What type of Police service????
Printed From: Bavarian-Board.co.uk - BMW Owners Discussion Forum
Category: General Forums
Forum Name: General Off Topic Forum
Forum Discription: Discuss off topic issues related to BMWs.
URL: http://www.bavarian-board.co.uk/forum_posts.asp?TID=24287
Printed Date: 26-June-2024 at 02:49
Topic: What type of Police service????
Posted By: B 7 VP
Subject: What type of Police service????
Date Posted: 17-November-2005 at 05:34
|
Police Commissioner Blair, has asked the people of this Country to tell him, what type of Policing you want. On Radio 5 this morning they were giving some stats on other Countries crime/population ratio,s. Europe 400 crimes per 100,000 Brazil 900/100,000 USA 4000/100,000 GB----------------11000/100,000. Hope someone comes up with some workable idea,s pronto. mailto:commissioner@metpolice.uk - commissioner@metpolice.uk ------------- SAFETYFAST |
Replies:
Posted By: Rhys
Date Posted: 17-November-2005 at 06:02
Bring back corperal punishment? A good flogging would do wonders. This would surely make quite a few 'crims' think twice about being naughty  ------------- V reg Rustbucket Merc C220 Cdi estate J Reg Saab 900i 16v '63 Ford Anglia 105e deluxe R reg Honda PC50 moped.. No BMW as yet... |
Posted By: topazman
Date Posted: 17-November-2005 at 07:14
How about Chain Gangs  ------------- Now 2004 M3 Coupe Silver Grey with all the bits |
Posted By: Peter Fenwick
Date Posted: 17-November-2005 at 07:20
|
I just don't believe those figures. Brazil had dreadful problems with gang warfare and in some parts of the country the gangs are the law. Mind you if they judge every speeding ticket to be a crime then that might inflate the figures somewhat........ ------------- Entering an age of Austerity and now driving a Focus Diesel. |
Posted By: livvy
Date Posted: 18-November-2005 at 02:07
|
For crime statistics to mean anything when being compared then you have
to be using the same counting rules and countries don't. The easiest
ones to compare are homicides etc because they are going to be counted
universally very similarly. In this country the public are encourgaed to report crime far more than in some others, but even our figures underplay the true picture. If we take domestic violence for instance, IIRC the average victim of domestic violence is assaulted 37 times before they make the first report. ------------- My views expressed are just that. Mine & mine alone. |
Posted By: thepits
Date Posted: 18-November-2005 at 03:43
|
There's Lies Damn Lies
And Statistics ------------- Cats know your every thought. But don't care. |
livvy wrote:
Posted By: Nigel
Date Posted: 18-November-2005 at 03:49
|
I realise people are feeling anti authority at the moment....but....how can we blame the police for crime figures, ( if indeed that is what this thread is trying to do) ? Society sets the rules by which everyone has to abide. If society is then so lenient, thats it lets the criminals off with a slap on the wrist ( if even that), why shout at the police ? I can give some examples, if a group of travellers arrive in an area, and burglaries go up 500%, you the public then expect the police to go and "roll" the travellers etc, see if you can link them to the crime......oh no the police can't, they need evidence first. Young " thugs", arrest a young person for what is laughingly called anti social behaviour, see how much support you get from parents , only once did I ever have a father turn up and give his errant offspring a good belting, once thats all, most of them would launch into a verbal attack on me, as the arresting officer, for picking on little Johhny, didn't matter that little Johnny was smashing a bus shelter etc etc This went on through most types of crime, everyone will shout and cry about burglary, they won't help the police by reporting suspicious goings on, they will however buy the stolen goods in pubs and boot sales to save a few bob, therefore encouraging someone to go out and commit burgaly again. Then we get to "where are the police", well largely the police are engaged in form filling, meeting whatever target has now been set by our elected masters, and being jolly careful they don't infringe some toe rags rights, because if they do....pension gone. I was even told in court, by a magistrate ( after I'd lifted someone he'd thumped me, so I added assault to the charges against him), that if I chose to wear that uniform I must expect to be assaulted occasionaly. I could go on, society is so worried about individual rights, they seem to have removed individual responsibilites. You even have PC's with 20 years service, seen it, done it etc, then they get some snotty nosed graduate as their inspector, 5 years in the job, but he/she is telling you what to attend, what to action etc. Look to your goverment, not your police force ( laughingly called a service now) for the answers. ------------- Best Wishes Nigel |
Posted By: Peter Fenwick
Date Posted: 18-November-2005 at 06:46
I couldn't agree more with this, especially the bit about rights and responsibillity. I also agree with livvy's point about comparing crime stats. I'd be willing to bet that an awful lot of crime in countries like Brazil never gets reported. I'm sure these statistics were rolled out on the radio by someone who was working to an agenda that didn't involve giving a fair reflection of crime in this country. ------------- Entering an age of Austerity and now driving a Focus Diesel. |
Posted By: B 7 VP
Date Posted: 18-November-2005 at 13:37
|
[QUOTE=Nigel]
Society sets the rules by which everyone has to abide. If society is then so lenient, thats it lets the criminals off with a slap on the wrist ( if even that), why shout at the police ? Wish to strongly disagree with these comments !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If ONLY Society Did set the rules and set the Correct punishment, most of the problems could be deleted--Govt.set THEIR own standards which are mostly political and NOT practical. If the Police force, do not Advise the Politicians(Behind the scenes) of the Known bad results of a particular subject--the police have 160 years experience--then the public will blame the Police experts for becoming another dept of govt.You Know it makes sense
------------- SAFETYFAST |
Posted By: Nigel
Date Posted: 18-November-2005 at 13:53
|
Society does set the rules. There are a lot of lentel eating sandal wearing do gooders on the committes that shape these rules. Why should this be ? Quite simple really, they believe in something ( no matter how wrong we think they are), they then get off their backsides and do something about it. The rest of us ? We largely sit back and say things like isn't that terrible ?, when is someone going to do something about this ? etc ------------- Best Wishes Nigel |
Posted By: livvy
Date Posted: 18-November-2005 at 13:57
|
It's getting too late. More & more of those policies are being determined by people you have even less control over, because they are in Brussels & you didn't even have the chance to vote them in. However those *we* did vote in the last few terms have allowed it to happen. Again people have had the chance to do things about this but are either apathetic about it, or have decided their priorities lay elsewhere. ------------- My views expressed are just that. Mine & mine alone. |
Posted By: livvy
Date Posted: 18-November-2005 at 14:34
Society set the rules with the governments they elect. The Police work within the framework they are given. There is no way
that the Police would ask for most of the bureaucratic nonsense they
have to go through & it will be imposed on them not because it
serves a Police purpose but because it serves a government one. ------------- My views expressed are just that. Mine & mine alone. |
Posted By: omega man
Date Posted: 18-November-2005 at 15:01
|
