I'm very proud of my son

[odd jim]

Do you know what the suspects from the theft / burglary stated in interview? If they stated "we were trying to get away but kept getting shot at" as no doubt the duty defence solicitor would have advised them to, the force would be duty bound to make arrests and duly investigate, and quite rightly anything involving firearms gets dealt with seriously. Crims or not, what they said would have had a massive bearing on what happened.

However, that wouldn't excuse the subsequent closed mindedness you've described by the investigating officer, even though the right result was achieved.

Ps -I too would fire upon suspects on my land!

 

[Rick_Luke]

As a keen shooter and firearms owner I read stories like this with great interest. I am sorry to hear of your son and his mothers ordeal with the robbery and the events surrounding it, it must have been very traumatic for them.

Sadly, we live in a country where owning a firearm instantly means you are in the wrong the second anything happens. I can honestly say if I was in the same situation (and I hope I, or anyone else, never actually is) then I would have reacted the same way. End of the day the driver of the car is in a much more capable killing machine than a shot gun. Why people fail to see this is beyond me. In the same sense, if someone was to enter your home and start to head upstairs to the bedrooms, what would YOU do to protect your family? Why should the owner of a legal firearm, be made into a criminal, for doing what anyone in the same situation would do. End of the day the thieving scum had NO RIGHT to be on that land, taking what wasn’t his. He wasn’t lost, he wasn’t there under any other reason than to steal and he would have done what ever he had to do to escape, if that meant killing people in his bid for freedom than I am sure he would have done it!

Cases involving legally owned firearms used in self defence will always come down on the side of the criminal to start with I am afraid unless the law itself is changed to include much better self defence laws.

Glad its worked out OK and fingers crossed your son gets his rightful possessions back from the FAO soon.

Could your son not ask local shooters to control pest on his land, I am sure local people would help out for free as an opportunity to have a little shoot?

 

[Garry Edwards]

As a keen shooter and firearms owner I read stories like this with great interest. I am sorry to hear of your son and his mothers ordeal with the robbery and the events surrounding it, it must have been very traumatic for them.

Sadly, we live in a country where owning a firearm instantly means you are in the wrong the second anything happens. I can honestly say if I was in the same situation (and I hope I, or anyone else, never actually is) then I would have reacted the same way. End of the day the driver of the car is in a much more capable killing machine than a shot gun. Why people fail to see this is beyond me. In the same sense, if someone was to enter your home and start to head upstairs to the bedrooms, what would YOU do to protect your family? Why should the owner of a legal firearm, be made into a criminal, for doing what anyone in the same situation would do. End of the day the thieving scum had NO RIGHT to be on that land, taking what wasn’t his. He wasn’t lost, he wasn’t there under any other reason than to steal and he would have done what ever he had to do to escape, if that meant killing people in his bid for freedom than I am sure he would have done it!

Cases involving legally owned firearms used in self defence will always come down on the side of the criminal to start with I am afraid unless the law itself is changed to include much better self defence laws.

Glad its worked out OK and fingers crossed your son gets his rightful possessions back from the FAO soon.

You've summed it up perfectly - it's all about the police attitude towards civilians who have guns. If he had been able to ram the van with his car, there would have been no problem. Even if he had rammed it with his large loader tractor, with a massive spike on the front, there would have been no problem. If the police had been able to get there in time to stop the attacks happening there would have been no problem. But none of these things happened and he was forced to use the only means available to him at the time, and was then treated as a criminal. Why? Because he actually did something with a gun instead of waiting for the police to turn up and deal with serious injuries or death...

Here's a modern day parable, lifted from another website...

The shepherd worked tirelessly to protect his sheep from the circling wolves, and whenever he heard of yet another ewe attacked by the wolves he always rushed over in the hope that he would actually manage to stop the attack this time, but successes were rare.

One day, as the wolves attacked a Ram got between the ewe and a wolf and fought off the wolf, saving the ewe's life.

As soon as the shepherd heard about it he rushed over to the ram and gave him a good kicking.
Why?
Because he wanted the sheep to know who was in charge of protecting them.

I'm lucky. I started shooting 52 years ago. In all that time, I've never had a moment of difficulty from the police, I've never been in the horrible situation that my son found himself in. I keep asking myself what I would have done, and the honest answer is that I hope that I would have done exactly what he did - but I don't know whether I would have managed it.

Could your son not ask local shooters to control pest on his land, I am sure local people would help out for free as an opportunity to have a little shoot?

