tallpaul

he now wants a McDonalds, a Latte and a plane to fly him to Rio.... I hope they don't give in to him.......

Just hope that nobody 'innocent' gets hurt.

No it's not a fact - it's your opinion and is based on perhaps very little knowledge and worthwhile experience..

Thanks for the kind words.. .My fellow cops will appreciate it... I must admit, I personally am always impressed by the fire service and their ability to work well under pressure in such situations.... The co-ordinated efforts by the emergency services and their local government partnership agencies, during the floods, has been really successful and has saved many lives and much property.. It's such a shame that not everyone could have been saved...

Going back to my point about how the justice system in England is let down by the courts and not the police... Only today, this is revealed..; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/south_yorkshire/6684831.stm So the police catch a rapist, responsible for numerous disgusting offences against women..(who's lives will no longer be the same)...put him before the courts....where he gets a paltry 14 years.... Then..when he appeals....the Court of Appeal reduces it by half...so he's only got 7 years. I think it's high time the public start to realise who exactly it is, who's letting them down...as you've a long way to go before the finger points at the cops.

In that case, it's a 'theft from person'. (not a robbery). However, that legal technicality isn't a problem to your friend. Did the police not attend the scene? Or did they visit him afterwards? Where is the CCTV there? I'm trying to think....where the cameras are in that particular area...

Yeah, I can kind of understand that. I see too many cops speaking too politely to criminals and those under arrest. It's a bit too wishy washy at times.. but this appears to be how the government is changing things. I mean, they changed the police FORCE into a police SERVICE. Calling criminals 'customers' etc... If someone commits an offence, something which they clearly shouldn't do and other people are affected as a result, they lose the right to be dealt with the same as normal law abiding people. I'm not advocating rough treatment, but the giving of cups of tea as soon as they get to the police station and all the other crap which the tax payer pays for..is ridiculous. I agree with you again. However, having said that, I don't think it's the police's fault regarding the poor punishments...it's the courts, social services, probation service etc.... Even as much as the blame falling on the schools. At the top of that heap, is of course the Government. There's no discipline in schools, so that lack of respect just magnifies when out of school. I agree with you 100%.... Who do you blame for this softly softly approach? I mean, most of the cops that i've every worked with would love to clip naughty kids and give them a right good 'speaking to'.. But it's not worth the hassles and the later accusations... which will rock the boat... The public don't help.. the moment a cop gives a burglar a good hiding..the public reach for their camcorders and videophones...so that Look North etc can put the cop on trial before the end of the day.

It simply can't happen.... ANY robbery is given an immediate priority... Was it reported at the time? ie: 999 Or later when he was at home? If it was 999 at the time, then there'd be cops there in minutes.. If it was afterwards..ie: when he was at home, the urgency is no longer an issue, and the police will attend as soon as an officer is available. This 'robbed' wallet. Was violence used or threatened?

Very true... there have been corrupt police officers....ever since the 'profession' began.. (It's a human condition, i'm sorry to say. But thankfully afflicts only the few) However, don't try to deflect away from revelation about solicitors giving gifts to criminals by throwing mud elsewhere... It's a deflection tactic that doesn't work...

I'm afraid that is life, my friend. You make your own house secure and safe, so that the burglar will choose someone else. It's a horrible way of thinking, but it's very true. CCTV will still be a benefit in identifying offenders and proving to a court exactly what they did/committed. As for police ignoring CCTV..can you explain what you mean by that..

Again...just another ignorant and ill-thought out post by you...I'm struggling to find any posts of yours on this forum that either help others, inform others, or contribute constructively to any debate... I suppose you could tell us stories about you and your girlfriend walking the dog around Arbourthorne and the interesting things you've seen and people you've met... Perhaps that would be more pleasant a read...

That's not exactly correct....and I think you know that... CCTV prevents many crimes... however, it's hard to calculate where those criminals then go to, that doesn't have CCTV. Also, as CCTV is an effective tool in both identifying criminals and also showing exactly how the event unfolded, it's crucial in securing convictions..

Laughable perhaps... Quite unpleasant, dissapointing and corrupt...are phrases I would choose.. You can quote what you like from wherever.... I'm posting what I KNOW happens.... It's not from a bloke in the pub, nor a clipping from a tabloid..I'm talking about my own experience in law enforcement for many years..... If you think that human beings (from any walk of life) adhere to 'guidelines' and rules, you must have a degree in naivety.

Absolutely...but complaining about doing it...and actively resisting/refraining from doing so are different things.. I'm afraid the police force is a disciplined organisation, where orders are followed....they come from the government, through ACPO, and down the ranks... it's not a democracy...so many cops have to enforce laws and meet targets which they disagree with...

Whilst I'm not calling you a liar... I just can't believe the circumstance which you outline... We're in a situation in 2007, where the police HAVE to act on any suggestion of a crime. Christ, only this week we're reading in the national press about people being prosecuted for carrying eggs for throwing, childing chalking on pavements etc... I just can't believe that the police didn't do anything in the circumstances which you outline....I mean it's a straight offence for NEGLECT OF DUTY for the police officers not to act upon what you've said. That's potentially a huge fine for them and worse. It's simply not worth the risk, so even the lazy cops will act in such situations. The majority will act, because that's what you join the job for...to catch scumbags. and if what you say is true...what on earth have you done nothing about it..ie: making a complaint. So many complaints.....are absolute rubbish, fabrications and time wasters. Your circumstances sound far from that...yet the only venting you've done is on a public forum.

Because the police are servants of the public... and the public elect a government...and if the government of the day has legislation in force that says the police must do this, that and the other.... then that is exactly what the police must do....{the answer DOESN'T lie with the police} Unlike another other 'emergency' service... when we aren't happy...we just carry on.. we don't go on strike...

Spot on... Most people only blame the police when sentences arent' strong enough..or when cases don't even reach court..... Of course, once a 'file' has gone it.....the CPS make the decisions...

You are right...I agree.. However, I don't think that the majority of speed limits that are in force are wrong and should be raised just because many drivers are either too ignorant, lazy or ill-discilpined to obey them. And I include MYSELF in that description. I'm far from perfect, and if I was to be given a ticket, gutted or not, I'd have to take it on the chin. My personal view is more emphasis should be placed on driving behaviour and standards. Of course the only way to enforce such things is through more traffic police officers and not just speed cameras. But of course, when a driver is stopped by a traffic cop, the reply is occasionally "Haven't you got anything better to do?".... So the traffic cop numbers are at an all time low, where the unforgiving, no tolerance, no discretion speed camera numbers are at their highest.. Kind of makes you want to slap every driver who had asked the above question, doesn't it?

Whilst I understand that, I (like many other decent people) are disgusted that criminals get lighter sentences for crimes that they have committed, simply because they own up to it.. Whooopey Do..! Are you naive or simply kept in the dark. I don't know if the 1/8/89 is your date of birth (i'm just guessing and not being rude)..or what exactly you do in the legal profession.. Secretary, Legal executive, solicitor ??? The money is out of the solicitor's own pocket, PAID FOR OUT OF LEGAL AID. It's worth it for the solicitor to pay the occasional £10 top up, or £50 pair of training shoes for scumbag client. The future business will more than cover those minimal expenses. I know it goes on, because I have solicitor 'friends' who admit it to me. (and yes I take the **** out of them mercilessly) You are a really nice person. I can tell that, which is why I apologise for publically flaying your argument. Whilst there are some solicitors who hate the clients they represent, there are others that do it for 'justice'...there are yet more still who do it for the pay cheque at the end of the month...No matter what lengths are taken. It's human nature, I'm sorry to say. What you've got to remember is the criminal doesn't really have any loyalty. Many a criminal has told me what has been said during their 'confidential' meeting with a solicitor prior to interview. Where the solicitor has given the client ideas and excuses for their actions and lead them down a path to mitigation. It's illegal, it's immoral, but it goes on...and it goes on for one reason only... £££££££ I don't suggest that the solicitors actually enjoy doing it, or do it because they want the guilty to go free. They do it out of greed and greed alone. Again..it's not a generalisation...it's not ALL solicitors...just a good percentage. Yes, the 'solicitor' changes sides as much as an Italian Army....I'm aware of that... Incidentally, I don't hate lawyers. They have a job to do. I just don't like hypocrites who try to gloss over their agendas and real intentions. Only last week, on my way to work, I saw a solicitor. It must have been a particularly chilly morning, because he hand his hands in his own pockets !

Whilst that defence was used at Nuremburg, I think it still has the same distaste in the mouth nowadays.. It's not a case of proving someones guilt or innocence. We're talking about a crime where the ID isn't an issue. The CCTV prove the offence beyond any reasonable doubt. The defendants are found guilty....and THEN the solicitors try to plea and bargain to get them a lighter sentence.. That isn't done out of professional courtesy, that is done to curry favour and to gain future business. If you're connected with the legal profession, you'll know that 'criminal solicitors' (sorry, the term gets me every time), buy cigarettes, training shoes, top-up mobile phone cards and other gifts for their scumbag clients in the hope that they will continue to ask for their services in the future... And we know where that money comes from to pay for those items; LEGAL AID. Paid for by the very tax paying public that were victims of the crime in the first place... What a disgusting and corrupt life some people lead; John Philips wearing suits or not...

The trouble is...there are simply so many of them on the streets of our towns and cities...

How bizarre.... I've not seen/heard of the flashing TAX sign. It is probably there, to let people know of the van's purpose and that it's not a speed camera.. The DVLA do use ANPR vans/cameras to detect vehicles without road tax... For example;

You're right Jonny... I don't know who I despise more....the scumbag defendants or their solicitors who preach that kind of crap, just to get their client's lighter sentences...

Your insult is based on what? The fact that my post blew your pathetic argument out of the water? Or are you just generalising AGAIN

I'm sure he will