Dont you just love our police.

[karlos2000]

I'm not quite as Liberal

I say bring back the 40's & 50's attitude to policing when you could just arrest someone for being a scuffer ..... "smack him Jenkins" and oohh he "fell over in the cells" and all that ..... I watch those reality programmes on TV and I actually shout at the TV when the police are arresting someone with phrases such as "smack the twat with your truncheon and mace him, then you & your mates jump on his head.......", but they never do sadly ......... not enough respect for the Police anymore ........ it's all wrong ........ it starts at schools, no wonder we have 13 year olds TWOC-ing, we should have the vermin shot, simple .........

<looks at watch> hhhmmm, must go and vote .............

 

[rovinghawk]

I say bring back ..... "smack him Jenkins" and............ he "fell over in the cells".................... "smack the twat with your truncheon and mace him, then you & your mates jump on his head.......",

Do you think that

not enough respect for the Police anymore ........

might not entirely be helped by your suggestions?

Crozzer's views seemed balanced and the product of thought- would you like to join in?

RH

 

[karlos2000]

not a serious argument

Do you think that
might not entirely be helped by your suggestions? Crozzer's views seemed balanced and the product of thought- would you like to join in?RH

I suppose we all have to decide how much one person actually means it when one types a response; on t'internet we don't have the benefit of hearing & seeing the comments 'face to face' .... naturally I'm kidding, to a point ............
My "general" view is that back in the days when you could give someone a slap, there was more respect, now every Johhny Come Dickwad "knows his rights", and now it's turned to shit. Plus, as I said, I didn't read all of the comments, I was just generalising and musing that it would be great if we could get back to some good old fashioned Police brutality .... a La Gene Hunt etc .......... just my 2 cents, we all know it makes sense .........

 

[BlackIce]

The police need the "Clip round the ear" approach puttin back in the job really
:bow:

 

[morphgarth]

Barrie, so then you're a builder eh?? See my next post!!b0x1

 

[Barrie]

Barrie, so then you're a builder eh?? See my next post!!b0x1

No, I'm an electrician but the building trade has all sorts of bad people working in it, brick layers, carpenters, plumbers, we are all shite. I'm sure you have seen rogue traders, we are all in there somewhere and the good bit is that they chase us on Blackbirds.

 

[R2B2]

Is it not cases like this nightmare where a law abiding citizen was hounded for two years by the bailiffs and suchlike, because of a stupid action started for no apparent justifiable reason by an over enthusiastic police woman, that fuels the perpetual public relations problem that the police seem unable to recognise??

And why is that when such stupid actions are started the police are hell bent on pursuing it even when it's plain for all to see that it is a mistake to proceed and is ultimately going nowhere?

I wonder how much money was wasted on this one :dunno:

Public relations problem? What public relations problem

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=563502&in_page_id=1770

 

[Gforceuk]

wow.. an anti police story in an anti police newspaper.... thats a new one on me

 

[Duck n Dive]

wow.. an anti police story in an anti police newspaper.... thats a new one on me

Errrr ...... so what are you saying ... the story isn't true.... it didn't happen?? :dunno:



























d34l

 

[Gforceuk]

Errrr ...... so what are you saying ... the story isn't true.... it didn't happen?? :dunno:



























d34l

Just that it was reported with a particular slant to it as they do plenty of other police related stories.

I'm baffled as to why people read the tripe that they print in newspapers to be honest.

 

[Duck n Dive]

Just that it was reported with a particular slant to it as they do plenty of other police related stories.

I'm baffled as to why people read the tripe that they print in newspapers to be honest.

All news stories are reported with a "slant" ... including the TV these days :cry:





However..... it is possible to take the facts out......

1. fixed penalty notice issued for excessive noise.
2. refused to pay.
3. baliffs tried to collect.
4. ended up at court.
5. judge chucked it out.


The only subjective bit is should the fixed penalty notice ever have been issued and was it an appropriate use......... it would appear the judge has decided that one.


Without having heard the volume at the time and apparently no other evidence or corroborating witnesses who can say if it was excessive.








(And now for a confession ............ I haven't checked the link and have "assumed" I guessed the right story did I get it right or am I an ass ......... )








p0pc0rn41

 

[R2B2]

You got it right Gerry.

Gforce - it was the same story whichever paper it was in. It was the same story on the news as well. The mail version was the first in the list presented by Google when I did a search for the story.

 

[morphgarth]

There are some glaring irregularities in the story, like the driver saying that refusing to pay the fine is the only way to have it heard in court to raise his point. That is nonsense, you simply elect court within 28 days and hey presto you go to court.


What I'm surprised at is the fact that this adds nothing to the debate, we've done all the reasons for this to death now. 140, 000 cops nationwide work 20 days a month (allows rest days etc) 12 months a year and probably have some sort of interaction with around 5 people a day - 168,000,000 interractions. This doesn't include PCSOs and Police support staff. Who would have thought that enough mistakes would happen to keep the local papers busy.

I know someone will come along to blow a whole in my arithmetic or assumptions, it's not scientific, purely illustrative. So R2B2, you're a driver eh???? Let's have another fun thread on drivers this time!!!c7u8

 

[Barrie]

There are some glaring irregularities in the story, like the driver saying that refusing to pay the fine is the only way to have it heard in court to raise his point. That is nonsense, you simply elect court within 28 days and hey presto you go to court.


What I'm surprised at is the fact that this adds nothing to the debate, we've done all the reasons for this to death now. 140, 000 cops nationwide work 20 days a month (allows rest days etc) 12 months a year and probably have some sort of interaction with around 5 people a day - 168,000,000 interractions. This doesn't include PCSOs and Police support staff. Who would have thought that enough mistakes would happen to keep the local papers busy.

