What are people's views on the Police?

[tallpaul 10]

No I don't think i am.

 

I am saying that these sorts of situations don't help the public perception, whether 32 years ago or today.

 

 

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...

[Tony 10]

If someone can't be proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt then they aren't guilty are they,

Sorry, but that is plainly wrong. They aren't proven guilty. Personally I think the Birmingham 6 are as guilty as guilty can be with a cherry on top.

 

or would you like to reform the justice system ?

If that closes judicial loopholes exploited by paid lawyers..

 

... well you just ask yourself the same question.

 

 

 

As you said, it's not perfect, but without some confidence in the system and those who uphold and enforce it where will be be?

 

Do you want coppers that dish out clips or paperwork?

[tallpaul 10]

If someone can't be proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt then they aren't guilty are they, or would you like to reform the justice system ?

 

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.

 

The rubbish you spouted about your wife's plants is truly ridiculous.

 

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.

 

The point is surely that policing is generally good but sometimes they get it wrong, and the people they get it wrong with won't have a very high opinion of them, will they? So you can't tell people what to think of the police, like joe was doing to Pete C. That was the only point I was making - Not all the others that seem to have been raised.

 

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.

 

Oh and by the way your comments on people not being perfect, except me. I never said I was, just pointed out that the police aren't.

 

I'm only pulling your leg in the hope of lighthearted debate..

 

This is a very childish assertion, based on nothing whatsoever - But that seems to be how you like your convictions to be.

 

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.

[NeoGen 10]

South Yorkshire Traffic Officers are not told `thou shall go out and issue 20 tickets today`....just doesnt work like that

 

They do however have monthly targets to hit, so will take the path of least resistance to reach them.

 

some departments of the police have regular fitness checks, but i dont think your average "bobby on the beat" has to.

 

To enforce a fitness check they would have to supply the facilities for the officers to keep fit. You can not tell them to keep in shape and then not give them the means to do so.

 

hmmm i can only guess that the CCTV monitor could not tell who had started the incident at the time. the police do have to caution in the kind of scenario, because everything said after caution can be used at court. you have to understand that all the police officer recieved was something along the lines of "2 males fighting in the street, 1 looks like this and the other looks like this"... if u know what i mean?

 

Firstly, if the police did not apprehend both parties involved they can not fully ascertain what was occurring, secondly we supposedly live in a society where we are innocent until proven guilty and not automatically presumed guilty. If they apprehended Leg-end and he told them what occurred without the other person to prove or disprove this chain of events they should have acted upon what they where told but once again chose the path of least work and penalised the innocent.

 

The student from my club keeps a journal in which he posts sometimes about police activities. He recently commented about how he made an arrest on foot (chasing the guy down, who then threw up on him, nice).

Anyway, 10 mins to arrest him, 4.5 hrs to process. And that was considered quick.

 

The amount of paperwork they do is not a justification for not doing the job properly, I find it very disheartening and difficult to believe in the police when you have officers who feel that just because it takes x amount of time to fill in the paperwork that they can’t be bothered to arrest criminals (whom the magistrates will just let walk anyway) if you don’t like the job or you disagree with methods then get another job or alternatively make a stand for what you believe in, nick someone, go do they paperwork, then go nick someone else and so on and so forth, I'm sure the powers to be would soon be a little concerned when all their officers where actually all sitting in the office filling out forms.

[troubledjoe 10]

The amount of paperwork they do is not a justification for not doing the job properly, I find it very disheartening and difficult to believe in the police when you have officers who feel that just because it takes x amount of time to fill in the paperwork that they can’t be bothered to arrest criminals (whom the magistrates will just let walk anyway) if you don’t like the job or you disagree with methods then get another job or alternatively make a stand for what you believe in, nick someone, go do they paperwork, then go nick someone else and so on and so forth, I'm sure the powers to be would soon be a little concerned when all their officers where actually all sitting in the office filling out forms.