i think different police forces react to different crimes in the area you live in. in my area colchester essex, the police seem to be overstreched in binge drinkers on fri sat nights, thanks to the council who seem to grant every bar and new drinking establisment a licence to sell as much booze as poss. yet if you report a car getting smashed or some junky shooting up in the town in the middle of the high st, they dont want to know. the only time the police respond is if you report a man yealding a gun round the streets. in my area i totaly blame the local council who are totaly spineless. i also blame the police for being lazy and wasting public money on unnessery police helicopter jaunts trying to catch kids who nick bikes or looking out for traffic jams. who pays for our air ambulance, WE DO joe public with donations. why cant the govement pay for this service.. rant over now thanks
|
Posted By: B 7 VP
Date Posted: 18-November-2005 at 15:02
|
Voters----------are given a set party manifesto which sets out a statement of intention of how they will govern the country after pretending to listen to the concerns of the Voter,s and Promise to bring in solutions to many subjects advised by the voters. Once in power, they forget 50% of said subjects--and make a pigs ear of 49-5% of the rest. ------------- SAFETYFAST |
Posted By: livvy
Date Posted: 18-November-2005 at 15:57
But we do of course have the power to get them out when they fail to deliver (or even attempt to) on the manifesto, rather than voting them in again & again. ------------- My views expressed are just that. Mine & mine alone. |
Posted By: livvy
Date Posted: 18-November-2005 at 19:12
|
No doubt the question of whether we want an armed Police service or not
will be raised again after yesterday's events in Bradford.
------------- My views expressed are just that. Mine & mine alone. |
Posted By: Robmw
Date Posted: 19-November-2005 at 03:47
|
It was said that "Society set the rules with the governments they elect." This is only true when the elected government does what it said it was elected to do.
It was also said "The Police work within the framework they are given." The police are responsible for positioning themselves into a position where they are glorified tax collectors. This is not the everyday bobby but the Police Management structure who are responsible.I sympathise with the local bobby. I for one would be very happy to have the police force like when I was a child where a policeman was someone to be respected and feared. I strongly suggest that when the Bradford robbers are caught they are given life sentences, but I am sure that a liberal judge will give a far more leniant sentence. Much to everyone's frustration. ------------- Robert Born |
Posted By: Peter Fenwick
Date Posted: 19-November-2005 at 04:56
|
I wondered how long it take for this to descend into John's usual dig at the labour party. Give it up John, we've heard it so many times before.
------------- Entering an age of Austerity and now driving a Focus Diesel. |
Posted By: Goldryder
Date Posted: 19-November-2005 at 04:57
Having police who can drive safely would be a nice thing to have...
|
Posted By: livvy
Date Posted: 19-November-2005 at 05:12
|
I agree but when we look at the 23 deaths from pursuits (the
overwhleming majority in the figures) how many were actually as a
result of the Police car hitting the person who died ? The answer is
very few, invariably it is the vehicle being chased that crashes &
the driver/occupants killed without any Police contact at all. The
counting rules though say that if Police were chasing the car it counts
as a Police fatal collision. (the same in the counting rules for other
Police collisions, their presence makes it a Police collision) So the question is what do the public want ? Police to pursue criminals in cars or do you want criminals to know that all they have to do to evade capture is fail to stop for Police ? ------------- My views expressed are just that. Mine & mine alone. |
Posted By: Goldryder
Date Posted: 19-November-2005 at 05:15
| Its the statistic for 'other' that interests me...if recent cases are to be considered, its probably police jockeys doing stupid speeds just cos they can..as a few have this year and got off for it too. There are some police personnel who consider themselves above the law and not required to answer to anyone. |
Posted By: B 7 VP
Date Posted: 19-November-2005 at 05:30
|
IF I am the John - Peter Fenwick is talking about---I Never give up---on liars and slime---this would also go for ANY party or organisation which thinks they can fool the people, that have to pay for their mistakes. I posted on Police service subject, any comments on Govt under this heading , are other posters views. ------------- SAFETYFAST |
Posted By: Peter Fenwick
Date Posted: 19-November-2005 at 05:34
|
It's easy to bash the police isn't it. How many of us would be perfect doing such a hard job. Ok so some of them make mistakes and some of them are idiots, just like most people, but thaye are after all only human. John, yes you guessed right. The trouble is you sound more like a member of a political party that a concerned citzen standing up for his rights...
------------- Entering an age of Austerity and now driving a Focus Diesel. |
Posted By: B 7 VP
Date Posted: 19-November-2005 at 05:52
|
[QUOTE=livvy] The public want the police to pursue criminals in the most effective and safe means to arrest them.The public also want the criminals given a sentence that will make them think about repeating it again---which does Not happen, even though the public ask for real justice, it doesnt exist.
------------- SAFETYFAST |
Posted By: Goldryder
Date Posted: 19-November-2005 at 06:30
|
When the police can show respect to those who do not break the law and the police themselves respect the law that they enforce, then the public might start to respect the police and what they stand for.
Currently however, there are a few seriously bad police personnel, who treat the law with a 'do as I say, not as I do' attitude. The court system is fine, but the CPS needs an major overhaul. The current CPS are crap, they have no idea what they are doing. The courts can only give out sentences in line with what they are told to give. Until such time as those sentences are overhauled to fit crimes of the 21st century instead of the 19th century then people will inevitably get away with murder. The court system is doing its best with the rubbish it has to deal with...namely stupidity within the CPS and the lack of appropriate sentencing power that is in the hands of parliament. I have a couple of friends who are judges and they are pig sick of having defendants getting light sentences and the fact that the judges themselves have their hands tied behind their backs in respect to sentencing limits for certain types of crime. They are equally pi$$ed off with the way the police and CPS muck everything up on an increasing number of times, and one in particular literally goes gunning for any police personnel who goes before him as a defendant, they stand no chance of leniency when they appear infront of this judge, cos he is of the opinion that the police are the most disrespectful to the law nowadays than they have ever been. This judge has been in the job for nearly 40 yrs, so he knows his stuff. Revamp the police and CPS, clear all the crap out of both services and that will make some headway in sorting the dungpile out. |
Posted By: Robmw
Date Posted: 19-November-2005 at 06:39
|
Peter, please don’t think I was Labour bashing , be fair, this is a government who are preaching conservative values. The other lot are equally to blame. my criticism of the current regime is they hyped it up before they came to power "we have seen it wrong for the last 13 years , we know how to put it right, we are going to hit the ground running"..................What happened ? I don’t see any improvement. I see a lot more taxation. I see a lot of much poorer levels of living and I see the bare faced cheek of exploitation of 3rd world immigrants.