Yes, easily done, but as well as lots of sheep, there are horses and he is worried about them being spooked. I would have liked to help but don't have a suitable rifle (well actually I have but it's considered too powerful for foxes and isn't conditioned for them). So, I spoke to my own police firearms licensing authority and they kindly rushed through a variation so that I could take his rifles and do the pest control for him. But his obstructive police force, despite promises to the contrary, have refused to hand them over to me, stating that my own licensing authority isn't happy for me to have them, which is kind of hard to believe as they authorised me to have them in the first place...

 

[PMK]

Crazy story and glad to hear the outcome for your son and his mum was a positive one.

The ineptitude of the police is quite unbelievable - but seems like you and the family have gone down the correct avenues (local MP etc).

This did make me laugh though:

I owe thanks to the much maligned Daily Mail for publishing this article (which was very wrong in details

Can see why it's much maligned now ay?!

 

[Rick_Luke]

Red tape mate, total BS. The police forces would be happier if we didn’t have guns at all. Think its pretty fair to say we are not out mugging people with them or roaming round city streets in gangs, but of course we are the easy target. They think that by making things difficult for us we will simply quit our sport. This is simply not the case. Hope you get the legalities sorted out ASAP so normality can resume.

 

[mid_gen]

Glad everything worked out in the end, albeit with some poor behaviour from the plod.

This coming from someone who grew up in t'country in a household with several firearms and actively involved in both clay shooting and helping out the local game warden with pest control on occasion. I'm all for responsible people with legitimate reasons being able to own appropriate firearms, but if one is ever discharged at another human it should be taken extremely seriously and no assumptions should be made about the intentions and good standing of the wielder before a thorough investigation.

 

[Byker28i]

It sounds like the police are refusing to hand back the guns and he may have an issue with his licence in the future. There's obviously an issue as they are now seeing his father trying to get the guns and rushing, no doubt believing you'll just let him use them.

Ipcc time?

 

[odd jim]

It sounds like the police are refusing to hand back the guns and he may have an issue with his licence in the future. There's obviously an issue as they are now seeing his father trying to get the guns and rushing, no doubt believing you'll just let him use them.

Ipcc time?

IPCC wouldn't be interested, they don't deal with low level complaints of this nature, especially as no direct complaint has been made to the force in question (assuming) yet. The case and arrest sounds lawful, just badly handled.

That said, as no action is being taken, I'd like to know what legal powers they are using to keep the shotguns in retention, unless they are still reviewing his licence? But still, you'd think they would have planned for an NFA (no further action) eventuality with regards to his licence during the summing up of the investigation.

I'd also be interested in a response from the OP to my last post as that would have had a major bearing on what happened though if these facts are known I'd understand if he doesn't want to discuss it on a public forum...

 

[Garry Edwards]

IPCC wouldn't be interested, they don't deal with low level complaints of this nature, especially as no direct complaint has been made to the force in question (assuming) yet. The case and arrest sounds lawful, just badly handled.

That said, as no action is being taken, I'd like to know what legal powers they are using to keep the shotguns in retention, unless they are still reviewing his licence? But still, you'd think they would have planned for an NFA (no further action) eventuality with regards to his licence during the summing up of the investigation.

I'd also be interested in a response from the OP to my last post as that would have had a major bearing on what happened?!

You mean this?

Do you know what the suspects from the theft / burglary stated in interview? If they stated "we were trying to get away but kept getting shot at" as no doubt the duty defence solicitor would have advised them to, the force would be duty bound to make arrests and duly investigate, and quite rightly anything involving firearms gets dealt with seriously. Crims or not, what they said would have had a massive bearing on what happened.

However, that wouldn't excuse the subsequent closed mindedness you've described by the investigating officer, even though the right result was achieved.

Ps -I too would fire upon suspects on my land!

We have absolutely no idea what was said to the police but I'm sure you're right, he probably made allegations that my son shot at him whilst he was trying to escape, it's the sort of thing you'd expect an experienced crim to say.

That said, as no action is being taken, I'd like to know what legal powers they are using to keep the shotguns in retention, unless they are still reviewing his licence? But still, you'd think they would have planned for an NFA (no further action) eventuality with regards to his licence during the summing up of the investigation.

According to Bill's solicitor they have absolutely no right to retain any of his property for any reason. Whilst he was under suspicion they had a right to refuse to return the guns etc to him, but no right to refuse to release them to a suitably qualified 3rd party, i.e. registered firearms dealer or myself. Problem is, a senior officer doesn't seem to care what the law says, he likes to make up his own laws.

