Would you have left without your 'phone - or a receipt for it, together with an explanation, I wouldn't. This sounds weird to me, given that the photographer has had previous dealings. Always two sides .....

Ray

I prefer the second HDR. It might look a little "artificial," but it's HDR, so no mystery there!

Ray

Thanks for the replies - much appreciated!

Although there were positive experiences, I wasn't aware that "Simply Electronics" were grey importers, or were located outside the UK. Reading some of the reviews in Mike-P's second-post link made me wince. That, plus possible returns/warranty problems have just made the price not quite so attractive and even given the protection a credit card offers, I can do without any more hassle lately.

(Incidentally, would you be surprised, when contacting a company that calls itself "IT 24/7" at 5.30pm, to get an answerphone message stating that they were closed and were only open between 09.00am and 5.00pm?)

I buy quite frequently on-line and have had a good run overall, but in this instance, despite the price, I'll look again.

Ray

I'm looking to add the above lens to my small range and I came across this site via Google.

Does anyone have any experience of this seller, good or bad, or have any knowledge of a better source / price?

TIA!

Ray

The main reason, of course, is the training methods used - in turn introduced to relieve the Home Office of a huge financial burden. The first line supervisors have been in the system as PCs since the inception of the UEA-style "training," so it's not surprising that we're now seeing those faults further up the chain of command.

Until 1989, all officers were trained in the same way and all were subject to the same examinations whilst undergoing initial training. Failure in a number of those exams meant a return to Force (IOW, the sack). Then the UEA convinced the Home Office that the way forward was via "student-centred" learning, where students were encouraged to bring their own life experiences into the classroom. Rows of desks were replaced by semi-circles of chairs and the instructors became "trainers" overnight - sitting with the students at what was known as a "low-level intervention."

Exam results swiftly took a tumble and Forces were horrified at how many recruits were potential "returns to Force" wastes of space. The solution - easy - do away with the exams. Now, the norm became not "train and test," but "make aware and assess." The recruit could not "fail" an assessment, only require "further development" in order to prevent recruit wastage, no doubt.

Requirements for promotion consisted of a National three-paper examination, both at PC - Sgt. and Sgt. - Inspector levels. Promotion thereafter was at Force level interviews. Of course, the promotion examinations followed suit in 1992, changing to a multiple-choice single paper (tick-the-box), followed by an assessment centre "practical" assessment for those passing the first part. Officers were assessed by those from any other Force than their own, all assessors rigidly sticking to a script in the interests of "fairness." Of course, a rigidly-timed 5 minutes role-playing in a small room with a stone-faced actor is not the most practical or successful way of discovering potential, but that seemed to have been ignored ("King's New Clothes" syndrome).

The pass rate on this style of examination was pathetically low and after a few years of purgatory, it was decided to move the "practical" side to the Force concerned, assessed by a local officer one rank above the candidate's prospective rank. Of course, if you were a busy Station Inspector and were suddenly landed with any number of Divisional candidates all requiring evidenced assessment, you'd be able to fit all that extra work in easily, wouldn't you?

The Home Office completely handed off the residential training centres throughout the country and told Forces that they had to provide these facilities on Division - the Division to which the new recruit would be posted. So, instead of each Force providing a small number of staff on secondment to their local regional centre (where their officers attended) and the Home Office paying for the premises and wages of the seconded staff, Forces now had the plug completely pulled and immediately ran into problems.

No Divisions had a training centre complex ready and waiting and most police HQ or Divisional buildings didn't have a square inch of space to build any. Deals were done with local Colleges and Universities to use their premises and the whole thing swiftly became a cat's breakfast. Police Authorities took the view that having their recruits trained at Uni was kudos in the public eye and left it alone.

I say this not to excuse the current dismal level of officer training, but to explain the likely cause. I'm not seeking sympathy for the current generation of Patrol Officers, all of whom have a personal responsibility for their own development and training. However, with all the beauraucracy and extra paperwork, coupled with the disastrous introduction of PCSOs, I can see why many don't burn the midnight oil.

Ray

[Rant on]

It makes MY blood boil when I see cretins like these referred to as "policemen and women," when they are not.

The PCSO scheme has been an abject failure since it began. Its only purpose was to fool the public into thinking that there were more officers on the streets, because "real" officers were increasingly being tied down by bureaucracy and paperwork. PCSO's extremely limited powers and lip-service training have ensured that they are derided by the very element of the public they were supposed to deter. Their cost (albeit subsidised) prevents the recruitment of more regular officers and in my local area the Police Authority are shedding 78 police officers due to budgetary constraints. These will include long-serving, very experienced officers, cast aside in favour of these uniformed coathangers.

Their inexperience and ineptitude actually causes more work for regular officers, who have to attend and clear up the mess they have got thenselves into - then their staff union (Unite) defends them to the hilt - amazing! Some people seem to accept the "cannon-fodder" principle, that increased numbers of police look-alikes can't be a bad thing. Examples such as these prove that if you think training is expensive, count the cost of not doing it properly.

It truly makes me sick that regular officers are being tarred with the PCSO brush. I accept that not all regulars are the sharpest knives in the drawer, but - in my on-the-job experience - PCSOs take the levels of competence sub-terrainian. [Rant over!]

Ray

You say that you took the photographs whilst sitting in your car, so presumably they concentrate on the injured person, rather than overall views of the site (from which any useful evidence might be obtained)? Unless your pictures show things that may later be called into question, such as skid or tyre marks on the road surface, the juxtaposition of one vehicle to another, etc., they won't help with the investigation anyway.

I've no problem with the fact that you took the pictures, but if you had to ask you already know that publishing them would be in very poor taste. If they don't show anything evidential, then keeping them to yourself seems the most respectful course of action.

Ray

Everything "comes in threes" if you wait long enough.

Ray

Have a look at this page, specifically at the steps at the bottom. Hope it may help a bit.

Ray

Exactly - well said!

Ray