I know someone will come along to blow a whole in my arithmetic or assumptions, it's not scientific, purely illustrative. So R2B2, you're a driver eh???? Let's have another fun thread on drivers this time!!!c7u8

So, you are saying any problem with bad policing is such a small percentage that it doesn't matter. Well, They say that football trouble is only a small percentage and most football "supporters" are law abiding people. Well, percentages don't cut it for me, hundreds of football louts causing trouble is a BIG problem even if only a Small percentage. Likewise, in my opinion, bad coppers may be only a small percentage of all coppers but there are still too many of them.

 

[morphgarth]

So, you are saying any problem with bad policing is such a small percentage that it doesn't matter. Well, They say that football trouble is only a small percentage and most football "supporters" are law abiding people. Well, percentages don't cut it for me, hundreds of football louts causing trouble is a BIG problem even if only a Small percentage. Likewise, in my opinion, bad coppers may be only a small percentage of all coppers but there are still too many of them.

Barrie, no not saying that at all, you're putting words in my mouth. What I am saying is that mistakes are inevitable in a set of encounters that big, like the crap electrician that wired my conservatory to the standard of a five year old, like the van drivers that cut me up and no-one cares when you phone the "how's my driving line". Part of my role is to improve standards and I work hard at it to try to make sure that we don't make mistakes in the first place and when we do we say sorry, put it right, try to avoid it happening again and move on. The important thing is to keep them in perpsective. That' what I'm arguing for here.

I'm simply saying that this story says nothing to indicate bad policing. People are drawing all sorts of inferences from the judges actions and ignoring the fact that the ticket MAY have been legitimately issued and the driver MAY have been an awkward so and so who simply thought if he ignored it then it would go away. What the report says about the court system isn't true.

Fact is that cops sell papers. Where I work they spend all their time on the phone to us trying to get stories. My point was that the mistakes (if there was a msitake here which is by no means certain) are an incredibly small number of the total number of encounters. Posting a link to each and every one is therefore a bit pointless as it proves nothing.

The only way to erradicate mistakes is to over process and regulate the police more than they are already, with every decision being made subject to even more scrutiny and accountability and measurement than it is already. Many of us may argue that the process towards this is the underlying issue with much of what goes wrong at the moment.

Now where's my post about drivers?!?!?!?!

 

[R2B2]

I'm simply saying that this story says nothing to indicate bad policing.

So why did the judge throw it out and award costs against the police?

This chap was interviewed on the BBC and explained it all in scrupulous detail. The police had a golden opportunity to redress the balance but declined to take part.

I think someone needs to get their head out of the sand here :}

 

[morphgarth]

So why did the judge throw it out and award costs against the police?

This chap was interviewed on the BBC and explained it all in scrupulous detail. The police had a golden opportunity to redress the balance but declined to take part.

I think someone needs to get their head out of the sand here :}

Not at all mate. I pointed out that this story doesn't add up which I stand by. The supporting "evidence" above is from another source entirely. The fact that the judge dismissed the case could have been for a variety of reasons. The point I was making was not about this case, more the fact that mistakes do happen. I am fully aware of that and I my head is far from being in the sand. It's more an issue of perspective which is ill served by posting a link to every story about a cock up and none to the greater number of stories of really good police work. Still it sells papers. Equally we all like watching "House of Horrors" and "Rogue Trader" but who wants to watch a programme detailing the day to day life of a builder............no-one? Why not? Because bad news sells papers.

 

[R2B2]

The supporting "evidence" above is from another source entirely. The fact that the judge dismissed the case could have been for a variety of reasons.

Well, the reason was simple.... he didn't agree it was worthy of being in court!!
I can't remember exactly what he said now but, please, don't take my word for it..... look it up for yourself.

 

[Barrie]

No doubt the argument will run and run but all I was saying and nothing to do directly with the loud music case is that figures mean very little if they are expressed as percentages. As far as the loud music case goes, if it was a case of the police being over zealous then he deserved to get off. If, and here's me trying to be fair minded, the music was the LOUD head banging music that must affect the drivers concentration, he deserved to get done. None of us were there so we will never be sure will we?

 

[Duck n Dive]

Not at all mate. I pointed out that this story doesn't add up which I stand by.

Youre speculating and surmising without all the information aren't you - just what you object to others doing!!

The fact that the judge dismissed the case could have been for a variety of reasons.

Youre speculating and surmising without all the information aren't you - just what you object to others doing!!


:t


I lsted what I think are the basic facts earlier........

1. fixed penalty notice issued for excessive noise.
2. refused to pay.
3. baliffs tried to collect.
4. ended up at court.
5. judge chucked it out.



Anything more than that surely requires additional information than the press etc have provided???


d34l



When you start reading more into t or start speculating you falll right inot the journo's lap and prove why they publish all these stories.

The papers don't give a toss about the actual story then just decide firstl what "audience" they'll pitch it at and then construct the story accordingly.



As for

"here I work they spend all their time on the phone to us trying to get stories."


That's a very good point ..... why is it that the police either officially or unofficially seem to seem to feed the press??

In all my jobs there's always been a clause in the contract or something more specific which says I can't divulge information which I have a result of my employment.

I have had a number of occassions where it's been neccesary for me to stick to this and even spot that a journo was trying to misrepresent themselfto gain information... it's not difficult to tell 'em politely to pratt off ...

so how come it "appears that the police seem to "feed the troll" ???



Sorry to add it one here but it seems sort of appropriate to the subject and something I've always wondered about.


Do the police actually sign the official secrets act ???


I know in any organisation you'll get folks who blab anyway but is the police "culture" one of "turning a blind eye" or is there active discouragment and warnings not to provide information to the press............ :dunno: