Ineffective Police Force ?

[andco 10]

I know you're right, but I struggle to understand how anything can be inadmissable (no matter how it came about) if its clear video footage of someone breaking the law.

 

Think you'll find it has something to do with "rules of evidence"; these are very strict particularly where criminal evidence is concerned because the courts are required to work on the basis of "beyond all reasonable doubt" as distinct from civil matters where the judge is only reuqired to work on "the balance of probabilities" which is far more flexible. I suspect the issue here is that the cctv material could only be deemed as indicative rather than conclusive. Also as the Police are no longer responsible for prosecution as used to be the case - it is now down to the Criminal Prosecution Service, they are less familiar with Court Procedure & procedural rules and are therefore far more cautious about the criminal cases they bring to court because of the costs involved, not to mention the bad press, when they get it wrong

[rubydazzler 11]

But if they have 'evidence' via cctv that someone was prowling about on private property peering into vehicles and they took the trouble to locate that person and interview them, maybe it would deter them in future?

 

I mean, imagine if you'd just walked onto your drive from a night out and there was someone lurking there. Anything could happen, from them attacking you to you attacking them.

 

I just take the attitude that they can't be bothered with 'good old fashioned coppering' these days and if they could, there wouldn't be so much aggro from little scroats that think they're untouchable. Sorry.

[andco 10]

think you'll find cctv wont suffice. A few years ago, I was rudely awoken by a cop shining his torch shining in to my bedroom as he was about to send his sniffer dog through my then wide open window - I live on the ground floor - BECAUSE they actually saw some people wandering down the road in & out ofpeople's gardens. But for the fact that the police saw these raving lunatics had been seen running in and out of gardens nothing would have been done.

[happyhippy 11]

I know you're right, but I struggle to understand how anything can be inadmissable (no matter how it came about) if its clear video footage of someone breaking the law.

 

Someone acting suspiciously, shining a torch into a car, and doing nothing, is not breaking the law.

 

Anything which may link to a different crime in the locality is circumstantial evidence.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm hardly standing up for the scum, but that is the law.

[happyhippy 11]

But if they have 'evidence' via cctv that someone was prowling about on private property peering into vehicles and they took the trouble to locate that person and interview them, maybe it would deter them in future?

 

I mean, imagine if you'd just walked onto your drive from a night out and there was someone lurking there. Anything could happen, from them attacking you to you attacking them.

 

I just take the attitude that they can't be bothered with 'good old fashioned coppering' these days and if they could, there wouldn't be so much aggro from little scroats that think they're untouchable. Sorry.

 

I've a lot of sympathy with that, the old-fashioned coppering bit, but with regard to the locating someone part, they didn't leave their name and address did they?

 

"We know he's a white, blond, short-haired bloke, probably between 18-25, wearing a white top and jeans"

 

That narrows it down a bit.

 

Having said that, I suppose taking a few screen shots wouldn't hurt, so if anything similar happened in the future, or had in the past, it could help to get the scrote done.

[cgksheff 44]

 

Having said that, I suppose taking a few screen shots wouldn't hurt, so if anything similar happened in the future, or had in the past, it could help to get the scrote done.

 

Now you are starting to get the picture.

 

It has got nothing to do with evidence or admissability.

 

It is to do with learning WHO may have been responsible for for crimes in the neighbourhood.

[Zebra 10]

I wouldn't send that letter until it's been spell checked.

[Whatif wewin 10]

And I'm the Queen of Sheba.

 

I am not quite sure about what you being the queen of Sheba has to do with a serious discussion about why I for one , and no doubt other law abiding citizens have lost faith in the police as an effective force for justice.

 

My previous post was accurate as is this.