It seems, from what I've heard, that this officer is attempting to tell the Firearms Licensing Manager how to do his job. There is of course nothing in writing...

Glad everything worked out in the end, albeit with some poor behaviour from the plod.

This coming from someone who grew up in t'country in a household with several firearms and actively involved in both clay shooting and helping out the local game warden with pest control on occasion. I'm all for responsible people with legitimate reasons being able to own appropriate firearms, but if one is ever discharged at another human it should be taken extremely seriously and no assumptions should be made about the intentions and good standing of the wielder before a thorough investigation.

Agreed. There's no problem with the investigation, but it should have been thorough, timely and impartial. The problem is with the obvious assumptions of guilt.

 

[odd jim]

You mean this?

We have absolutely no idea what was said to the police but I'm sure you're right, he probably made allegations that my son shot at him whilst he was trying to escape, it's the sort of thing you'd expect an experienced crim to say.

According to Bill's solicitor they have absolutely no right to retain any of his property for any reason. Whilst he was under suspicion they had a right to refuse to return the guns etc to him, but no right to refuse to release them to a suitably qualified 3rd party, i.e. registered firearms dealer or myself. Problem is, a senior officer doesn't seem to care what the law says, he likes to make up his own laws.

It seems, from what I've heard, that this officer is attempting to tell the Firearms Licensing Manager how to do his job. There is of course nothing in writing...

Glad everything worked out in the end, albeit with some poor behaviour from the plod.

Agreed. There's no problem with the investigation, but it should have been thorough, timely and impartial. The problem is with the obvious assumptions of guilt.

Some investigators (not just police I should add) often assume guilt and think its their job to prove it. It's not, their job is to simply gather the evidence, no matter where it takes them or what the result might be.

Being impartial is key to being a good investigator. It doesn't seem your sons case was dealt with by a good investigator.

 

[realspeed]

Police are only good at catching motorist as they are easy targets, anything else that involves a bit of work and they don't want to know or get the facts to suit themselves.

Realspeed

 

[odd jim]

Police are only good at catching motorist as they are easy targets, anything else that involves a bit of work and they don't want to know or get the facts to suit themselves.

Realspeed

This massive generalisation I take personal affront to - jeez, if only you knew what we deal with day in day out.

I'm guessing you're still on your Xmas holidays...

 

[Wilko58]

Garry, firstly glad to hear of the final outcome re your son but it really saddens me at the state our Police Force (or maybe individuals?) has got into to. How the criminal in your son's case can't also be charged with attempted murder, assault or some other serious offence I have no idea; okay, one has to investigate more thoroughly but given what you said, driving directly at you more son & mother has to be classed as an offence of some kind or other!!

I know you didn't want this to turn into a "Police bashing thread" but sometimes, individual officers are so far up their own backside they can't admit when they are wrong and will do all they an to prove they are right to the detriment of all others. My son was pulled riding his moped without L-Plates but explained that he's 25 and not only has a moped licence but also a Full Car Licence (2003) which negates the requirement for L-Plates. Officer adamant he needs them so gives him a Rectification Form which requires him to pay a garage to fit the plates and sign the form which he then sends off. We print the relevant supporting pages from the DVLA website, take them to Police Station and it just happens that the reporting Officer is on duty and he his shown the legislation by the duty desk officer. He chooses to ignore the legislation, the duty officer is embarrassed and says we have to formally complain if we think he is wrong! We do this and get a visit from a local Sgt who apologises profusely, rips up the 'ticket' and says the Constable will be ticked off - what a waste of resources (actually there is more than this but don't want to take up Garry's thread!) and just because of a stubborn Officer.

I also have experience of criminals of 'No Fixed Abode' not being pursued / prosecuted as the Police often don't see any point as they don't get much return (meaningful sentencing) for their efforts.

Onwards & upward Garry, I wish your son & his Mum have a great New Year.

 

[Garry Edwards]

FWIW, there is absolutely no complaint with the uniformed operational police officers.
The guy who stopped the van, with difficulty, was single crewed, he knew that the man was violent but he just piled into him without waiting for the 6 other units to arrive.

The firearms Sgt who took away Bill's guns wasn't exactly efficient or knowledgable but he was a nice guy.

No problem with the custody officers, except that it took them 2 1/2 hours to pick up the phone to tell me about the arrest.

One of the CID people was perfectly OK too, courteous, reasonable and helpful.

The problems were with the senior officers - a female DCI who from research is very much a career officer, she apparently is a nasty piece of work who cares nothing for the victims of crime and who is obviously only interested in her own advancement.
Her boss, a Det Supt., who just backs her up blindly and tells lies.
His Boss, who clearly isn't interested in what his subordinates get up to and in the strokes they pull.

 

[Ulfric M Douglas]

Garry thanks for writing the thread, very interesting.

What I'm shocked at (apart from the sadly expected and hideous police laziness & dishonesty) are comments like "...Glad everything worked out in the end..." and suchlike.

Everything DID NOT work out in the end, someone who attempted to kill your son and his mother got away scott free and is not being pursued for justice.

That's so far away from "worked out" it's ridiculous.

 

[FlyTVR]

Garry - sorry to hear that your lad (and mum) had to go through all this! Glad it has worked out OK in the end.

Playing devil's advocate, is it possible that the van driver was just trying to escape and the only way to do so was to drive past your son and his mum? i.e. he had no intention to run anyone over?

Don't get me wrong btw. Your son has helped get one more scummy person away from society and he should be commended for this!

Cheers.

Dav

 

[odd jim]

Garry thanks for writing the thread, very interesting.

What I'm shocked at (apart from the sadly expected and hideous police laziness & dishonesty) are comments like "...Glad everything worked out in the end..." and suchlike.

Everything DID NOT work out in the end, someone who attempted to kill your son and his mother got away scott free and is not being pursued for justice.

That's so far away from "worked out" it's ridiculous.

Ok so you've also generalised about an entire profession. I'm prepared to offer advice to Gary if he wants it but as usual a decent thread has turned into good old TP police bashing, of which there are a few on here.

I'll be backing out of this one.

 

[duggiebee]

I can completely understand Garry taking the stance he has. Everyone whose family was involved in this situation would naturally take the same route and have the opinion as Garry. However, with all due respect, he has only heard one side of the story. It is extremely easy to be overly emotional when your own family are involved. It is the job of the police to present a file of evidence with regards to what has taken place in an impartial manner. It appears that this is what has taken place. So, why the police bashing? As for calling senior officers liars, can I suggest that those are extremely unwise comments to put in writing? It would be the work of moments to figure out exactly who Garry is talking about. I would suggest that using highly emotive language on a subject and circumstances such as this, is extremely counterproductive.
It is also extremely interesting how many people are completely willing to jump on the police bashing bandwagon having only heard one side of the story. It seems the police did their job, presented all the evidence, the CPS decided in the circumstance not to prosecute and therefore it is an opportunity to slag off the police as usual. Honestly? This is fairly tedious.

 

[Garry Edwards]

Ok so you've also generalised about an entire profession. I'm prepared to offer advice to Gary if he wants it but as usual a decent thread has turned into good old TP police bashing, of which there are a few on here.

I'll be backing out of this one.

As I've already said, this is not a police bashing thread and I am totally happy with the actions and attitudes of most of the police officers involved - it's certain CID officers that I have a problem with.I have several friends who are police officers and also have quite a lot of aquaintances, most of whom have been very helpful, although obviously their advice has been given in confidence. I have absolutely nothing against the vast majority of police officers, and I fully support the work that they do, most of which is out of sight of the public, and largely unappreciated. I once got an award (that I didn't deserve) for going to the assistance of a police officer who was being attacked with a knife - I am 100% NOT anti police, I'm just anti police misconduct when it occurs.

Everyone whose family was involved in this situation would naturally take the same route and have the opinion as Garry. However, with all due respect, he has only heard one side of the story. It is extremely easy to be overly emotional when your own family are involved.

One thing I'm not is overly emotional. Whilst, as a father, I'm sure that I would have supported my son even if he had done something wrong, it has been obvious from the start that he did everything 100% right, all of the actual evidence fully supports the story that he and his mother told me - and I know exactly how he feels about the use of force and I know too that he is one of the safest people I know when it comes to guns. So, although I have only heard one side of the story, from two separate people (both of whom individually spoke to me before they were able to speak to each other) what they said to me, fully supported by forensic evidence, has left me fully confident that I have the full story.

As for calling senior officers liars, can I suggest that those are extremely unwise comments to put in writing?

He can sue me if he likes, I'm worth suing.

Playing devil's advocate, is it possible that the van driver was just trying to escape and the only way to do so was to drive past your son and his mum? i.e. he had no intention to run anyone over?

No chance of that. He had to reverse out of our yard and along a 140m long track which terminated in our farm gate. At various points, whilst reversing out, and well past both of them, he then drove straight at both of them (3 times) and straight at my son (once). There was no possibility of error, he was going the wrong way if he was trying to escape. Tyre marks and skid marks prove what happened. The police recording of the 999 call also prove it.

