Advertisement

Want to be a cop?

By 2 April 2012 34

ACT Policing is looking for people who have the qualities to be community policing officers as part of the AFP’s ‘anything but every day’ recruitment campaign which launched today.

National Manager Human Resources Leanne Close and Chief Police Officer for the ACT Roman Quaedvlieg said that the AFP is putting the challenge out there, looking for people who think they’d make great cops.

“A career in policing is anything but every day. It does have its challenges – physical and mental – so it does take an extraordinary person to work on the frontline. We want to be clear-cut and candid about this so as to attract the right people for the job,” Assistant Commissioner Close said.

Along with women, Indigenous Australians and people from culturally and linguistically diverse groups are a focus for the recruitment.

“We want a workforce that reflects our community. We also want people with life experience and who want to give back to Canberra,” Chief Police Officer Quaedvlieg said.

“The AFP is unique in that it’s the only law enforcement agency in Australia that provides a career within a career — the ability to work locally through ACT Policing, as well as the opportunity to work in national investigations and international law enforcement.”

The new ‘anything but every day’ campaign follows the successful 2010 Think you’d make a great cop? program which attracted around 1500 applicants predominantly from the ACT and NSW, with all successful recruits now working on the frontline in ACT Policing or undertaking their 25-week live-in Federal Police Development Program at the AFP College in Barton.

Approximately 200 of the 250 AFP recruits will be destined for ACT Policing, with applicants having the opportunity to select their initial career path.

“Along with traditional media and advertising we’ve launched a sworn recruitment portal — anythingbuteveryday.org.au — where interested persons can hear from our great cops, our women in policing and our federal agents,” Assistant Commissioner Close said.

If you think you have what it takes, apply now at anythingbuteveryday.org.au.

[Courtesy ACT Policing]

Please login to post your comments
34 Responses to Want to be a cop?
#1
c_c4:32 pm, 02 Apr 12

In a Don LaFontaine style voice:

“In a world where punks in hoodies roam Charnwood at all hours. Where glowing orange women wearing too much spray tan get into scratch fights outside the Moose. Where guys in $800 jeans and wearing moisturiser take a piss on the ATM outside Cube. Only one can stand against them, through ice induced rage and vomit in the gutter, to bring order to the streets. Are you the one?”

#2
poetix7:06 pm, 02 Apr 12

If they need new blood in the Apostrophe Squad, maybe I’ll apply. Knowing when to use then makes you linguistically diverse these days. (That was almost a ‘young people today’ comment. I’d better watch myself.) For example, ‘anything but every day’ as used in this press release, sounds like you can take a lot of sickies, and work, say, every third day. I think they meant everyday.

#3
bloodnut7:06 pm, 02 Apr 12

You could be the lovely cop who went out his way today drive up onto the footpath to pull me over while I was walking my dog.

He threatened to ticket me because i riding my bike and the dog was running on the leash next to me.

Apparently that’s against the law.

I’m sure someone was busy robbing a house while this all unfolded.

PR Fail.

#4
buzz8198:48 pm, 02 Apr 12

bloodnut said :

You could be the lovely cop who went out his way today drive up onto the footpath to pull me over while I was walking my dog.

He threatened to ticket me because i riding my bike and the dog was running on the leash next to me.

Apparently that’s against the law.

I’m sure someone was busy robbing a house while this all unfolded.

PR Fail.

Houses don’t get robbed they get burgled.

#5
Eppo8:48 pm, 02 Apr 12

bloodnut said :

You could be the lovely cop who went out his way today drive up onto the footpath to pull me over while I was walking my dog.

He threatened to ticket me because i riding my bike and the dog was running on the leash next to me.

Apparently that’s against the law.

I’m sure someone was busy robbing a house while this all unfolded.

PR Fail.

To be fair, that’s a pretty dumb thing to do. Easy enough to run over the mutt.

I do always love the defence of those who get pulled up on minor infringements though. “I’m sure someone else was busy doing (insert random crime here)”. Doesn’t take away from the fact you were doing the wrong thing. You didn’t even receive a fine by the sounds of things, so maybe stop complaining and don’t do it next time?

