troubledjoe

It's nice to see some pro police and "Anti" Star comments for a change. RIP PC Mulhall. ....now back into retirement.

R.I.P you lost you life serving the community. will not be forgotten......

well, you won't see me on here anymore. im signing out. There are too many people on here that rely on the police, but use any excuse to have a go at them, despite that fact that they don't actually know how the law or policing works. I love my job, i am a workaholic, i try my best for the victims that i deal with and have had some great results for them. I still visit people long after their case is closed, just to see how they are getting on. But to come on here day after day and see such disdain and derision towards officers that risk their lives on a daily basis is quite soul destroying.

it's not case of disagreeing with that persons opinion, it's the fact that she is wrong and doesn't know what she is talking about. BUT comes onto a forum spouting aggressive views towards the police, when she cleary has no idea or proof to back up her "OPINION". Essentially what is being said by people on here is that they feel entitled to slate the police, but police officers are not allowed to respond and are not entitled to an opinion or to fight their corner. How terribly fair. Further to this, it's not about being able to hack it! This is a FORUM, a place where people can air their views. If people want to come on here and comment on a subject that they know little of, then they should accept that they may be corrected.

for a start "She" didnt post. it was the ladys husband. Yes i am a police officer, and therefore I am far better educated in points of law than you are. I know what im talking about.... you clearly don't. If you have the ability to actually read and digest what the male posting and i posted subsequntly, then you will see that what i did was advise him from my educated position on the possibility of why the police told his wife what they told her. The chap posting never actually said the police said they wouldnt help. He states that they said "frankly, there was little chance of anyone being arrested". Which from what he tell's us...seems to be correct. However, i personally think that his wife ought to have pursued her case. you state that "yes it does goe to the cps etc but it doesnt mean they shouldnt still go out and deal with it".... but it can't go to the CPS without the police going and dealing with it. the CPS make their decision after the police have investigated. Again this is a clear indicator that you have no idea what you are talking about. In relation to the tragic fatalities that we have had over the past year or so... please educate us in how the police could better serve the public???? What do YOU propose is done?

well this isnt about "OPINION" sweetheart, it's about fact! From your previous posts it is CLEAR that you don't actually know anything about the police, law and order. YOU have no way of knowing what else those officers were doing that day? why would traffic officeRs have other people to take statements for their traffic related crimes? No matter how well the police do, it would not alter the fact that there are some ignorant, small/ criminally minded people out there that woudn't help the police. Because the police stand for the opposite of those individuals themselves. The problem is you silly little girl, that in not "HELPING" the police more.... your actually letting the victim down. What do you do for a living please?

what a grown up and open minded responce.... well done:)

or you could complain here: http://www.ipcc.gov.uk i found this link in 5 seconds.

obviously i dont know the in's and out's of your case. BUT if the police arrest an offender and they have the evidence in conjunction with an admission from the offender/s.... there is no way they would be "Let off". that simply does not happen. They may have recieved a warning/ reprimand. which is the lowest level punishment that can be given to an offender that admits a first offence. But they would not have been let off.

did they get let off, or get a caution please?

not at all. it IS surprising how bad CCTV often is. that is down the business that owns it. CCTV is generally of little use unless it is high qualiry and therefore provides good evidence. I can only imagine that the shop keeper in question didn't want to get involved either, so that appears to rule out the only witness. if that is the case, the police were not saying they wouldnt help your wife, im sure they would have been happy to do so. BUT what they were doing, with the benefit of their experience in dealing with the CPS, is advising that the chance of getting a positive result was very slim...which by the sound of it... it was. However it was down to your wife to decide whether to go ahead with a complaint...so surely you cant blame the police for your wifes decision not to go ahead.

ultimately unless the OP followed the vehicle to see if another police mobiel turned up, they cant really say for certain what the outcome was. It often looks as though the police are just "driving" around, when they are infact going to a prioriy job (that doesnt need blue lights), going to take a statement/ collect CCTV or whatever. To just assume the officers did nothing is wrong, and though i can understand why people do it..... perhaps people ought to think a little bit more about things before jumping to conclusions.

thats no excuse whatsoever to be racially abusive to somebody!

i know, it's terrible. how dare police officers wear sunglasses to stop themselves being dazzled.

i have to say i find your attitude disapointing! if both you and your wife witnessed this then you have 2 witnesses and there IS a good chance of getting a result. If you remember the reg then it will be easy to trace the driver. I don't understand why you would come on here and complain.... and then do nothing about it.

i have "Rock Chick". got it from the painting shop on Pinstone Street in town. got the canvas for 80 quid. really want more. but will have to save. "Every day is like sunday" will be the next one.... im a huge smiths fan.

absoloute rubbish. there are plenty of people out there speeding without the police having to bend the rules. get the chip off your shoulder and see sense.

it wasn't fraud at all. there has to be a dishonest intention for it to be theft or similar crime. In this case there was no such intention, just somebody that obviously made an error. Id suggest you actually learn some law and legal definitions before commenting in future.

The police need grounds to stop and search! these rules are set in place by the goverment! it frustrates officers as much as anybody.

apparently the gorilla made it's way to Morrisons at ecclesfield. It ran amuck inside, 3 store detectives tried in earnest to corner it... but it ate the one in the yellow shirt. I guess it thought he was a giant banana. Then it made a bid for freedom and ran towards the cross.

can we not speculate please!

dont you think it was pretty stupid to follow the police to a potentially serious incident!! the last thing they need is nosey bystanders getting in the way!

i went to a doo there, and it was brilliant. the food was excellant.

apologies, its tricky to work out exactly what your saying without full stops!.

well i imagine there are signs up that state the maximum amount if time you can spend there. so it doesnt matter if shes a customer or not. she should have paid more attention to the sign and less to stuffing her face.