour is flagged as a police issue. I suspect that will increasingly be the case as time goes on.

https://www.broads-authority.gov.uk/boating/navigating-the-broads/broads-rangers

[Vaughan]

19 minutes ago, dom said:

If you look at BA's website, the ranger role is described in very much positive terms, whilst anti-social behaviour is flagged as a police issue.

So why do Rangers' launches carry blue flashing lights?  Surely that carries a responsibility and authority, far above that of a mooring attendant?

I remember that the boards of both Blakes and Hoseasons were very much against the introduction of these lights on the launches, for fear of exactly the kind of confrontation that they might engender.

[RumPunch]

Just one concern

 

 

 

[dom]

27 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

So why do Rangers' launches carry blue flashing lights?  Surely that carries a responsibility and authority, far above that of a mooring attendant?

The same thought actually crossed my mind yesterday, but I guess they may have some benefit in the case of an event such as the one at Yarmouth Yacht Station, when there's a need to stop all traffic, or recover someone from the water.

Obviously, it's entirely possible that Dr.P thinks differently and that his staff can deal with all-comers for evermore, but that'll probably prove unwise over time if other waterways are any indication. Some EA fishery enforcement staff are already having to wear stab vests and carrying batons and handcuffs.

[Vaughan]

48 minutes ago, RumPunch said:

Just one concern

I take it that means me?  In which case, this is about the sharpest put-down I have had to face on this forum.

I have spoken in support of Paladin's concern that the rangers are being placed in an invidious position for which, with their actual lack of real authority, they are ill-equipped and exposed.

My experience is therefore practical and most relevant.  That of an Army officer with several years "assisting the civil power" in Belfast before being asked by Norfolk Police to join as a special.  Never mind.  It seems risk assessment is all, these days.  Until, as Paladin warns, a Ranger gets assaulted.

Meanwhile this a***h*** will leave the debate and go and tend his garden while the sun shines.

 

[grendel]

its my belief that the one- highly publicised example that supports Dom's argument is just that- a single individual, and that others who follow the live aboard lifestyle are once again being tarred with the same brush, as such anyone going into a situation such as this will have already called the backup in before approaching.

As for the other equipment- stab vests etc, surely these are contrarily indicated in preference for safety equipment such as lifejackets, I can hardly see a stab vest keeping you afloat in the water, and the wearing of one would effectively stop you wearing a lifejacket- of the two the latter is more important to the role carried out by the rangers.

do the rangers put themselves in harms way- yes daily, their job involves boats and the water, that is where their biggest danger lies. when they step ashore and go along a wet and muddy quay heading to enquire after the  wellbeing of a boater, who they know has already slipped and gone into the water from that same quay heading, they are putting themselves at risk, they do this every day, yet we are debating the least likely of the dangers they are presented with.

[dom]

43 minutes ago, grendel said:

its my belief that the one- highly publicised example that supports Dom's argument is just that- a single individual, and that others who follow the live aboard lifestyle are once again being tarred with the same brush, as such anyone going into a situation such as this will have already called the backup in before approaching.

Unfortunately, attitude to risk is now based on experience and liability and there's no room for nicety or case by case evaluation. If you work in a job where it's assessed that an activity involves risk, you'll generally be told what precautions to take, based on a worst case scenario. If you don't follow those precautions, or walk away when told to, the likely outcome is dismissal. 

I don't like that being the case but, equally, I can see violent crime spreading almost visibly out of major cities into the countryside. You've only got to look at the news to see how rapidly things are changing. Within the last week alone, we've had someone committing murder at random with a samurai sword and another slashing police officers with a chainsaw. Knives and machetes are commonplace in cities and spreading elsewhere at an alarming rate. A friend of a friend of mine was killed by stabbing here in my area and we recently had a double shotgun murder nearby. We've also had an incident with a boat owned by an organised crime group packed with half a million pounds in drugs. Sadly, you need to anticipate the threat of violence everywhere now, including rural Norfolk. The only sensible approach to mitigate these risks is to walk away and let the police deal with it. By all means, give people cameras as well but, like body armour, there's a risk they either embolden people, or appear confrontational and worsen situations.

Are all non-toll paying liveaboards likely to be violent? Certainly not. Should we send rangers into higher risk enforcement scenarios on that assumption? No, because doing so could result in one of them not going home one day, when they happen upon that one who is violent.