Yep, the old bill are at it again.
Now obviously terrorism is a very serious matter, and the authorities should be doing as much as they can to combat it. So, what tactic do the police employ?
Targeting known places where people gather to listen to unbelievably hate-filled lunatics call for anyone who doesn't believe in the same fairy-story as them to be killed?
No.
They knock on people's doors, demanding to see passports, and other personal documents to prove ID and address.
Target people who call for the death and destruction of the country? Nope!
Demand that Mr Bobson proves he is Mr Bobson and lives at 32 Tatterly Street? Oh yeah!
Incidentally (although I'm sure the police don't really care about small details like this), how does Mr Bobson proving that he is Mr Bobson and does indeed live at 32 Tatterly Street imply that he's NOT a terrorist?
What is the penalty for not having ID within your own home (there are people who don't own a passport or driving licence you know. Hmmmm, maybe we best push through your ID card laws after all!), is it another Terrorism Act special like photographing a police officer, ie 10 years in jail?
Nice work boys, I feel safer already.
Tuesday, 30 June 2009
It's official: Driving at 113mph on a wet motorway is NOT dangerous!
Well that is good news, surely. Well actually, no, it isn't. Aside from the fact the driving at 113mph obviously IS pretty dangerous, the official ruling only applies to police officers (police officers who were not responding to an emergency of course).
To clarify my stance here, of course trained emergency services drivers should be permitted to exceed the arbitrary speed limits when responding to an emergency, if it's safe to do so.
This plod had been doing 120mph to get to an emergency. Fine, if it was my emergency, I'd want him to do exactly that.
He was then told over the radio that the emergency had been cancelled, but he continued to bomb along before totalling his Beemer.
The reason he kept going for so long at high speed in a non emergency situation? Was it;
a) He loved it and thought he could get away with it as he is a copper?
b) He was racing a Vaxhuall Corsa with a bodykit?
c) He needed to find somewhere safe to switch his blue lights off?
d) He thought better than his controller and wanted to get to the incident himself?
I am really having trouble understanding the answer to this, not only how a serving officer can bring himself to say such utter tripe, how even a defence solicitor can pretend to believe it, and how a judge can accept it!
The answer is lucky c).
During his trial he claimed his speed was appropriate for the weather conditions, and that he was trying to find a safe place to turn off his blue lights after being stood down from the emergency call.
Police drivers, how difficult is it to turn the fecking lights off?
If I am driving along the motorway and my boot flies open, is it acceptable for me to accelerate up to 113mph to find a safe place to stop?
Then there's the small matter of a judge overruling a jury, but that's a different story.......
To clarify my stance here, of course trained emergency services drivers should be permitted to exceed the arbitrary speed limits when responding to an emergency, if it's safe to do so.
This plod had been doing 120mph to get to an emergency. Fine, if it was my emergency, I'd want him to do exactly that.
He was then told over the radio that the emergency had been cancelled, but he continued to bomb along before totalling his Beemer.
The reason he kept going for so long at high speed in a non emergency situation? Was it;
a) He loved it and thought he could get away with it as he is a copper?
b) He was racing a Vaxhuall Corsa with a bodykit?
c) He needed to find somewhere safe to switch his blue lights off?
d) He thought better than his controller and wanted to get to the incident himself?
I am really having trouble understanding the answer to this, not only how a serving officer can bring himself to say such utter tripe, how even a defence solicitor can pretend to believe it, and how a judge can accept it!
The answer is lucky c).
During his trial he claimed his speed was appropriate for the weather conditions, and that he was trying to find a safe place to turn off his blue lights after being stood down from the emergency call.
Police drivers, how difficult is it to turn the fecking lights off?
If I am driving along the motorway and my boot flies open, is it acceptable for me to accelerate up to 113mph to find a safe place to stop?
Then there's the small matter of a judge overruling a jury, but that's a different story.......
Sunday, 28 June 2009
Four years in jail for carrying a knife
Oh really?