 

[duggiebee]

Garry, I have no intention of getting involved in this discussion further except to say, I would seriously consider removing the 'liar' references. It is all very well feeling righteous ........ all it takes is someone close to the people involved to read your remarks. It is simply reasonable advice.

 

[Garry Edwards]

OK then, he isn't a liar, he is simply someone who says that other police officers have said things that they say they didn't say, and someone who says that other police staff haven't provided him with information that they themselves say they did provide.

Clearly, he's just mistaken.

 

[Byker28i]

The problem is with the obvious assumptions of guilt.

I've noticed this with my last three meetings with a policeman which is they start from the position of 'you're guilty'. I think it probably comes from dealing with incidents all the time that it becomes a natural reaction - often called coppers nose

 

[odd jim]

>>As I've already said, this is not a police bashing thread and I am totally happy with the actions and attitudes of most of the police officers involved - it's certain CID officers that I have a problem with.I have several friends who are police officers and also have quite a lot of aquaintances, most of whom have been very helpful, although obviously their advice has been given in confidence. I have absolutely nothing against the vast majority of police officers, and I fully support the work that they do, most of which is out of sight of the public, and largely unappreciated. I once got an award (that I didn't deserve) for going to the assistance of a police officer who was being attacked with a knife - I am 100% NOT anti police, I'm just anti police misconduct when it occurs.<<<
One thing I'm not is overly emotional. Whilst, as a father, I'm sure that I would have supported my son even if he had done something wrong, it has been obvious from the start that he did everything 100% right, all of the actual evidence fully supports the story that he and his mother told me - and I know exactly how he feels about the use of force and I know too that he is one of the safest people I know when it comes to guns. So, although I have only heard one side of the story, from two separate people (both of whom individually spoke to me before they were able to speak to each other) what they said to me, fully supported by forensic evidence, has left me fully confident that I have the full story.
He can sue me if he likes, I'm worth suing.
No chance of that. He had to reverse out of our yard and along a 140m long track which terminated in our farm gate. At various points, whilst reversing out, and well past both of them, he then drove straight at both of them (3 times) and straight at my son (once). There was no possibility of error, he was going the wrong way if he was trying to escape. Tyre marks and skid marks prove what happened. The police recording of the 999 call also prove it.

I didn't say you were Garry, I actually said that this was a good thread worthy of discussion but a thread which has been hijacked and ruined by the anti police squad, who seemingly crawl out from their rocks at the slightest police related discussion. I never said or inferred you were anti police and I hope you don't think I did.

Further I agreed that I'd question the lawful authority to retain his firearms, a point worth pursuing. As I said, I can offer advice on the matter though it seems you have that aspect covered at present.

 

[realspeed]

This massive generalisation I take personal affront to - jeez, if only you knew what we deal with day in day out. I'm currently putting together a case file for submission of which will only fit in two large storage boxes. But still, it's not that I had to do any hard work or anything.

I'm guessing you're still on your Xmas holidays...

Sorry but where I live only once has a police officer or community one ever bothered to check out where we live or made an official introduction visit in the last 20 years. Living in the middle of the countryside as we do the local police find it too far off their local patch to make the effort to patrol. They forget we also pay rates like anyone else in a built up area but get nothing back in return. Just to add that includes road lighting-street cleaning- travelling libraries -even our bus service for South Stafford is many miles away if there is even one. even our local politician didn't know we were one of his constituants, nor did our parish councillor.

To give an example our postal address is Pelsall Walsall west mids ( about 6 miles away from pelsall) we come under Essingtion parish Council ( 6 miles away) yet pay rates to South Staffs(whereever they are). The field behind and adjoning us comes under Cannock Chase council Staffs,yet on another side is Walsall Council, West Mids and on the third side Norton Canes. The land we live in comes under the Forest of Dean and our local Council is Codsell. Or in other words in the middle of nowhere. The footpath we have to drive down to get to our place no one want to claim ownership to. So work that one out


The assault on my son and his friends several years ago the police response took over 24 hours with a 999 call by which time my sons friend was in hospital having his face rebuilt. We found out afterwards it was marked down as non urgent in the police records. It only made the police think something serious had happened when they found out the lad was in hospital with serious facial injuries. Then they decided to act.

We live on the edge of West Midlands and South Stafford police areas (less than 400yds from the border) and consequently neither police force knows which should attend. The nearest police station is not our local one either its one stuck up on the motorway many miles away. The local one is not in our South Staffs area so don't want to know as its as they say "not in their area"

The only time apart from that was when I discovered a live shot gun cartridge in a car I had recently purchased and took it to the local police station.
As soon as I put it on the counter I was treated like a criminal, interrogated for some considerable time until they checked out the previous owner and why the cartridge was left in a car he had sold to a dealer. Only then was I let to leave the police station. Seems he had a gun licence as owned a bit of land he went shooting on but didn't count the shots against cartridges and mislaid one in the car I bought from a main dealer

This is how police treat the general public trying to do the right thing. Can you wonder why I have a very low opinion of at least our local police.
I am not anti police because they do sometimes have a difficult job to do, but considering if there is something happening be it anti social behaviour-assault-house breaking- the only reason why they attend with police sirens going is to warn those people so they can run away before they get there.

Just watch any TV police factual program and they are nearly always racing to the scene with blue lights flashing and sirens wailing. I think I have proved my point

Courts are even worse, Having done jury service at a crown court for 3 weeks it was a complete farce or so it seemed.The courts start late and finish early and the sentences handed down wern't worth courts or police time and trouble.

So Jim if you really want to know you are doing a good job then move to my area please and cover my patch

 

[odd jim]

Sorry but where I live only once has a police officer or community one ever bothered to check out where we live or made an official introduction visit in the last 20 years. Living in the middle of the countryside as we do the local police find it too far off their local patch to make the effort to patrol. They forget we also pay rates like anyone else in a built up area but get nothing back in return. Just to add that includes road lighting-street cleaning- travelling libraries -even our bus service for South Stafford is many miles away if there is even one. even our local politician didn't know we were one of his constituants, nor did our parish councillor.

To give an example our postal address is Pelsall Walsall west mids ( about 6 miles away from pelsall) we come under Essingtion parish Council ( 6 miles away) yet pay rates to South Staffs(whereever they are). The field behind and adjoning us comes under Cannock Chase council Staffs,yet on another side is Walsall Council, West Mids and on the third side Norton Canes. The land we live in comes under the Forest of Dean and our local Council is Codsell. Or in other words in the middle of nowhere. The footpath we have to drive down to get to our place no one want to claim ownership to. So work that one out

The assault on my son and his friends several years ago the police response took over 24 hours with a 999 call by which time my sons friend was in hospital having his face rebuilt. We found out afterwards it was marked down as non urgent in the police records. It only made the police think something serious had happened when they found out the lad was in hospital with serious facial injuries. Then they decided to act.

We live on the edge of West Midlands and South Stafford police areas (less than 400yds from the border) and consequently neither police force knows which should attend. The nearest police station is not our local one either its one stuck up on the motorway many miles away. The local one is not in our South Staffs area so don't want to know as its as they say "not in their area"

The only time apart from that was when I discovered a live shot gun cartridge in a car I had recently purchased and took it to the local police station.
As soon as I put it on the counter I was treated like a criminal, interrogated for some considerable time until they checked out the previous owner and why the cartridge was left in a car he had sold to a dealer. Only then was I let to leave the police station. Seems he had a gun licence as owned a bit of land he went shooting on but didn't count the shots against cartridges and mislaid one in the car I bought from a main dealer

This is how police treat the general public trying to do the right thing. Can you wonder why I have a very low opinion of at least our local police.
I am not anti police because they do sometimes have a difficult job to do, but considering if there is something happening be it anti social behaviour-assault-house breaking- the only reason why they attend with police sirens going is to warn those people so they can run away before they get there.

Just watch any TV police factual program and they are nearly always racing to the scene with blue lights flashing and sirens wailing. I think I have proved my point

Courts are even worse, Having done jury service at a crown court for 3 weeks it was a complete farce or so it seemed.The courts start late and finish early and the sentences handed down wern't worth courts or police time and trouble.

So Jim if you really want to know you are doing a good job then move to my area please and cover my patch

This post doesn't really qualify your sweeping generalisation though? The assault, ok, poor, the call taker (civvy) seems to have incorrectly graded the call, not the fault of sworn in officers.

Your lane no one wants to take ownership of, well that's the local authority. The poor bus service and library, again nothing to do with sworn in officers, thats the local authority, and as for the shotgun cartridge, to be honest it's not really a police matter as such (though I don't blame you for wanting to safely dispose if it) but that seems to be your only gripe.

Street sweeping? Blimey, I must have missed something in training all those years ago. No wait, that's also the local authority.

As are the street lights...

Not really justified in saying

Police are only good at catching motorist as they are easy targets, anything else that involves a bit of work and they don't want to know or get the facts to suit themselves.

Realspeed

...about all hard working sworn in officers who risk their lives on a daily basis to make this a safer place.

Also your gripe about the two forces not knowing who is responsible for your area; well these are set out by again, the local authority. So really your issue is with politicians and councillors. I think it's a shame people come on here and moan and demean a hard working profession when really they don't even know who they are moaning about.

Ps - the courts are nothing to do with the police either, just so you know. And as for using sirens, when you've done years of operational policing and response driving, come back to me with that one. This point alone proves how ignorant your posts are proving to be.

 

[realspeed]

Jim

Obviously you are going to stand up for your own, and there is nothing wrong in that, but
from my perspective all they do is very little ,at least around here. I can't remember when I last saw a police officer in this area, OPPS no thats wrong we had the Birmingham airport air traffic cops checking flight paths for security. Seeing the airport is miles away from us, another pointless exercise. that was pre Olympic Games.

So guess its best to agree to differ on our opinions.

Realspeed

 

[odd jim]

Jim

Obviously you are going to stand up for your own, and there is nothing wrong in that, but
from my perspective all they do is very little ,at least around here. I can't remember when I last saw a police officer in this area, OPPS no thats wrong we had the Birmingham airport air traffic cops checking flight paths for security. Seeing the airport is miles away from us, another pointless exercise. that was pre Olympic Games.

So guess its best to agree to differ on our opinions.

Realspeed

I wouldn't mind but you simply haven't qualified or justified what you've said? Just seems like a pointless and insulting comment for no good reason.

As I said, it seems your issue is with the local authority not the police.

As for not seeing a police officer, get used to that. There probably arnt enough of them to cover the towns let alone the rural areas. Me, today, FWIW I'm on my OWN covering about 147 square miles! That'll give you some idea of what we're up against.

 

[Byker28i]

This post doesn't really qualify your sweeping generalisation though? The assault, ok, poor, the call taker (civvy) seems to have incorrectly graded the call, not the fault of sworn in officers.

Ah but Jim, to the general public that is the police force or it's representatives. No matter if you are dealing with a civilian behind the desk, or on the phone, or behind a 'safety' camera, they are still representatives of the police force.
Yes I know it's been watered down with around 30% of the staff now civilian, PCSO's, community support officers etc, but to the general public - they are the police.

Realspeed - I live in west swindon. They shut our police station and the one in the center of town, to build a fancy new one on the road to Oxford. It's now 20-25 mins to get to us on a response at best and the only we have visibility of the police is generally when they fly the helicopter overhead.

My last interaction with an officer was after I chased after and stopped a drunk woman who'd rammed a people carrier containing a woman and children off the road. After taking the keys from her car she locked herself in and refused to come out. At this point we had two cars and my motorbike around her as she'd tried to ram the car in front to get away.

The police weren't interested saying they had no resources for a 'minor' incident. In the end we only got a single officer after an hour as I escalated the call when the womans husband and son arrived and things got heated. You can imagine the call!

Policing has changed. We have ended up with the police force that we have unwittingly accepted being watered down by successive governments and now we don't have the money to resolve the issues. Officers time is increasingly being taken up with paperwork to prove politically motivated targets are being met, around 50% of time out the station is the norm for an officer.
With the public spending crisis and the proposed (or forthcoming) cuts, we have demotivated police officers.
Add that to the general mistrust from the public (which I honestly believe partially stems from the decision to criminalise a significant proportion of the public through speed cameras and partially through a perceived lack of response), then we are in a pretty poor state.

What's the answer - I honestly don't know. The media certainly don't help, a good spin doctor would be useful, and I honestly don't believe that having the police split into several different forces helps either.

So there we have it. A perception that the public don't trust the police, a perception that the police think all public they meet are criminals, the police certainly distrust all politicians and most of their senior officers (who now seem to have qualifications and are more interested in career advancement). Everyone agrees there's not enough police on the street, well provided they aren't armed with speed cameras or at least nimby yet we haven't enough money to pay for more.
Meanwhile they water down the requirements for new officers so they get the throughput, after all it's all about numbers - right?

 

[Byker28i]

As for not seeing a police officer, get used to that. There probably arnt enough of them to cover the towns let alone the rural areas. Me, today, FWIW I'm on my OWN covering about 147 square miles! That'll give you some idea of what we're up against.

Wiltshire police statistics - http://www.ukcrimestats.com/Police_Force/Wiltshire_Police
No doubt you can find them for your own force, but 1 dedicated officer to a large town so 15000-40000 people with the rest on response.

 

[duggiebee]

As this thread has now turned into a 'The police are useless' 'No they are not' type discussion, let's move things on. Society gets the police force they deserve. Discuss!

 

[odd jim]

Jesus...

 

[pepi1967]

Jesus...

No religion please

 

[Steep]

Society gets the police force they deserve. Discuss!

In another thread of your own making...

 

[arclight]

Quote:
Originally Posted by duggiebee View Post
Society gets the police force they deserve. Discuss!

Hugh replied "In another thread of your own making... "

Yes, and Duggiebee can start first.

 

[duggiebee]

To be fair, my sarcasm seems to be lost on all. Can't think of anything more tedious or pointless! It is also obvious that sarcasm does not translate well into the written word.

 

[inaneredstripe]

Iask myself, if i was defending myself and my mother, after more than on attack by someone driving a van at me.Would i be shooting at the passenger side of the vehicle. Not so sure i would have that level of restraint.
Well done to the young man for sticking to his guns.Excuse the pun.
Pleased that no one was seriously injured.
Saddened that the low life theives didnt get all they deserve from plod.

 

[odd jim]

Iask myself, if i was defending myself and my mother, after more than on attack by someone driving a van at me.Would i be shooting at the passenger side of the vehicle. Not so sure i would have that level of restraint.
Well done to the young man for sticking to his guns.Excuse the pun.
Pleased that no one was seriously injured.
Saddened that the low life theives didnt get all they deserve from plod.

The charging decisions will have been down to the CPS. The CPS will charge only if they are 100% certain if a conviction.

 

[Garry Edwards]

A bit of balance...

A couple of weeks ago their was a burglary (well, several) on a small industrial estate at the end of the road where my studio is. As often happens, the police called in to see whether any vehicles were on my CCTV.

Anyway, in conversation it came out that at 4 a.m. that morning a police officer was chasing a thief from a house burglary on foot, he then heard an alarm from the industrial estate and changed to that one. He wasn't able to catch either, but he tried very hard to catch both.

Now, the point is that the only reason I know about this is that the police came to view my CCTV. Things like this happen all the time, the public just don't know about them.

Also, a couple of weeks ago my son (yes, the one who had the problems) bought an old series 2 Landie local to me, we hired a car transporter trailer and took it up to Scarborough on the back of my 4x4. I was stopped by police on route, they wanted to check that I had the required licence for large trailers. While they were about it they also checked me on their PNC and also checked that the Landie wasn't stolen. They were courteous, and more to the point they were friendly - couldn't fault them.

Yes, there are a lot of issues with the police, some of which I have mentioned earlier in this thread. People who live in rural areas have the worst level of service, and sometimes this means that they get no service at all. This is inevitable and one of the problems that go hand in hand with rural living. It really isn't good enough but there's no point in blaming the police, there may be things that they can and should do to improve things, but unless they are given the resources they need, their hands are tied.

A civilian employee of a large force was telling me about his problems, he works in IT. Apparently there are 3 different computer systems in use, and none of them are able to talk to each other, this involves re-inputting data, taking up a lot of time, causing delays and creating the potential for errors - not good enough, but what can the police actually do to improve things? Nothing, because they have no control of the situation.

I am very unhappy with the actions of certain police officers in my son's case, I'm especially unhappy that the way both he and his mum were treated as criminals instead of victims. But let's not tar all police officers with the same brush, and let's not confuse lack of effectiveness with lack of effort.

The charging decisions will have been down to the CPS. The CPS will charge only if they are 100% certain if a conviction

. Hmm... In this case, I'm not convinced that the CPS were provided with the full facts.

 

[Studi0488]

Glad everyone is alright, 5 shots is a lot of shooting was there no where to get into safety?

 

[Garry Edwards]

Glad everyone is alright, 5 shots is a lot of shooting was there no where to get into safety?

6 shots, at least.
Not surprisingly, Bill doesn't actually know how many he fired, he was pretty busy at the time, he just stood, loaded and fired as necessary. The police forensic report found 6 shots, this is probably right. 2 into the windscreen, 1 through the passenger door, 1 through the nearside mirror assembly, 1 through the nearside window, 1 further back. the ones that took out the mirror assembly and the nearside window may have been the same round, making 6. Nobody knows.

No shots at all were fired in the final attack because there was no need, Louisa had got behind a tree and Bill was safe too. No shots were fired in the first attack, which took them completely by surprise. That's the one in which Louisa was knocked down. In the second attack she was down and injured. In the 3rd attack, Bill kept firing until she was able to get to (relative) safety.