I was a postie on the Manor about 7 years ago one morning I noticed a threesome of not so likely lads with a ladder and an empty bucket going around the backs of peoples houses pretending to clean windows. I rang the police from a call box. The police arrived within the hour, I saw them talk to the ' window cleaners'. The coppers then drove up to me, the postman, in full view of the lads. One of the policeman told me that these guys were well known to him as burgulars but as they had nothing on them there was nothing he could do. I was astounded, not that the police could take no action against these guys, that was obvious if the guys had not committed any crime, but the fact that they came directly to me in full view of these rogues. When the police left I had to carry on posting letters with these guys hanging round, several times I had to cross their path as the three of them lounged on the front paths of Manor residents.

Luckily for me they did not do me any harm, but that was no thanks to the police officers.

[tallpaul 10]

It's always sad to read when decent people have lost faith in the police...

 

A question though...

 

Who's fault is it, do you think?

 

The public, or the police, or the government of the day?

 

The namby pamby policing that you see nowadays, where many cops are afraid of their own shadow, in case is casts a racist, sexist, homophobic thought....or doesn't adhere to heath and safety or remember a criminals human rights... ... is as a result of the the country's every increasing softly softly approach to many things; police, immigration etc etc..

 

I for one, rarely meet people who agree with 'human rights' of criminals... soft jails... hoards of people queueing up to help the guilty, whilst the victim is left with a crime number and a phone call from Victim Support.

 

The police are recruiting police officers who seem to be public relation experts. Scared to death of offending anyone, and practically asking the criminals if they 'wouldn't mind awfully being arrested, but I've got these crime recording standards to adhere to'....

 

Personally, I believe the public have got the police force that they've asked for, but didn't really want.

 

Several high profile miscarriages of justice in the past, and other incidents have meant more and more red tape for the police, and freedom for the criminals.

 

Some loud members of the public scream police brutality at the earliest opportunity and the slime of the criminal solicitors* cream off the result.

 

 

*I'm always amazed at the irony that they call themselves 'criminal solicitors'

[tricia888 10]

It's always sad to read when decent people have lost faith in the police...

 

A question though...

 

Who's fault is it, do you think?

 

The public, or the police, or the government of the day?

 

The namby pamby policing that you see nowadays, where many cops are afraid of their own shadow, in case is casts a racist, sexist, homophobic thought....or doesn't adhere to heath and safety or remember a criminals human rights... ... is as a result of the the country's every increasing softly softly approach to many things; police, immigration etc etc..

 

I for one, rarely meet people who agree with 'human rights' of criminals... soft jails... hoards of people queueing up to help the guilty, whilst the victim is left with a crime number and a phone call from Victim Support.

 

The police are recruiting police officers who seem to be public relation experts. Scared to death of offending anyone, and practically asking the criminals if they 'wouldn't mind awfully being arrested, but I've got these crime recording standards to adhere to'....

 

Personally, I believe the public have got the police force that they've asked for, but didn't really want.

 

Several high profile miscarriages of justice in the past, and other incidents have meant more and more red tape for the police, and freedom for the criminals.

 

Some loud members of the public scream police brutality at the earliest opportunity and the slime of the criminal solicitors* cream off the result.

 

 

*I'm always amazed at the irony that they call themselves 'criminal solicitors'

 

Hi Tallpaul, I think the answer to your question is The Government. The government lay down guide lines to which the police have to adhere. These guide lines have been shortened therefore preventing the police doing a good job for the victim but prolonging the criminality of the suspect because they don't get sent to prison as easily. Therfore it gives the impression to the victims that the police don't care.

[ad25121048 10]

Police are useless.

I've had my car broken into (and no officer ever even bothered to turn up). I've been drove into by another car then the other car drove off (and no officer ever even bothered to turn up). I've had my backdoor kicked in at an old address (and no officer ever even bothered to turn up).

 

I've got caught doing 34 in a 30 and guess what....

[SleepyHead 10]

It's always sad to read when decent people have lost faith in the police...

 

A question though...

 

Who's fault is it, do you think?

 

The public, or the police, or the government of the day?

 

All 3 + the legal industry + some societal trends (such as 'sue first and ask questions after') largely inherited from the 'States.