#6
ThatGuy9:45 pm, 02 Apr 12

Hah good luck, the AFP’s/ACT Policing’s recruitment process is more retarded than Dicaprio in ‘What’s eating Gilbert Grape?’.

People apply, pass the entrance exam, get told they’re in and then wait by the phone for a year and a half until the ACT/AFP sort their sh!t out. In one case, a ‘successful’ applicant was given the run around for a year and then made to redo the entrance exams because their information mysteriously disappeared.

Fix your processes before you go on a mass recruitment drive, otherwise you might just find you piss off 200 people, that want to shoot guns, because you can’t get your act together.

#7
poetix9:57 pm, 02 Apr 12

poetix said :

If they need new blood in the Apostrophe Squad, maybe I’ll apply. Knowing when to use then makes you linguistically diverse these days. (That was almost a ‘young people today’ comment. I’d better watch myself.) For example, ‘anything but every day%u2019 as used in this press release, sounds like you can take a lot of sickies, and work, say, every third day. I think they meant everyday.

Use them, idiot, not then. I’ll fine myself.

What possible law would bloodnut be breaking, given the dog was controlled? Sounds like rubbish to me.

#8
vg10:06 pm, 02 Apr 12

bloodnut said :

You could be the lovely cop who went out his way today drive up onto the footpath to pull me over while I was walking my dog.

He threatened to ticket me because i riding my bike and the dog was running on the leash next to me.

Apparently that’s against the law.

I’m sure someone was busy robbing a house while this all unfolded.

PR Fail.

You were either ‘walking’ your dog or riding with the dog on a leash attached to you riding or your bike.

Which was it?

Truth……epic fail

“I’m sure someone was busy robbing a house while this all unfolded.”

Which, no doubt, the Police could have attended if they didn’t have to deal with morons like you

#9
Stevian11:27 pm, 02 Apr 12

bloodnut said :

You could be the lovely cop who went out his way today drive up onto the footpath to pull me over while I was walking my dog.

He threatened to ticket me because i riding my bike and the dog was running on the leash next to me.

Apparently that’s against the law.

I’m sure someone was busy robbing a house while this all unfolded.

PR Fail.

Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time, also ignorance of the law is no excuse

#10
buzz8195:16 am, 03 Apr 12

poetix said :

poetix said :

If they need new blood in the Apostrophe Squad, maybe I’ll apply. Knowing when to use then makes you linguistically diverse these days. (That was almost a ‘young people today’ comment. I’d better watch myself.) For example, ‘anything but every day%u2019 as used in this press release, sounds like you can take a lot of sickies, and work, say, every third day. I think they meant everyday.

Use them, idiot, not then. I’ll fine myself.

What possible law would bloodnut be breaking, given the dog was controlled? Sounds like rubbish to me.

Australian Road Rules;

Division 2 Rules for people in charge of
animals

301 Leading an animal while driving a vehicle

(3) The rider of a bicycle must not lead an animal, including by
tethering the animal to the bicycle, unless the rider is
permitted to do so under another law of this jurisdiction.

#11
bloodnut6:37 am, 03 Apr 12

Just to clarify – I think police do a tough and difficult job. I just don’t think that monitoring dog walking does anything to improve community safety.

Nonetheless, hell hath no fury like the blind angst of an anonymous online brigade of blind supporters.

Kudos to you – the law is the law.

Which is exactly why the laws in Australia have never changed.

Because laws are never stupid. Or wrong. Or poorly suited to the social context.

Especially when they stop people walking their dogs in the suburbs.

If the stupidity of it isn’t immediately clear to you, then you are the idiot.

somewhat chuckleworthy though. I’m off to walk the dog.

I hope I don’t get burgled on the way.

#12
Tooks7:20 am, 03 Apr 12

bloodnut said :

You could be the lovely cop who went out his way today drive up onto the footpath to pull me over while I was walking my dog.

He threatened to ticket me because i riding my bike and the dog was running on the leash next to me.

Apparently that’s against the law.

I’m sure someone was busy robbing a house while this all unfolded.

PR Fail.

So you were breaking the law due to your own ignorance, got stopped and cautioned (and educated on said law) and that’s a PR fail?

#13
MartianMick7:44 am, 03 Apr 12

Community policing sounds gay. How about just beating up crooks ?

