tallpaul

You're absolutely correct.. But you've got to realise that when forum members like VARB are slagging the police off...they don't really know any better. Poor education and a lack of social awareness manifests itself in the very posts which that member writes. The problem is that in the UK there are too many people who are seemingly happy that the criminals have more rights than the victims. People spend more time bleating about a police officer that perhaps wasn't as polite as he should have been..instead of complaining that victims rights seem to have been overshadowed by the rights of the offender. If you are a victim of a crime, you'll have little or no support professionally. (other than an ex WRVS lady now working for Victim Support - Sweet Tea & Biscuits in abundance) However, if you are a criminal, there's people queuing out of the door to offer their support to you: legal aid solicitors, social workers, probation officers, drug rehabilitation workers, etc etc

Absolutely. But can you tell me of any country where crime is low. As I don't know of one. There will always be crime....since medieval times and before there has been crime. If you really face the facts...Crime will never really go away...you just keep a lid on it..or chase it from one place to another... Sad, but true when you're dealing with the human race. I agree 100%. Unfortunately, real policing/funding etc... is controlled by the Home Office of the day. The very people ie: Labour that you (although I must say not I) voted into power. However, I think you really need a Police Force again..and not a Police Service. You'll find when the change of name appeared....so did the level of 'service'. I agree with you. The police are pandering to the health and safety brigade, the Human Rights Act, the race and diversity training courses, the best practice and best value working lines, the customer focused delivery approach etc etc. There are squads and units where intelligence is gathered. There are departments whose very role it is, is to make sure the police are diversity aware and that all police officers have had gay, lesbian, trans-gender, transsexual training to enable them to do their work without prejudices. Most police officers joined the job to be out there on the streets dealing with the bad guys. Unfortunately, middle England has placed so many obstacles and stumbling blocks in the path of policing that very little is actually achieved. It's a shame, because I rarely meet people who agree with what is being done...so called in their name. The problem is, is that the public don't complain or appear concerned with how the general pattern is developing...and a small minority (like on this thread), appear more interested in whining about an individual officer that they have met...rather than looking at the bigger picture. Afterall, it's your police force...you should say what you want it to do. Filling out form after form after form..attending behaviour course after training course on this that and the other..none of which actually concern law and order..isn't what the majority of the public want.

I'm sure you'd feel the same if your family member was the victim of a serious assault and the defendant walked from court. Of course, the rules would change when it became personal to you...and that's perfectly ok. I understand that. It's not ! They were chewed and after several lengthy interviews my dog has admitted his involvement. He's also asked for several other plant damaged over the last 12 months to be taken into consideration by my wife. I agree with some of your points neddio. But you really have to be aware of the difference between the job that police do on the streets and the actions of the Home Office and higher up the ladder. Policy decisions etc. Afterall, it's not the police that put someone before a court, it's the Crown Prosecution Service. I'm only pulling your leg in the hope of lighthearted debate.. You were doing so well and now you're back to supposition. Convictions are based on facts. Be it DNA fact. Or facts ascertained from reliable witnesses. I don't know what your knowledge level of the criminal justice system is neddio, and i'm not going to guess as I don't want to offend you.

I suppose your views on today's National Health Service are formed on the state of the country's health during the 'Black Death' in the 14th Century...

Life isn't perfect i'm afraid, and we don't live in an ideal world No, it's a measure of human behaviour. Unlike you, the rest of us aren't perfect. True. So your argument is based on events that happened 32 years ago? Wow..that's really relevant today. The Birmingham 6's convictions were overturned largely on the basis that traces of nitroglycerine found on their bodies could have come from innocuous sources such as soap. Not exactly 100% proof of innocence, just enough 'doubt'. My wife's precious plants were chewed last week. I can't 100% prove it was our dog...but the sensible money is on him. What happened in 1974/5 with the Birmingham 6 and other miscarriages of justice around that time caused the Home Secretary to set up a Royal Commission on Criminal Justice which came into practise in 1991. The commission reported in 1993 and led to the Criminal Appeal Act of 1995 and the establishment of the Criminal Cases Review Commission in 1997. Many of the criminals nowadays are unfortunately given liberty on the bad practises of the police over 30 years ago. I don't agree with what the police behaviour was like in the early 1970s, but I think people's memories of the facts are very short. Do you honestly believe that it has been better in the past? The police force, [cough] sorry Police Service, that you have nowadays is the fairest, the most pleasant, polite, and tolerant....the most diversity aware than at any time since Robert Peel's day. In the words of Harold Macmillan, "You've never had it so good". Or would you prefer the policing methods of 30 years ago. I must admit, most decent people that I come into contact with tell me that the policing methods of yesterday were much better than today, in their opinion. Where young louts got a clip around the ear, burglars got real sentences at court, and there was a real deterrent and fear when the policeman arrived at the scene. And your argument on how bad the police are is based on the fact that 6 people who [allegedly] handled nitroglycerin prior to leaving "The Mulberry Bush" and "Tavern of the Town" public houses in Birmingham 1974, which then exploded killing 21 people injuring a further 200, where later acquitted because they might have all handled a brand of soap? Mmmmmm... I think you're missing the current point...

First of all...many of the camera operators are now civilians...So perhaps it's the very people in your post office, pub, local shop etc etc that you have no respect for..as very few police officers actually work in the camera vans. Now that we've shot that argument out of the water...we'll continue. The 'smoke' checks on bochum parkway are there for a variety of reasons and I'm told by my colleagues that work them, that they usually result in several arrests each hour. Disqualified drivers, drunk drivers, wanted people, stolen property in the vehicle etc etc. When someone is breaking into a shed... (Robbery would require someone to offer violence to the shed and it would have to human)....and you dial 999, you'll find that if there are resourses available..they will respond. I regularly hear on the police radio such incidents, and see/witness many of my colleagues attending them. They do so, because there is a good chance of catching a criminal and it'll probably lead to many other offences. If however, the police officers on shift...(and in some areas that can mean as little as half a dozen officers for many square miles)....are busy dealing with violent domestics, drunks causing trouble in a pub, drink driver etc etc... Then where exactly do you think we are going to find an officer to deal/attend? They can't be pulled from a hat. This business about when you get stopped for a tail light..... Such 'excuses' are a great way of catching criminals. Spend a little more time researching your subject and you'll find that criminals like the YORKSHIRE RIPPER, or The Black Panther were all caught due to them being stopped for minor motoring offences. I'm sure if you are not drunk, not wanted on warrant and are pleasant and open to advice, such incidents are dealt with by just words of advice. Many car thieves ARE caught. I know because my and my colleagues catch many of them. So i'm a little confused at your argument that seems to have many holes in it.

It depends on the type of department which the bobby works. But if we're talking about the run of the mill bobby, who drives a panda-car.... You'll find that the vast majority of their time is "reactive" as opposed to "pro-active". Now that's not through choice...that's because the workload that is placed upon them by both the public and the current Home Office criterea on what becomes police remit and what is a 'crime'. The public now seem to use the police to settle any problem, from simple family arguments to 'dirty looks from the neighbours'. This impacts greatly on police time and resources. In addition to that, so much time is spent patrolling the town centres at the weekend, that other avenues of policing get neglected. There is simply not enough police officers to go round. Here's an example of what happens. Two drunken males had a fight outside a kebab shop. Both were arrested and because of their injuries had to be taken to hospital. This meant that 4 police officers had to accompany them (2 officers with each prisoner). 4 hours spent at hospital and then returned to the police station, to sleep of the drink. During that time, the police officers wrote their statement, and several other documents. Due to the fact that witnesses to the affray were in drink, both parties were then bailed to reappear at the police station the following week. The police officers in the case then had to visit each witness and obtain lengthy statements from all of them. When the time came for the two males to answer bail, they had by then made friends again. (they worked at the same place). Consequently, both refused to make complaints against each other and didn't want to pursue the prosecution. However, it's not as simple as that. Because of the Home Office's National Crime Recording Standards, "negative" statements had to be taken from each of them to say they didn't want any action taken. They both had already been interviewed in relation to the incident...so what happens is that the crimes of assault are recorded as Detected. But it's an Admin Detection, meaning a crime HAS been detected, but no persons will be appearing before the court. So all the statements and the 'file' are then connected together and it's processed. In total, over 14 hours of police time and the result it that it goes nowhere. The officers concerned didn't like to have to waste all that time, as it could have been much better spent patrolling the suburbs and catching burglars. However, whilst the current government place such hurdles in the way of what is called Criminal Justice, this is how it will remain.

I would recommend buying a book called "Wasting Police Time" by David Copperfield. It explains everything about the modern police officer and what he/she has to cope with..to conform to the red tape. Try ebay or amazon.

Eric, Thanks for your reply posts. Not being a great wizard on the interweb/forums etc...I tend not to take much notice of other things on the screen etc....so didn't really notice these location things... Nottinghamshire eh? I don't know much about your cops. Shame that you don't get the service you deserve though. Bizarre when it's only over the border etc isnt' it? Take care buddy Paul

There are many operations that take place....many of which the public never find out about.. In fact, some of the most dangerous people are put in prison with only a small section being donated to the story in a newspaper.

Spot on Robbo.. I used to think that brainless wonders like PeteC were unaware of their actions...and perhaps didn't know better...but his admittance of his low intellect and bloodymindedness on a public forum...proves that such people really do know what they are doing.. Pathetic.

Firstly Eric...Lets not tar the police with teh PCSO brush. PCSO's are the government's idea..and aren't police officers. Despite what you've been told. As for seeing 3 in the past 12 months. I presume you spend every minute of every day looking out of your window to come up with that statement. No, of course you don't. Which firestation are we on about...because I bet your statement could be blown of the window very easily. You also state that our police force is WORST in the country. WRONG !!! We were in the middle section. I think you're talking complete nonsense. You should really research your subject or at least have a basic understanding of it before you spout off...

Whilst I'm a fan of using discretion and hoping that some people learn a lesson without being ticketted..... The actions which you describe in your example is one reason why discretion doesn't work..and your back just gets p**ssed upon..

I think the police responses are good enough. I mean, you can't have a cop in every store, on the offchance of catching a thief in the act, can you. The detterant is the courts etc...that's what needs to be addressed. Proper sentences and magistrates who don't have the wool pulled over their eyes.. The bulls**t i've heard over the years from defence solicitors in court, would make you vomit. Nearly every defendant who they represent has "recently started a new relationship", or they have "just ended a particularly difficult relationship", or "they are expecting an offer of work soon"...etc in some hope that the Magistrates will be lenient in their sentences.. We ALL have difficulties in our lives...but that doesn't mean we all go around committing crimes as a result.

Agreed.

Yes it was a tragedy...that the person who gives their spare time up to help others (ie: special constabulary) was killed in such a way. So have some Goddamned respect and don't refer to her as a 'hobby bobby'....in an attempt to prove a point on an internet chat forum. There is a line pal...and you're on the brink of crossing it !

You're forgetting.....I agree with you. This man hasn't helped my occupation or me at all. I'm not sticking up for him in the slightest..and neither has south yorkshire police. They have put him before the courts as they felt he was breaking the rules. What i'm saying, is that I wish the venom and interest in this case by the public, was also exercised at other times when real criminals walk free or aren't brought to justice. Thanks all.

Well said 2521ash:thumbsup:

You'd be surprised... Most thieves are always on the look out for a beating...be it from the victim of their theft....or from their drug dealer because they haven't paid up... The are always looking over their shoulder for the police...they never seem to be 100% whether or not there's a warrant out for them..or they've missed a court appearance etc.. They live it s**t smelling houses, with only a tub of cheap margarine and a tube of tomato puree in the fridge......(I've seen that 100s of times) Don't be too concerned that they are living a life of Riley...they aren't...trust me..

I'm not sure I understand the question? Do you mean the sentencing isn't strong enough? The detterant message etc? I think you're right. If it was up to me..we'd have floating prisons, and at least another 100,000 people would be locked up. I recommend you read "A land fit for criminals" by David Fraser. He is a former probation offcer who's had lots of experience with a whole load of criminals. He has written, and it's been agreed by many agencies and thinkers in the know..that to really protect the people of this country we need to lock up a minimum of 225,000 people (the current maximum is 80,000) and we need a police force of about four times the size it is now.

I don't know about all that 'only in America' business.. Like suzukirider says..there are enough sickos in this country before we can cast the first stone... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds/bucks/herts/6194420.stm

So you dont see the link at all...? They fact that one person in one area of the country pays less insurance for the same model vehicle in the same circumstances as another person in a different part of the country.... It's not just the monetary principle here...but other things... What they are doing is against the law...and is a crime. They are also 'p**sing up your back' as you have to go into the store and pay the full price for what they got for free. The fact that they perhaps aren't stealing from you directly shouldn't be the matter...it should outrage your moral decency..... It's like not being bothered about someone being assaulted, because you don't know them...

No they don't. They often feel it's their right to steal..and that shops can afford it..and simply put the prices up to accommodate it.. They think the bigger stores can really afford it and they have even less respect/morals regarding theft from department stores and supermarkets. I've dealt with hundreds and hundreds of thieves over the year...and the one outstanding thing they all are is selfish.

It is a quote from George Orwell... My other favourite..and i've posted this on the forum recently is; "The world isn't a dangerous place because of the evil that people do, but because some others are willing to stand by and do nothing"

I suspected it might be the company policy.....fearful of staff that might err on the side of a lawsuit following an assault no doubt.. A shame, that such pandering to the criminal elements allows the behavior to flourish.. However, it sounds like your security precautions in prevention are seemingly working..and I salute that. Good work