I would ban the whole lot and employ people who would be given the task of sorting out this country for the good of the people, not for the businesses or to line my own pocket as is blatantly happening now ------------- Robert Born |
Posted By: livvy
Date Posted: 19-November-2005 at 07:00
You are basing your comments on prejudice (never a good thing for any reasoned debate). The quote doesn't say that even one of those collisions was as a result of bad Police driving, but you take it upon yourself to add that slant on the figures. Undoubtedly at least some will be , whatever section they are in (pursuit, 999 or other). But your quote doesn't show where any blame lies & as such the increase could just as easily be as a result of a drop in public standards as opposed to Police. It also says a larger number of deaths occured from a fewer number of incidents. Does this not then suggest that as there are less incidents driving is better ? Just that vehicles with larger numbers of passengers were invloved, which has little to do with the circumstances & driving that led to the incident ? Where it can be shown that the Police are not doing enough to equip their drivers for role they are asked to do, I will not blindly support them. Your self imposed slant on your quote just reveals more about you & your prejudices than what the true story is. It is just a cheap unbased shot because of grievances you hold. If however there was some evidence in the quote that you omitted (why ?) then perahps you could point us to that to see if it does show these are as a result of bad Police drving. On your other point, the Police have very few exemptions & where there is evidence of offences committed by them they can be & are prosecuted. Of course there has to be evidence not just speculation like you have above. Ask your judge friend about the amount of evidence required to convict beyond all reasonable doubt & how personal prejudice does not amount to that. In some regards though there is one law for them & one for us. They for instance have an exemption from speeding where it is for a Police purpose (as do Ambulance & Fire), we the public do not, so there is a case of do as I say not as I do for good reason & quite lawfully too. They however do not have exemptions for where it is not a Police purpose or for offences such as dangerous driving etc & if in any of the fatal collisions mentioned in your quote, if there was dangerous driving on their part then they would be prosecuted. That is of course, as I said earlier, if it was that & the not the bad driving of others that led to the collision. |
Posted By: livvy
Date Posted: 19-November-2005 at 07:03
The Police service want to pursue criminals in the most effective
& safe means to arrest them & that is what their training is
all about, doing just that while minimising the risk. Ultimately though
some people will not adhere to what they
are trained to do & will take risks they shouldn't in the belief
that it is for a noble cause & they are trying to do what they
believe is right. They are warned about this in their training
& the consequences if they get it wrong. They will be held
personally accounatble where they can be shown to have acted outside
their instructions on these issues. I welcome reasoned public debate on the matter & it looks like Commissioner Blair is asking for that too. |
Posted By: livvy
Date Posted: 19-November-2005 at 08:26
There is no excuse for officers being disrespectful & there are discipline proceedures to deal with that. As I said before where the Police break the law they themselves can expect to be & are punished.
There are bad apples in all walks of life that need to be weeded out, just like the judges who get exposed & prosecuted for their misdemeanours. Are you eluding to some specific examples with the Police where Police are seen to break the law & not get prosecuted or is it just a generalisation of your perception ?
Some will argue that the legal profession is self serving & prevents the will of government in order to protect it's position when it comes to rulings & judgements. ( I can just visualise the arguments between Cherie & Tony at home) It is however true that the magistrates & judges can only sentence within guidelines laid down for sentencing.
Seems that he isn't adverse to being prejudiced either or allowing those prejudices to influence his actions. Very reassuring that our legal system is in such good hands. (NOT)
I have got no problem with sorting out & routing out all our problems in society, which aren't just to be found in our CPS or Police so why stop there ? Why not let's get rid of judges who can't not follow their prejudices & behave in a discriminatory manner ? (No place for them either I'd suggest, get rid of them) |
Posted By: livvy
Date Posted: 19-November-2005 at 09:10
Then vote one in that will keep it's promises. If they lie & spin why vote them back in as so often happens ?
The Police will be given priorities & targets that they will have to meet by government. They will be expected to deliver on those targets.
Some will argue that being taught in the imprinting & modelling stages of your development as a child, being fearful of the Police is not a message you should be fed, it is counter productive & leads to barriers. Mummy always saying "If you don't behave the Policeman is going to take you away" can have a profound effect in building distrust into the child's psyche from an early age. Something that can then be harder to address in later life.
I hope that the punishment fits the crime also for those caught, charged & convicted of the heinous crime. |
Posted By: Rhys
Date Posted: 19-November-2005 at 09:17
|
On this topic, why is it that the police wanted to bring in the death sentence for anyone killing a police officer (was a couple of years ago IIRC) why is it they only wanted it reserved for them and not anybody else? What makes them so different - why not bring it back for all murderers? ------------- V reg Rustbucket Merc C220 Cdi estate J Reg Saab 900i 16v '63 Ford Anglia 105e deluxe R reg Honda PC50 moped.. No BMW as yet... |
Posted By: livvy
Date Posted: 19-November-2005 at 09:23
I've no knoweldge of the Police asking for this, I know other groups/individuals have stated this, but not the Police themselves to my knowledge. Have you got a link (document or other evidence) so we can confirm that is the case, before we take it as gospel ? |
Posted By: Rhys
Date Posted: 19-November-2005 at 09:41
|
Livvy, all I rememeber is that it was on the radio news a few years ago - and that I remember discussing it at work with others that had heard it.