#14
MartianMick7:46 am, 03 Apr 12

Making sure that armed robbery isn’t going 55 in a 50 zone ! Yeah ! Community policing ! Woo !

#15
bloodnut8:21 am, 03 Apr 12

So you were breaking the law due to your own ignorance, got stopped and cautioned (and educated on said law) and that’s a PR fail?

Before I answer – Thanks to everyone’s Grand dad’s who have chipped in with their stunning nuggets of social commentary.

Yes.

Relevant from todays news –

‘In the report Bob Carr questioned whether pursuing marijuana users was an effective use of police resources.’

I would assume this sentiment applies doubly to dog walkers.

The argument is not whether it is or isn’t a law (have you even checked?)

It’s more a use of police resources to achieve nothing when they could be achieving something.

Now go away.

#16
Tooks8:49 am, 03 Apr 12

bloodnut said :

So you were breaking the law due to your own ignorance, got stopped and cautioned (and educated on said law) and that’s a PR fail?

Before I answer – Thanks to everyone’s Grand dad’s who have chipped in with their stunning nuggets of social commentary.

Yes.

Relevant from todays news -

‘In the report Bob Carr questioned whether pursuing marijuana users was an effective use of police resources.’

I would assume this sentiment applies doubly to dog walkers.

The argument is not whether it is or isn’t a law (have you even checked?)

It’s more a use of police resources to achieve nothing when they could be achieving something.

Now go away.

If you bothered reading the thread, you’d know it was a law (as quoted by buzz).

Stupid laws to protect stupid people. For the record, I’d be happy for your dog to run in front of your bike and for you to do a massive faceplant and lose some teeth. I really couldn’t care less. The lawmakers, however, create laws like this (helmet laws, seatbelt laws, pedestrian crossing laws etc) to prevent idiots from hurting themselves. Stupid people deserve protection from themselves, no?

You didn’t get fined (which you should’ve, because you’re an idiot), so what’s the issue?

#17
Erg09:26 am, 03 Apr 12

It’s true, the police would be a lot more popular if they stopped banging on about obeying the law all the time. Bloody killjoys.

#18
aceofspades9:37 am, 03 Apr 12

In bloodnuts case it is hard to argue as it has been pointed out in this thread that apparently it is against the law. I do understand his frustration though, unless Jo Citizen studies law for a living how was he supposed to know. Bloodnut probably knows his dog, they were both getting exercise and it does seem a fairly harmless thing to do. Yes in this case he was probably simply informed that he was breaking the law and the officer was just doing his job. The thing that bothers me is that police are so quick to support their colleagues and point out that Jo Citizen was breaking the law so deserved what they got and then proceed to break the law themselves which also receives the support from their colleagues. Every occupation is accountable for their mistakes except police officers. If somebody is wrongly accused because of police coercion or police manufacturing evidence, what happens to the officers that have broken the law themselves, at worst a slap on the wrist.

#19
HenryBG9:38 am, 03 Apr 12

Tooks said :

Stupid laws to protect stupid people. For the record, I’d be happy for your dog to run in front of your bike and for you to do a massive faceplant and lose some teeth. I really couldn’t care less. The lawmakers, however, create laws like this (helmet laws, seatbelt laws, pedestrian crossing laws etc) to prevent idiots from hurting themselves. Stupid people deserve protection from themselves, no?

You didn’t get fined (which you should’ve, because you’re an idiot), so what’s the issue?

I think we should put a lot less effort into protecting the stupid, and more effort into protecting the public purse (and society in general) from criminals and their lawyers.

After all, if you have less laws, you have less lawbreakers.
The cops then have more time to enforce what laws are left, as they aren’t distracted by having to throw the book at some harmless bloke in Narrabundah for growing 13 pathetic and spindly cannabis plants and getting insulted for presenting their evidence in court by some worthless parasite lawyer.

The courts then have more time to deal with criminals in a timely manner, and the ACT Government will spend less on lawyers and can compensate people properly for performing jury duty which will improve the quality of juries.

And if more of the Stupid are falling off their bikes, they might breed a little less.