Yes, just ONE person was sentenced to the full four year jail term. Of course, by "four years", what they actually mean is "two years" (automatic release scheme), which then with a one third reduction for a guilty plea (even if the guilty plea comes at the door of the court, after going not-guilty for months before, running up a huge legal-aid bill and forcing the police and CPS to build up a full case against you) becomes 16 months.
So, one person was given the maximum sentence of four years, which in this country means 16 months.
That's not really relevant though, as only 1 in 5 offenders caught with a knife went to jail anyway.
I don't know why people bother with knives anyway, because even if you're caught with a shooter, you've only got a 4-1 chance of heading behind bars.
My favourite part from this one is how the absolute minimum sentence for possessing a firearm is 5 years; the only way of not imposing it is for m'learned friend to deem that there are "exceptional circumstances".
Exceptional circumstances. Now to me (an uneducated oik), that means that the circumstances have to be exceptional for the judge not to sentence 5 years.
Our learned and wise friends found circumstances so exceptional that they gave less than absolute minimum in no less than half of all cases.
Yes, just ONE person was sentenced to the full four year jail term. Of course, by "four years", what they actually mean is "two years" (automatic release scheme), which then with a one third reduction for a guilty plea (even if the guilty plea comes at the door of the court, after going not-guilty for months before, running up a huge legal-aid bill and forcing the police and CPS to build up a full case against you) becomes 16 months.
So, one person was given the maximum sentence of four years, which in this country means 16 months.
That's not really relevant though, as only 1 in 5 offenders caught with a knife went to jail anyway.
I don't know why people bother with knives anyway, because even if you're caught with a shooter, you've only got a 4-1 chance of heading behind bars.
My favourite part from this one is how the absolute minimum sentence for possessing a firearm is 5 years; the only way of not imposing it is for m'learned friend to deem that there are "exceptional circumstances".
Exceptional circumstances. Now to me (an uneducated oik), that means that the circumstances have to be exceptional for the judge not to sentence 5 years.
Our learned and wise friends found circumstances so exceptional that they gave less than absolute minimum in no less than half of all cases.
Thursday, 25 June 2009
(Sarcasm free) Police; what do you want from us?
I will accept that my negative views of the police somewhat influenced my previous post on this subject, so I will have another attempt here.
It is clear to most, (or at least I would hope it's clear, senior police officers and politicians maybe too far detached) that large swathes of the decent, law-abiding public no longer have any faith or trust in the police. A lot of people, who not so long ago saw the police as on their side, and were reassured with the sight of the police, now view them with suspicion and even fear.
However, I accept that there are individual police officers who do not like the present situation, and they can't change it on their own. So, decent officers, if you would like to change things for the better, what would you like from the public to help you?
Note: when I say public I do not mean the genuine scum, I mean the good guys, hard-working, tax-paying, law-abiding, frustrated majority. (Is there a phrase available to describe such a group?)
It is clear to most, (or at least I would hope it's clear, senior police officers and politicians maybe too far detached) that large swathes of the decent, law-abiding public no longer have any faith or trust in the police. A lot of people, who not so long ago saw the police as on their side, and were reassured with the sight of the police, now view them with suspicion and even fear.
However, I accept that there are individual police officers who do not like the present situation, and they can't change it on their own. So, decent officers, if you would like to change things for the better, what would you like from the public to help you?
Note: when I say public I do not mean the genuine scum, I mean the good guys, hard-working, tax-paying, law-abiding, frustrated majority. (Is there a phrase available to describe such a group?)
Just like Michael
This is a blatant and shameless topic swipe from Bystander's blog, but as the story sounds very similar to one of mine (the story that sent me over the tipping point with regards to the police), and Bystander understandably enough doesn't want his post hijacked, I hope we can discuss it here.
My story, very briefly, is that I was glassed one night in a local pub.