just had a google.. http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=1073&id=1384912004 - link. I'm sure more searching would bring up other stories. ------------- V reg Rustbucket Merc C220 Cdi estate J Reg Saab 900i 16v '63 Ford Anglia 105e deluxe R reg Honda PC50 moped.. No BMW as yet... |
Posted By: livvy
Date Posted: 19-November-2005 at 09:47
Mr Winner is one of the groups/individuals I was talking about. Of course he is not a spokesman for police policies or wishes. He is merely a private individual who has set up a charitable trust appointing himself as it's chairman. It only provides memorials through charitable funds for Police officer's who have died on duty. His view can't be taken to be the Police's view. |
Posted By: Nigel
Date Posted: 19-November-2005 at 09:52
|
A view I subscribe to is the death penalty should be in place for anyone that kills a member of our security forces, this would include, but not be exclusive to the police. I think this is because we have no chance of getting it back generally, sort of like getting it back through the back door....then we can extend it to include child killers etc. Not that I'm overly hopeful of it ever being reinstated. ------------- Best Wishes Nigel |
Posted By: livvy
Date Posted: 19-November-2005 at 09:54
The chances of re-instating the death penalty I would imagine now lay in Brussels & I doubt they will be giving it back. |
Posted By: Rhys
Date Posted: 19-November-2005 at 10:02
I agree (unfortunatly) too many do-gooders and human rights. The human rights of the victims don't seam to be mentioned. As for the death penalty in relation to the police, if I'm not mistaken tv interviews shown at the time had officers all for it. Don't take this as fact as I may be wrong.  ------------- V reg Rustbucket Merc C220 Cdi estate J Reg Saab 900i 16v '63 Ford Anglia 105e deluxe R reg Honda PC50 moped.. No BMW as yet... |
Posted By: Robmw
Date Posted: 19-November-2005 at 12:50
|
For one I did not vote them back in.
The government of the day are not capable of joined up thought, just look at the drinking laws. When the government set Targets it is normally as a result of a knee jerk reaction. The book that accompanies the Channel 4 series Bremner, Bird and Fortune gives a fantastic insight into the changing of minds in the Cabinet Office. As I said before the government of the day were first elected with an incredible majority, an opposition in total disarray. If the opportunity had been used correctly, this country would have been sorted out. You only need to look at the achievements of the Labour Government, which defeated Churchill to see a government that worked for the country. I believe a Police Force should be feared, the same as the CPS and the Judicial system. This then becomes a deterrent. The jails are over crowded , new ones are not being built, the courts are no longer taking peoples previous convictions into account, therefore the sentences being given are less severe, the cps just do seem to be up to the task and the police are wrongly directed by both the government and the senior police officers. I want a police force that is able to enforce every law not just the easy few. Just one example Why do we still not have clear guidelines on protecting your home? The farmer shooting two burglars highlighted this. This happened years ago and still nothing but open rhetoric. Even now, the judges have taken it upon their selves to be lenient to those people who protect their homes.  ------------- Robert Born |
Posted By: AndyS
Date Posted: 19-November-2005 at 13:09
40 years? Another senile old codger well past retirement age who still thinks he knows whats going on in the world. Time to put out to pasture so he can spend more time crumbling away in his club. ------------- AndyS Live each day as if it's your last - one day it will be. http://www.photostick.co.uk/view-933_BaurSig1.jpg" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Posted By: livvy
Date Posted: 19-November-2005 at 13:11
The laws on self defence & protection of property are very clear & despite what the government said recently, when they publicised about use of force in protecting your home, they had changed nothing & merely highlighted legislation that has been in force since 1967 & in some cases much earlier than that. Your best defence is to know what those laws say so that you know exactly what you can & can't do. The case of Tony Martin was not one of self defence. He shot a 16 year old boy in the back fatally injuring him. A boy fleeing from not approaching Tony Martin & therefore no immeadiate threat to warrant such action. The circumstances were taken fully into account & he was convicted of manslaughter not murder, being released after serving 2/3rds of a 5 year sentence. You can use such force as is reasonable & necessary in the circumstances (& only such force as is reasonable & necessary) to protect yourself & your property. Where you use force you have to have a honestly held belief that you are in immeadiate danger & only such force as necessary to remove that threat. Tony Martin overstepped that line & therefore was rightly prosecuted. I do have some sympathy for him, but I don't support what he did in the circumstances. |
Posted By: B 7 VP
Date Posted: 19-November-2005 at 13:46
|
[QUOTE=livvy] Utter Rubbish---if the law is so clear why are So Many people UNCLEAR of their rights to defend their OWN property. You Again omitted to state a most Important FACT---Tony had been Burglarised 40 -- FORTY times--without ANY arrests OR positive action by the local Force--yet the so called Justice was Non existant when without lights inside the property, he fired a shotgun---ME too.The Courts PERVERTED the Course of So called Justice--and Continue to do this on a daily basis. RobMW Excellent post= Facts that the so called experts do not understand . ------------- SAFETYFAST |
Posted By: livvy
Date Posted: 19-November-2005 at 13:53
|
If you take the time to read them then the laws on the use of force are
quite clear, the trouble is people don't by & large look at what
the law says. Are you clear on the law regards pecuniary advantage as well ? You will only be clear on the laws that you look at & understand. The laws on use of force are not complex. The fcat people don't look at them doesn't mean that they aren't clear. I said I feel sympathy for him over the burglaries he suffered etc & more should have been done to help him with that. My understanding is that help was offered to him with prevention measures etc but he refused it. I however stand by my assertion that what he did was not acceptable behaviour & went outside the boundaries of our laws. You can't shoot an unarmed fleeing person in the back & expect to be supported. Even if he had been burgled 100 times it doesn't excuse that. What he did had more to do with revenge than self defence. The leniency of the sentence reflected somewhat what he had been through upto that point, but he was still convicted of manslaughter & sent to prison, that is a clear enough sign that he shouldn't have done what he did. |
Posted By: Peter Fenwick
Date Posted: 19-November-2005 at 13:53
It isn't utter rubbish. The only reason why people are unclear is because the tories and the right wing media have been using the issue as a political football. I have always been clear on this, simply because I don't believe everything I read in the Daily Mail and everything the shadow cabinet say. Tony martin shot a man in the back who was running away. Also you seem to forget that he was found guilty by a jury made up of the general public. So are you saying that you know better than them despite the fact they saw all the evidence and you almost certainly haven't? I have to say that on this thread most of what Livvy is saying makes a lot more sense than some of the other views.
------------- Entering an age of Austerity and now driving a Focus Diesel. |
Posted By: Robmw
Date Posted: 19-November-2005 at 15:09
|
I totally agree Tony Martin over did it but it is not up to home owners to read the laws. It is the way they are enforced.
Blair may spout that their are laws in place but I know from Personal experience that there are not and those that do cover are NOT sufficient and are wrongly interpreted You only have to look at the Labour Party Conference 1 shout of ridiculous an OAP is ejected from the debating hall, when he attempts to go back in he is arrested as a Terrorist !!!!! Just this morning a story broke about a London Police Station where an imposter gained access to a pre shift briefing, when it was discovered that he was a fake he was arrested as a terrorist !!!not for Impersonating a Policeman. His initial arrest was as a Terrorist which then was later changed to this Impersonation of a Police Officer. ------------- Robert Born |
Posted By: livvy
Date Posted: 19-November-2005 at 15:10
Exactly. Armchair lawyers fed by a politicised press trying to score points & sell papers. Never let the law, the evidence & the considered opinions of people who had a chance to listen to all the the evidence, get in the way of that eh. |
Posted By: livvy
Date Posted: 19-November-2005 at 15:22
I'm not sure what you are saying, Tony Martin over did it, but it was the way in which the law was enforced ??? What were they supposed to do in the circumstances ? It is an irrebuttable presumption of law that ignorance of the law is no excuse. Now there are many many laws in our country, but ignorance of them is not a defence. Any that could affect your life you need to know about. There will be no night schools supplied for you to do this for free. It is up to you to protect your interests on this. Knowledge is power. If you want me to clear up the laws on the use of force for you, then fire away with your questions. I would hope though that any right minded individual would know that shooting an unarmed 16 year old boy in the back while he is running away, when you had no reason to suspect he was armed, is not reasonable & necessary for your immeadiate safety.
I disagree. I think the laws are perfectly adequate & that is why after the public furore the government didn't propose any changes, instead deciding to just publicise & reaffirm what they were & that they were adequate. In sentencing on conviction where an offence has been committed, the court have the power to vary sentence greatly dependent on the mitigation of each individual case. The fact that they give a light sentence does not mean that an offence has not been committed, but just in light of the full circumstances that sentence is the most appropraite. What do you think is inadequate about our current self defence laws & leaves you vulnerable ?
A real own goal by the government. They were perfectly entitled in law to eject him as a trespasser & then bar his re-entry. But it was handled so appalingly & was such a huge gaff for a government that is alleged by so many to ride rough over other people's opinion & be so out of touch. Way to go Tony 
What you are arrested for is irrelevant provided there is sufficient grounds to arrest. That is all that matters nothing else. What you are charged with is the pertinent issue. |
Posted By: B 7 VP
Date Posted: 19-November-2005 at 17:12
|
[QUOTE=livvy] "After All the lack of protection and promises which were Never kept --who is surprised"?? """ You can't shoot an unarmed fleeing person in the back & expect to be supported.""" "Treading on Very thin ice here dont You think,??? Brazilian in Tube station Killed by multi bullets fired by Police without clear justification and a series of errors come to mind---but excused by regulations , so this is oK---but Burglers in your house are accepted-- the owner is the guilty person--dont think so!!! Yet the very people who demand respect for the Law, ARE the one,s who devalue it.Pathetic perversion of justice.
------------- SAFETYFAST |
Posted By: livvy
Date Posted: 19-November-2005 at 17:26
I don't think so. You are not comparing like with like & it's not something you can just play flippant with here & mean anything. The tragic death of Jean Charles de Menezes was horrific. But were the officers correct to do what they did ? There is a full public enquiry & inquest that will decide if the actions of the officers who shot him were lawful or not. The circumstances are entirely different to Tony Martin's case. Each case will be judged on it's merits. As far as the actions of the officers who shot him are concerned the matter will revolve around, "were they entitled to believe there was an immeadiate threat to their lives & others given the information they had received ?" (whether that information was flawed or not doesn't matter for that belief, as they weren't to know that at that time, when they had to make a split second decision & were entitled to believe it's accuracy) & "was the action they took necessary to remove that perceived immeadiate threat & proportional to that threat ?" That is what will be looked at for the officers who shot him. The questions over the quality of the information they received & how it was handled are a totally different issue as to whether they were right to do what they did believing what they did at that time & acting on that information in good faith. These matters will be discussed on points & matters of law, not what you think (thankfully) which is just the way it should be. "Was it lawful ?" is the first question, if not it was then criminal. "Were mistakes made ?" is the second question & we can answer that one already can't we as an innocent man lost his life & that is truely tragic & something that pains me. |
Posted By: Nigel
Date Posted: 19-November-2005 at 17:30
|
John How can you compare the two cases ? We have an illegal immigrant who runs from armed police when challeneged, and runs onto a tube train, just after some terrorist attacks, if I'd have been the officer, I'd have fired too, probably before he did. I believe from what I have read that Tony Martin could have had several defences, but he shot them to pieces by insisting he was going to shoot the chap regardless. What happened to Tony Martin beforehand was not good, but he got himself jailed, he had a lot of sympathy in the right places. You critise the authorities for knee jerk reactions....got a mirror ? [Tin hat] = ON ------------- Best Wishes Nigel |
Posted By: B 7 VP
Date Posted: 19-November-2005 at 17:38
|
[QUOTE=Peter Fenwick
It isn't utter rubbish. The only reason why people are unclear is because the tories and the right wing media have been using the issue as a political football. I have always been clear on this, simply because I don't believe everything I read in the Daily Mail and everything the shadow cabinet say. " But YOU accept everything the Daily Mirror and The Sun sickup each day " and accept Phony Bliars Gospel of St Bush". >Tony martin shot a man in the back who was running away. Also you seem to forget that he was found guilty by a jury made up of the general public<. " yes--its worrying isnt it--SO many Appeals after the Courts verdicts--So many Reviews--so many miscarrage,s of so called justice, it really does give one confidence in --you ARE innocent untill proven guilty--what a fine old tradition of the wigs and gowns of yesteryear- unlike Now, when you are Guilty untill you can prove your innocence----youre joking-of course" !!!!!!!!!!
------------- SAFETYFAST |
Posted By: livvy
Date Posted: 19-November-2005 at 17:41
As said already, of course you are the best placed authority to question the correctness of it all with the information & evidence you have seen for yourself aren't you.  No our justice system isn't perfect & I don't know one that is. That is why the death penalty is not viable in a civilised society IMHO. But given ours over some kangaroo court that I think you might hold (based on some of your posts), I'll take ours everytime thank you, with all it's imperfections. |
Posted By: stephenperry
Date Posted: 19-November-2005 at 18:05
has that been proved yet? let's wait for the result of the inquest, shall we? ------------- 2007 Ford Mondeo 2.0 TDCI Titanium X Auto 1983 Ford Sierra XR4i 2000 Alpina B10 3.3 #118 1999 BMW 323Ci 1995 BMW 318i SE 1994 Vauxhall Omega 2.0 GLS 1995 Ford Mondeo 1.8 LX 1990 Honda Concerto 1.6 EX 1986 Ford Orion 1.6 GL 1989 Ford Fiesta 1.1 Firefly |
Posted By: spokey
Date Posted: 19-November-2005 at 18:13
|
It's funny how when people out of Westminster feel like their way of
life is threatened, they get told that the law is sufficient. However,
when the people in
Westminster feel like their way of life is threatened, they can
introduce all sorts of draconian b*ll*cks, often without understanding
the capabilities of existing laws. Sneaky, too: introduce an outrageously draconian violation of our civil liberties, so that when it gets cut from 90 to 28 days, everyone feels like their rights have been defended, yet the police still have the right to arrest Labour Party members who dare to heckle a speaker and hold them in jail for 28 days without charge. Or http://gizmonaut.net/bits/suspect.html - arrest people who happen to look a bit foreign because they are carrying a rucksack, fingerprint them, record their DNA and screw up their lives forever with a criminal record, utterly without reason. Let's hear it for a great, modern, liberal democracy!  ------------- Ciao, Spokey 
|
Posted By: Rhys
Date Posted: 19-November-2005 at 18:37
This illegal immigrant happend to be Brazilian did he not? A country where gun crime is prolific. What about his understanding of English, could he understand what was said to him? A load of blokes with guns are running towards you, shouting.. what would you do? I'd peg it as well - I wouldn't want to hang around to see what they wanted, just like he'd probably do in Brazil. ------------- V reg Rustbucket Merc C220 Cdi estate J Reg Saab 900i 16v '63 Ford Anglia 105e deluxe R reg Honda PC50 moped.. No BMW as yet... |
Posted By: Nigel
Date Posted: 19-November-2005 at 20:14
|
HIs visa to stay in this country had expired, so he is an illegal immigrant ! If he doesn't understand the words " armed police stop", then tough , harsh but true. Lets not get too easy on this, he was in England, the language is English, and according to his family, he was fluent anyway. Spend some time in Countries where the police carry guns as a way of life, carry weapons yourself, things start to look different. ------------- Best Wishes Nigel |
Posted By: Peter Fenwick
Date Posted: 20-November-2005 at 03:59
No I don't. Unfortunately in this day and age everything we see and here has to be considered carefully. There is so much political spin put on everything that it is hard to know what is true and what is lies. BTW I don't read any newspapers because most of them a re full of propaganda for one party or another. Sorry, I do read one paper, the Darlington & Stockton times, because my Wife writes for them I find the TV news a bit more reliable, although I accept it is also not without it's political agenda. To balance it out I watch Sky news and the BBC news
I don't worry about it. There are some miscarridges of justice sure but how many cases a put through the courts without any problems? You only here about the ones where it has gone wrong because they're the ones that get reported on. I've only ever had one direct experience of the court system and it work for me. ------------- Entering an age of Austerity and now driving a Focus Diesel. |
Posted By: Peter Fenwick
Date Posted: 20-November-2005 at 04:05
|
I think maybe you and B7VP should go and live in a country where they genuinely don't have any freedom. Then maybe you might be less quick to make jibes about this country. Oh and Spokey, i thought you were right wing, not liberal! ------------- Entering an age of Austerity and now driving a Focus Diesel. |
Posted By: livvy
Date Posted: 20-November-2005 at 04:39
Yes, any casual impartial observer of our system could see that B 7 VP is talking complete tosh. The burden of proof is clearly on the prosecution & if there are a lot of miscarriages of justice, they are that a lot of guilty people get off. Still that is part of the safeguards of the system, to try & ensure that an innocent is not wrongly convicted. It does of course still happen, but rarely. For everyone of those wrongly convicted, probably thousands of guilty walk free, in attempt to limit those other miscarriages. But if we put the blinkers on & stare at one thing, we of course lose sight of the bigger picture. |
Posted By: scarface
Date Posted: 20-November-2005 at 13:42
|
Jean Charles de Menezes was an illegal, granted. I have no time
for illegals. But he could have easily not been. Let us
not forget it was said that he was followed because he lived in a flat
near where one of the bombers was thought to have lived, and he looked
a bit foreign. It also emerged that he was actually not wearing
heavy clothing and didn't have a bag, so where was the bomb
conceiled? It was also found that he used a ticket to get through
the barrier, instead of the initial report that he ran, vaulting the
barrier. I take the terrorist threat very seriously being someone
that spends a lot of time on the tube, but we have to be careful.
Let's just hope that the public enquiry can come to a definite conclusion given the evidence that they have been given, it's a shame so much evidence goes missing immediately after a mistake. - Not a Daily Mail reader btw |
Posted By: livvy
Date Posted: 20-November-2005 at 14:05
|
What are you alleging ? Evidence going missing, what evidence has gone missing ? Him being an illegal immigrant has little to do with this to my mind. The terrorists in the July bombings weren't after all & he wasn't approached because of his immigration status. |
Posted By: Nigel
Date Posted: 20-November-2005 at 15:57
|
I think Livvy, it may have a bearing, he ran, lets be honest, if he'd stood still and put his hands up he'd still be with us. Suicide bombers are a new threat for us, mistakes are likely no matter how regrettable, but if someone points a gun at you and shouts armed police, you must stand still. I've been removed from a car in Guatamala, at gunpoint, by police so they could search for drugs. It isn't nice, I don't speak the lingo, but I'm still alive, I may not be if I'd run ! I've been locked up by yanks on the usa/mexican border because the dopey gits can't read, but you don't resist ( and I even had the lingo in that case). ------------- Best Wishes Nigel |
Posted By: livvy
Date Posted: 20-November-2005 at 16:28
We don't know yet Nigel that he did run. We only have our press saying that he did & then saying that he didn't & then saying that he did. We will have to wait for the enquiry & IPCC investigation to publish it's findings. With a press desperate to have a story on the matter & the Police neither confirming or denying those stories, that seems like the only sensible course of action. |
Posted By: scarface
Date Posted: 20-November-2005 at 18:28
|
There were delays on getting evidence, and the police were being
obstructive. For one the CCTV tapes cannot be found/were blank
from the cameras covering the incident. I agree that the fact he was an illegal doesn't have anything to do with the shooting, unless he did run. Even then you shouldn't be shot for running from the police, it could have been you or I. All I am saying is that to be prepared to use lethal force on someone that you have no intelligence on is crazy. We will wait for the findings of the enquiry. |
Posted By: livvy
Date Posted: 21-November-2005 at 02:00
Who said that ? The IPCC ? |
Posted By: scarface
Date Posted: 21-November-2005 at 06:05
TBH I can't remember who was alleging it at the time, it was on the news. So it must be true! 
|
Posted By: Peter Fenwick
Date Posted: 21-November-2005 at 06:58
|
Good, there are enough of them out there already.... ------------- Entering an age of Austerity and now driving a Focus Diesel. |
Posted By: livvy
Date Posted: 21-November-2005 at 11:03
Must be then. Just like the news said he ran, no he didn't, he ran, no he didn't. ------------- My views expressed are just that. Mine & mine alone. |
Posted By: sleeper
Date Posted: 21-November-2005 at 14:27
I have been over here, by 3 ARV's and a helicopter, new pants? yes please!
Anyone crossed a border into china? You can't even LOOK at the guards (who have loaded AK47's, WITH THE SAFETY OFF)! That's scary, but no matter what language, if they shout, you freeze! ------------- 
|
Posted By: Robmw
Date Posted: 21-November-2005 at 14:30
|
I also felt like Rhys that Brazil had terrible gun crime but from the Head of the Met Commissioner Blair speech he stated some figures which I think are appalling per 100,000 head of population - in Europe there are 400 crimes per year,
in Brazil there are 900 crimes per year, in USA there are 4,000 crimes per year, & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; and in UK THERE ARE 11,000 CRIMES PER YEAR Now I will appreciate that a lot of people will say that this is down to poor reporting in other countries and excellent reporting in this country, personnally I feel this country is becoming lawless and soon protection will come from vigilantism ------------- Robert Born |
Posted By: livvy
Date Posted: 21-November-2005 at 14:38
|
Average number of homicides per 100,000 population 2000-2002 England & Wales 1.76 Belgium 7.06 France 1.82 Germany 1.11 EU average 2.48 USA 5.59 Estonia 10.29 Lithuania 10.39 Russia 22.25 South Africa 48.84 ------------- My views expressed are just that. Mine & mine alone. |
Posted By: thepits
Date Posted: 21-November-2005 at 15:11
|
Star Trekking, across the universe.................. "Uhura: There's Klingons on the starboard bow, Starship Captain, James T. Kirk Kirk: Ha-ha! We come in peace, shoot to kill, McCoy: It's worse than that, he's dead, Jim.
------------- Cats know your every thought. But don't care. |
Posted By: spokey
Date Posted: 21-November-2005 at 15:39
Does that include irresponsible speeding drivers? ------------- Ciao, Spokey
|
Posted By: livvy
Date Posted: 21-November-2005 at 15:48
Only where it falls within the definition of homicide I'd imagine. ------------- My views expressed are just that. Mine & mine alone. |
Posted By: thepits
Date Posted: 21-November-2005 at 15:50
|
Oho spokey, you're going to stir up
here mate! ------------- Cats know your every thought. But don't care. |
Posted By: spokey
Date Posted: 21-November-2005 at 15:54
Really? I thought all people who exceeded the speed limit were homicidal maniacs. ------------- Ciao, Spokey
|
Posted By: livvy
Date Posted: 21-November-2005 at 15:55
What gave you that idea ? ------------- My views expressed are just that. Mine & mine alone. |
Posted By: spokey
Date Posted: 21-November-2005 at 15:56
|
All the advertising I see on TV. Richard Brunstrom. Discussions on forums with police officers.
------------- Ciao, Spokey
|
Posted By: livvy
Date Posted: 21-November-2005 at 15:57
|
Nah
------------- My views expressed are just that. Mine & mine alone. |
Posted By: thepits
Date Posted: 21-November-2005 at 16:12
|
Spokey! Shall I get you a new
yours must be quite worn out by now!
------------- Cats know your every thought. But don't care. |
Posted By: Peter Fenwick
Date Posted: 22-November-2005 at 06:46
|
There is a perception that this country is becomming more lawless. This is caused by the far reach of the media, One perosn is shot and you here about it so much you believe it is common place, and the fact that people want you to believe that with law and order labout have failed, i.e political agenda. The Daily mail is famous for this kind of political Bulls**t. I'm not saying that some areas such as youth culture and binge drinking don't need more attention, but the notion that this country has a worse crime problem than the likes of the US and Brazil is to be quite honest bloody stupid. ------------- Entering an age of Austerity and now driving a Focus Diesel. |
Posted By: Peter Fenwick
Date Posted: 22-November-2005 at 06:52
|
You know that isn't true Spokey. Stop being silly. While I disagree pathalogically with the current stance on speeding It has nothing whatsoever to do with murder ------------- Entering an age of Austerity and now driving a Focus Diesel. |
Posted By: Fushion Julz
Date Posted: 22-November-2005 at 09:23
|
In response to Livvy's "what do the public want" question: Well, what I want (as a member of the public) is: 1. The police to enforce the law, not create the law 2. The police to respond to a report of a crime within a reasonable length of time 3. The police to treat suspects with respect..especially of their human rights..and courtesy 4. For The police to understand that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, not vice versa. 5. The police to actually offer a service that entails catching criminals (real criminals..people who steal, injure or kill others, not those who provide a source of cheap income through punative fines). 6. The police to behave above board, transparently and honestly ------------- 1987 E30 M3 1996 E36 328i SE 4dr (Manual) 1992 E34 525iX Touring...SOLD |
Posted By: Fushion Julz
Date Posted: 22-November-2005 at 09:48
So that's fine then? I hope you remember when you go to (say) Czech Republic that when a
person in plain clothes charges after you yelling in Czech and
brandishing a gun, you stand still and wait for him to get to you! Seems that the fact he was innocent AND was shot, nonetheless, is the best reason ever NOT to arm all police in the UK ------------- 1987 E30 M3 1996 E36 328i SE 4dr (Manual) 1992 E34 525iX Touring...SOLD |
Posted By: livvy
Date Posted: 22-November-2005 at 11:47
|
1. What laws have the Police created ? 2. I agree, but a degree of realism is required here given the limited number of resources & the number of calls Police receive. They will have to be prioritised. 3. I agree, both victims & alleged offenders deserve to be treated with respect & dignity. 4. Police don't decide innocence or guilt though so they can't do that anyway. Courts decide it. 5. The vast majority of Police resources are of course targeted towards that. Very few are used for punative fines issue (as you put it) & of course Police get no money from the issue of them anyway. 6. I agree. ------------- My views expressed are just that. Mine & mine alone. |
Posted By: Fushion Julz
Date Posted: 22-November-2005 at 12:01
|
1. The one that says "we can seize your property, without valid reason,
refuse to tell you why it is being held, when or if you will get it
back and if you want to complain...tough! 2. So it is OK for someone to vandalise my van...I ring up and report it, even saying the paint is wet and I can be reasonably sure who commited the crime...they say they are too busy to attend and I have to go to the station to report it and receive a reference number....So I park my van in the road, blocking it to all traffic (at 2.30am) and within 10mins a patrol car with 2 officers are round threatening to arrest me unless it is moved (and I was tempted to take them up on their offer). 3. good...now we have to get the police to understand that 4.Then why do they automatically assume that you (or me) are guilty FIRST even in the face of all evidence and then, when it is proved beyond ALL doubt they were wrong, they refuse to even apologise for massive inconvenience and costs? 5. <Cough> Hmmm...not sure I agree....There seems to be no end of police available to ensure a few drunks don't fall over and hurt themselves on Friday nights, but never enough police to prevent, or even catch, the burglars around at the same time of night. 6. Good...shame they don't though PS: I have (personal) examples of all of these...and I'm a pretty law-abiding person on the whole! ------------- 1987 E30 M3 1996 E36 328i SE 4dr (Manual) 1992 E34 525iX Touring...SOLD |
Posted By: livvy
Date Posted: 22-November-2005 at 15:41
|
1. The Police only have power to seize under our countries laws (none
made up by the Police, but by governemnt or common law). If they have
acted outside this then you have recourse through the courts yourself. 2. It's not OK for someone to damage your van. Unfortunately a hunch is not great evidence against someone. Without a suspect being present at the time of your call for criminal damage to a motorvehicle, I can't see a unit being immeadiately deployed under the 999 system. In such circumstances it may actually get seen sooner going to the Police station rather than waiting for them to attend. If you do park illegally blocking access immeadiately outside a Police station that is a good way of getting Police attention I'd imagine, but perhaps not the type you want. 3. They do, as of course there are discipline regulations to deal with such things. ------------- My views expressed are just that. Mine & mine alone. |
Posted By: livvy
Date Posted: 22-November-2005 at 15:46
|
4. Their job is to investigate & if sufficient evidence to prefer a
charge to do just that. The courts job is to decide if there is
sufficient evidence to convict. Our system isn't actually about
determining innocence or guilt, it's about can the state prove beyond
all reasonable doubt that you committed the offence, which isn't
actually the same thing. Innocence is never on trial. 5. Most burglaries happen during the daytime, not Friday nights. The highest numbers of Police on duty will also be during the day. The sort of Policing you are talking about sounds like Public order, not issuing punitive fines but preventing & detecting violence (assaults) & vandalism (susch as damage to vehicles). Infact the sort of things you said the Police should be doing & which you were yourself a victim of. 6. I believe that there is probably less corruption & greater transparency now than at any other time. ------------- My views expressed are just that. Mine & mine alone. |
Posted By: spokey
Date Posted: 22-November-2005 at 16:50
It's amazing. If it wasn't such a clear night with a full moon, I'd never have seen that pig flying by my window in the dark. ------------- Ciao, Spokey
|
Posted By: Nigel
Date Posted: 22-November-2005 at 16:53
|
Spokey I really have to back Livvy up on this one, I wouldn't want to serve now. ------------- Best Wishes Nigel |
Posted By: thepits
Date Posted: 22-November-2005 at 17:33
|
------------- Cats know your every thought. But don't care. |
Posted By: Fushion Julz
Date Posted: 22-November-2005 at 18:55
well they did...and still have about £5K worth of my kit...the charges (such as they were), against 3rd parties, have been thrown out by the magistrates and the police still won't return the equipment! Courts are all well and good IF you have the available cash to pay for the solicitors AND you think it is OK for the police to waste public funds in this manner, too.
didn't call 999, but the local number (actually a call centre, ffs)...I blocked a residential one-way road, outside my house in the middle of the night 2 miles from the nearest police station
great...now how do we actually get the police, the ipcc and the govt to actually instigate the procedure and regulations? Ahh...court, of course...those $$$$s again.... ------------- 1987 E30 M3 1996 E36 328i SE 4dr (Manual) 1992 E34 525iX Touring...SOLD |
Posted By: Fushion Julz
Date Posted: 22-November-2005 at 19:08
I was referring to the manner in which the police deal with people in everyday life and situations. IME, police generally choose to take the "you're guilty, therefore you forfeit all your rights" rather than the "you might be innocent and have a valid point" line The legal system is, generally, the failsafe that ensures the police can't just lock you up and throw away the key...Although, given the Mets' preference for 90day detention, that is still up for change!
well I was referring, in this case, to not just me, but a spate of burglaries a while back in the area I live in. Yes, I was burgled...as was a friend of mine (on the same night) and several neighbours on successive nights (all in two streets)...The local area officer (a young, seemingly overworked and sole policeman) explained that, although he know beyond doubt who the protagonists were, the resources were not available to either catch them, deter them or to recover the goods..despite knowing the empty house they were using as a staging post. The reason he gave (and the "scenes of crimes" officer confirmed) was that the town centre policing...all those big corporate companies needing their windows protecting...took precedence over the house-thieves... Of course there is no "agenda" (right)..only I believe that the boss of a large computer company has a bit more "clout" with the chief inspector than I or my friend has.... Nowadays, though, I'm sure the police hardly need "prompting" to attend a pub where the drunks on the pavement can be "fined" (taxed) a nifty £80 on the spot!
On which planet? ------------- 1987 E30 M3 1996 E36 328i SE 4dr (Manual) 1992 E34 525iX Touring...SOLD |