#20
Tooks10:00 am, 03 Apr 12

HenryBG said :

Tooks said :

Stupid laws to protect stupid people. For the record, I’d be happy for your dog to run in front of your bike and for you to do a massive faceplant and lose some teeth. I really couldn’t care less. The lawmakers, however, create laws like this (helmet laws, seatbelt laws, pedestrian crossing laws etc) to prevent idiots from hurting themselves. Stupid people deserve protection from themselves, no?

You didn’t get fined (which you should’ve, because you’re an idiot), so what’s the issue?

I think we should put a lot less effort into protecting the stupid, and more effort into protecting the public purse (and society in general) from criminals and their lawyers.

After all, if you have less laws, you have less lawbreakers.
The cops then have more time to enforce what laws are left, as they aren’t distracted by having to throw the book at some harmless bloke in Narrabundah for growing 13 pathetic and spindly cannabis plants and getting insulted for presenting their evidence in court by some worthless parasite lawyer.

The courts then have more time to deal with criminals in a timely manner, and the ACT Government will spend less on lawyers and can compensate people properly for performing jury duty which will improve the quality of juries.

And if more of the Stupid are falling off their bikes, they might breed a little less.

You’re probably right on all those points.

#21
Tooks10:03 am, 03 Apr 12

aceofspades said :

In bloodnuts case it is hard to argue as it has been pointed out in this thread that apparently it is against the law. I do understand his frustration though, unless Jo Citizen studies law for a living how was he supposed to know.

Presumably he was informed of the law and verbally cautioned. Why he’s got his knickers in a twist is beyond me.

#22
aceofspades10:19 am, 03 Apr 12

Tooks said :

aceofspades said :

In bloodnuts case it is hard to argue as it has been pointed out in this thread that apparently it is against the law. I do understand his frustration though, unless Jo Citizen studies law for a living how was he supposed to know.

Presumably he was informed of the law and verbally cautioned. Why he’s got his knickers in a twist is beyond me.

Agreed, just his frustration though, and I can see his point, he has worked out a way that both he and his dog can do the right thing, get exercise and enjoy themselves at the same time only to find out that the fun police have decided it is against the law. Is it really more dangerous than the “tricks” kids today are doing at skate parks with bmx bicycles, roller-blades and the like? Skate parks are government funded, why isn’t this stupidity?

#23
bloodnut10:23 am, 03 Apr 12

Tooks said :

aceofspades said :

In bloodnuts case it is hard to argue as it has been pointed out in this thread that apparently it is against the law. I do understand his frustration though, unless Jo Citizen studies law for a living how was he supposed to know.

Presumably he was informed of the law and verbally cautioned. Why he’s got his knickers in a twist is beyond me.

As you said yourself in an earlier post – the law is a stupid one.

Then you went on to agree with the following post that there should be less stupid laws.

Which is you making my point better than I could.

So we are in agreement after all.

Why should anyone be pulled up and cautioned on an obscure (in your words – stupid) point of law when they’re ambling along with their dog on a sunny afternoon.

Counter-productive in both the context of community safety and strengthening community relationships.

Nice to see we could finally reach a concensus and that The Riot Act brought us that much closer together.

If you’re really nice I’ll let you untwist my knickers for me.

#24
VYBerlinaV8_is_back10:36 am, 03 Apr 12

Tooks said :

aceofspades said :

In bloodnuts case it is hard to argue as it has been pointed out in this thread that apparently it is against the law. I do understand his frustration though, unless Jo Citizen studies law for a living how was he supposed to know.

Presumably he was informed of the law and verbally cautioned. Why he’s got his knickers in a twist is beyond me.

I would have thought that for something like this the outcome was a good one. The person now knows they aren’t supposed to do something, but because it was fairly minor and no-one was impacted the book didn’t get thrown at them.

#25
bloodnut10:47 am, 03 Apr 12

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

Tooks said :

aceofspades said :

In bloodnuts case it is hard to argue as it has been pointed out in this thread that apparently it is against the law. I do understand his frustration though, unless Jo Citizen studies law for a living how was he supposed to know.

Presumably he was informed of the law and verbally cautioned. Why he’s got his knickers in a twist is beyond me.

I would have thought that for something like this the outcome was a good one. The person now knows they aren’t supposed to do something, but because it was fairly minor and no-one was impacted the book didn’t get thrown at them.

Agreed – if it was fairly minor and no one was impacted – why did the officer bother…

#26
buzz81910:57 am, 03 Apr 12

bloodnut said :

Just to clarify – I think police do a tough and difficult job. I just don’t think that monitoring dog walking does anything to improve community safety.

Nonetheless, hell hath no fury like the blind angst of an anonymous online brigade of blind supporters.

Kudos to you – the law is the law.

Which is exactly why the laws in Australia have never changed.

Because laws are never stupid. Or wrong. Or poorly suited to the social context.

Especially when they stop people walking their dogs in the suburbs.

If the stupidity of it isn’t immediately clear to you, then you are the idiot.

somewhat chuckleworthy though. I’m off to walk the dog.

I hope I don’t get burgled on the way.

No, you would get robbed while out walking, your house would get burgled.

#27
buzz81911:01 am, 03 Apr 12

bloodnut said :

Tooks said :

aceofspades said :

In bloodnuts case it is hard to argue as it has been pointed out in this thread that apparently it is against the law. I do understand his frustration though, unless Jo Citizen studies law for a living how was he supposed to know.

Presumably he was informed of the law and verbally cautioned. Why he’s got his knickers in a twist is beyond me.

As you said yourself in an earlier post – the law is a stupid one.

Then you went on to agree with the following post that there should be less stupid laws.

Which is you making my point better than I could.

So we are in agreement after all.

Why should anyone be pulled up and cautioned on an obscure (in your words – stupid) point of law when they’re ambling along with their dog on a sunny afternoon.

Counter-productive in both the context of community safety and strengthening community relationships.

Nice to see we could finally reach a concensus and that The Riot Act brought us that much closer together.

If you’re really nice I’ll let you untwist my knickers for me.

I’m sure if it had of be the dog catchers out there, you would have been fined for an unregistered, non-desexed dog with no micro-chip, so you’re probably lucky it was a copper tell you that you were breaking one law and not getting fined for all the rest.

#28
buzz81911:05 am, 03 Apr 12

bloodnut said :

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

Tooks said :

aceofspades said :

In bloodnuts case it is hard to argue as it has been pointed out in this thread that apparently it is against the law. I do understand his frustration though, unless Jo Citizen studies law for a living how was he supposed to know.

Presumably he was informed of the law and verbally cautioned. Why he’s got his knickers in a twist is beyond me.

I would have thought that for something like this the outcome was a good one. The person now knows they aren’t supposed to do something, but because it was fairly minor and no-one was impacted the book didn’t get thrown at them.

Agreed – if it was fairly minor and no one was impacted – why did the officer bother…

Did you actually read the post?

They were saying “now you know what you did was wrong, and because it was minor you didn’t get a ticket.”

#29
Here_and_Now11:15 am, 03 Apr 12

Eppo said :

I do always love the defence of those who get pulled up on minor infringements though. “I’m sure someone else was busy doing (insert random crime here)”. Doesn’t take away from the fact you were doing the wrong thing.

Yes, it’s pretty flimsy logic. It requires this hypothetical other crime to not only occur, but to be happening so close by that the officer would have been able to observe it within the small distance they would have travelled while writing a ticket or telling someone off. But also not too close by, otherwise the officer and the ticketee would see it anyway.

#30
bloodnut12:52 pm, 03 Apr 12

buzz819 said :

bloodnut said :

Just to clarify – I think police do a tough and difficult job. I just don’t think that monitoring dog walking does anything to improve community safety.

Nonetheless, hell hath no fury like the blind angst of an anonymous online brigade of blind supporters.

Kudos to you – the law is the law.

Which is exactly why the laws in Australia have never changed.

Because laws are never stupid. Or wrong. Or poorly suited to the social context.

Especially when they stop people walking their dogs in the suburbs.

If the stupidity of it isn’t immediately clear to you, then you are the idiot.

somewhat chuckleworthy though. I’m off to walk the dog.

I hope I don’t get burgled on the way.

No, you would get robbed while out walking, your house would get burgled.

Maybe time for a refresher at the police college next intake.

Only someone crazy would try robbing that place.

Sponsors
RiotACT Proudly Supports
Advertisement
Copyright © 2014 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.