 

i think you missed my point, what i am saying is that there are not enough police officers on the street because of the paperwork involved. and it can become a vicious cycle. an officer starts the paper work, then an emergency come over the radio that they have to attend, so now they have the paper work for that to do, then another incident comes thru etc etc etc. it's not a case of "not liking the job" its just a case of people in general do not understand what actual police work involves, but then complain that there isnt a police officer on every corner. sadly i think a lot of people think programes like "the bill" are quite representative... they are a million miles away from actuality.

[troubledjoe 10]

and Neddio, i think your misunderstanding my initial point. i am not saying people that dislike the police are uneducated, not at all. what i am saying is that people in general do not know what police work entails and therefore to a certain degree people dont actually know what they are talking about.... with all due respect of course.

 

also i dont think you read my point on firearms officers correctly as i actually said that the police only ever shoot people that they feel they have cause to shoot and as a last result.

[troubledjoe 10]

Firstly, if the police did not apprehend both parties involved they can not fully ascertain what was occurring, secondly we supposedly live in a society where we are innocent until proven guilty and not automatically presumed guilty. If they apprehended Leg-end and he told them what occurred without the other person to prove or disprove this chain of events they should have acted upon what they where told but once again chose the path of least work and penalised the innocent.

 

to be honest and in the nicest possible way your wrong. the police can arrest on "suspicion" that an offence is about to be committed, is being committed and has been committed. so if they thought the guy had be involved in an assault/ public order then they are right to arrest. they can always de-arrest if necessary. and to be honest they did not take the path of least resistance, the path of least resistance would have been to do nothing. also we only have leg-ends series of events.

 

finally you say that the police should have acted on what they were told... but how many times do you think when the police catch an offender, the offender tries to declare their innocence??

[roger504 10]

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.

 

Reply..Take the money that pays these (i will be careful here) "people" and re direct it to real criminal policing.They are all on the same team and all get payed by the tax payer. My point was the that the money to pay these people is waisted, if they can pay someone to sit in a van all day they can pay a police officer spend all day doing something other than alienating the public. Whos argument is blown out of the water ?

 

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.

 

Reply..Are you seriously telling me that the type of people you discribe are up, and going to WORK, at 8am?

How many innocent tax payers do they make late for work? furthermore does that take Three police motorcycles, two cars and about five officers?

 

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.

 

Reply..So what have i got to do to get a responce, beat them up?

 

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.

 

Reply..That`s because the money for more officers has been payed to people in camera vans..Don`t you get it?

 

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.

 

Reply..Fair point.Unless you`re playing car snooker.Red,color,Red,Etc,Then its annoying.

 

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.

 

Reply..That`s like a fisherman saying i catch many of the fish.There are alot more fish out there you ain`t catching! Tell the bosses to re direct the funding to real policing. Just quoting crime numbers over the phone to validate insuance claims, is not enough.We need a service.

There are many holes in my arguement,but i could get quite detailed in my criticism, dispite having a clean licence and no police record,therefore not being very familiar with the police, i still think the police are not doing what they should. Enjoying the debate though! Sorry my text is within the original. This is a mistake,I did not mean to do this.

[komal 11]

I think the police do a good job but sometimes they can get take advantage of their authoity a bit too much depending on the person...I was at downlad musi festival and the festival managers tried to kick my bf out and told the police to take him away but they let him back in and just tld him to nt bring any attention to himself so cmpletely depdns on the individual id say

[lizzmobile 11]

I have mixed experience of police activity, but I'll be the first to say that they do a job I would never be able to do.

 

Hats off.

[tallpaul 10]

Reply..That`s like a fisherman saying i catch many of the fish.There are alot more fish out there you ain`t catching!

 

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.

 

Tell the bosses to re direct the funding to real policing. Just quoting crime numbers over the phone to validate insuance claims, is not enough.We need a service.

 

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'.

 

There are many holes in my argument,but i could get quite detailed in my criticism, dispite having a clean licence and no police record,therefore not being very familiar with the police, i still think the police are not doing what they should.

 

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.

[VARB 10]

I do feel sorry for the honest copper in the South Yorkshire police , just imagine if every day you had to deal with....

 

Thugs

People who would pervert the course of justice at any given chance

Morons

Total inadequates

Deviants

 

And thats just in the staff canteen if I ever bump into that honest copper I will buy him a drink .