After some excellent first-aid work by the barstaff, I spent the night in hospital. Upon release from hospital and turning my mobile on, I had a few texts from the staff saying that they had it all on CCTV, and they were happy to give statements to the police (as well as asking if I was OK of course!). Just before I got to the police station to report it, I got a new text from the barmaid who was working that morning; the perpetrator was in the pub for hair of the dog! So, I told the desk Sgt what had happened, showed her the fresh stitches in my head, told her that the CCTV was available, and that there were 4 sober and dozens of not completely sober witnesses. And of course, the small issue of the offender being sat in a pub 500 yards away right now. "Nothing we can do, sorry". "It's not really worth it" "we're really busy" etc etc etc et F c.
Anyway, I am hoping to hear the continuation of the discussions of Michael's story, so enough about me.
I hear you Michael, I know what you're saying.
Legal minds, please educate us.
(That is absolutely genuine, by the way. I really do like hearing from the judiciary and police, so please, say want you want)
My story, very briefly, is that I was glassed one night in a local pub.
After some excellent first-aid work by the barstaff, I spent the night in hospital. Upon release from hospital and turning my mobile on, I had a few texts from the staff saying that they had it all on CCTV, and they were happy to give statements to the police (as well as asking if I was OK of course!). Just before I got to the police station to report it, I got a new text from the barmaid who was working that morning; the perpetrator was in the pub for hair of the dog! So, I told the desk Sgt what had happened, showed her the fresh stitches in my head, told her that the CCTV was available, and that there were 4 sober and dozens of not completely sober witnesses. And of course, the small issue of the offender being sat in a pub 500 yards away right now. "Nothing we can do, sorry". "It's not really worth it" "we're really busy" etc etc etc et F c.
Anyway, I am hoping to hear the continuation of the discussions of Michael's story, so enough about me.
I hear you Michael, I know what you're saying.
Legal minds, please educate us.
(That is absolutely genuine, by the way. I really do like hearing from the judiciary and police, so please, say want you want)
Police: What do you want from us?
By us, I mean the honest, decent, hard working, law abiding, vast majority of the general public. You know, the group of society you refer to a "the underclass", "scum", "civilians", "MOPs" etc.
This is an honest question to all serving police officers.
What do you want from us?
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but from my dealings with the police, and from the anecdotal knowledge I have gained through the media and blogosphere (what a bloody awful phrase) it appears that the police want the following from us plebs:
If I have missed anything, please let me know.
This is an honest question to all serving police officers.
What do you want from us?
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but from my dealings with the police, and from the anecdotal knowledge I have gained through the media and blogosphere (what a bloody awful phrase) it appears that the police want the following from us plebs:
- That we stop bothering you with daft and insignificant things like being burgled or mugged, or stupid minor stuff like having our cars broken in to.
- That we freely, openly, and respectfully accept that you are our betters.
- That every driver should automatically pay you £30 every time they start their engine.
- That we give you absolute catre blanch to use violence on whomever, whenever, you want. Any questioning of this should be met with a charge of treason.
- That it is our civic duty to accept a PND for whatever you decide to issue it for, in order for you to notch up sufficient detections that you get tea and medals at the lodge, and a promotion at the station.
- To wind our collective necks in, and not expect you to deal with real crime that might entail you leaving the station and going after nasty, dangerous criminals that make life a misery for us.
If I have missed anything, please let me know.
Wednesday, 24 June 2009
Compare and contrast
Last week, Inspector Knacker of the Yard announced that the Met police are finally to investigate some of the fraudulent expense claims made by MPs.
As I write this, precisely nothing has been done; no MPs have been arrested , no offices have been raided, no IT equipment seized, no nothing. This is also about a month after the Torygraph started exposing MPs' astonishing troughing.
Now contrast this with the Damien Green debacle, where the opposition MP was arrested after having his office raided by 6 Met coppers (without a warrant, of course).
Now of course Damien Green was not alleged to have stolen a fortune off of the taxpayer, he was alleged to have leaked documents to the press that were very embarrassing to the government. Much worse. Get in there plod!
If we compare the incredibly zealous and fast-acting police action taken against Green with the complete inaction of the Met with regards to the thieving cheating MPs, I think it paints a good picture of how the police view the taxpayer as opposed to their political masters.
What really worries me, is that the police can't see the difference in these two cases, or why the public were outraged with Green getting done-over by the Labour party's paramilitary wing, but were pissed off with the very same police 'service' happily turning a blind eye to MPs stealing from the public purse. The normally semi-sensible Inspector Gadget just couldn't get his head around it. In that post he boasts about how the police have heroically tackled that nasty Green, but up until the Met's announcement he and his fellow plods were absolutely adamant that no MPs should face action for their fraud.
Hmmmm, there must be a bit of work involved in those fraud investigations....
That worries me.
As I write this, precisely nothing has been done; no MPs have been arrested , no offices have been raided, no IT equipment seized, no nothing. This is also about a month after the Torygraph started exposing MPs' astonishing troughing.
Now contrast this with the Damien Green debacle, where the opposition MP was arrested after having his office raided by 6 Met coppers (without a warrant, of course).
Now of course Damien Green was not alleged to have stolen a fortune off of the taxpayer, he was alleged to have leaked documents to the press that were very embarrassing to the government. Much worse. Get in there plod!
If we compare the incredibly zealous and fast-acting police action taken against Green with the complete inaction of the Met with regards to the thieving cheating MPs, I think it paints a good picture of how the police view the taxpayer as opposed to their political masters.
What really worries me, is that the police can't see the difference in these two cases, or why the public were outraged with Green getting done-over by the Labour party's paramilitary wing, but were pissed off with the very same police 'service' happily turning a blind eye to MPs stealing from the public purse. The normally semi-sensible Inspector Gadget just couldn't get his head around it. In that post he boasts about how the police have heroically tackled that nasty Green, but up until the Met's announcement he and his fellow plods were absolutely adamant that no MPs should face action for their fraud.
Hmmmm, there must be a bit of work involved in those fraud investigations....
That worries me.
Monday, 22 June 2009
Dangerous motorist pays the price
I realise that this is an old story, but it's such a cracker I thought I'd mention it here.
The guy had no excuse, the law is the law, and until motorists like him are off the road none of us will be safe.
The guy had no excuse, the law is the law, and until motorists like him are off the road none of us will be safe.
Hero police tackle dangerous thugs
Please have a gander at this video from the Grauniad of two 'women' getting arrested for the heinous crime of asking a policeman for his collar number.
I would particularly like to hear from serving officers; would you call this a proportionate use of force? Would you have deployed the taser if available? Is grabbing her by the throat to show her face to the camera an "approved home office technique"? Is four days in prison (before being released without charge) par for the course when asking an on-duty officer without visible ID for his/her collar number?
I know the police often have to deal with violent, drunken, drugged-up and downright dangerous people, and in which case force must be used, sometimes a lot of it. But here? Come on lads and lasses...
THIS is the kind of thing that causes people to lose trust, faith, and respect for the police. A coked-up thug kicking off at 2am? Go for it. Two hippy women pestering you for your number? Nah, sorry.
I would particularly like to hear from serving officers; would you call this a proportionate use of force? Would you have deployed the taser if available? Is grabbing her by the throat to show her face to the camera an "approved home office technique"? Is four days in prison (before being released without charge) par for the course when asking an on-duty officer without visible ID for his/her collar number?
I know the police often have to deal with violent, drunken, drugged-up and downright dangerous people, and in which case force must be used, sometimes a lot of it. But here? Come on lads and lasses...
THIS is the kind of thing that causes people to lose trust, faith, and respect for the police. A coked-up thug kicking off at 2am? Go for it. Two hippy women pestering you for your number? Nah, sorry.
Well here it is...
As I always do absolutely whatever I'm told to by the police, when those great guys over at coppersblog said I should start my own blog, I did just that!
As I have such great faith in everything the police say, I was overjoyed when they said that my blog "would probably be tremendously successful"!
Excellent!
As I have such great faith in everything the police say, I was overjoyed when they said that my blog "would probably be tremendously successful"!
Excellent!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)