Met Police what a JOKE!!

MartynK said:
The police have a duty to protect life and property. It's not a right, a privilege or something that individual officers can exercise at their own discretion.
Click to expand...

Your quite right in saying that the first role of a police officer is to protect life and property.
Im slightly confused about the next paragraph. Are you saying that we cannot take reasonable steps to protect our own life when protecting the lives of others ?
I would suggest that If we cant protect our own lives, individually then government, local authorities etc maybe breaching article 2 of the Human Rights Act which gives EVERY person 'the right to life'.

Regards

David1963
 
Gary said:
If i had a quid for every time I've read that line in 'out of focus'.
I think people have rose tinted memories. There is plenty to complain about in this country (including the amount of people that do nothing but moan), but things are in general much better now than they were 20 years ago.
Click to expand...

You do know that there are writings from both the ancient Greeks and the Romans about "the youth of today".

Its not a modern "problem" :D
 
odd jim said:
Its not quite how you have been portraying it then is it? You didnt know who he was or where he lived, or who had committed the stabbing. Not only that, you couldnt give police a decent description of the offender by the sound of it. Also I think you have engaged in racial stereotyping. Just because black people live there it doesnt mean they were involved. Really you had no useful information the police could work with.
Click to expand...

Having seen this guy few times before i "presumed" that i knew where he lived, If i was wrong is it that difficult to go there and check it? Is it? But because i was so excited when i gave evidence i didnt say "presumed"
And when you see gang of people talking to sb you have seen before and where you have seen him before, hmm.... is it really so difficult....:thinking:
well i think it would be brilliant idea to go and check it!!!
If you ever get yourself in the situation like this try to speak in some foreign language. Just try it:)English is not my mother tongue.
described the weapons, places to take fingerprints, described clothes (some of them), thing they used and touched, and people who could say some more.
Guy with red jacket with no sleevs (like down vest) with huge afro haircut and blue jeans had a gun walkin in the area occupied in majority by white people...................:thinking::thinking:
Yes but you are propably right, that was very useless info.

And read again, i said "one of the attackers", and next time when i see him with his aggresive pit bull i am going to say hello to him, especially from you.:|
You think "presume" .....i have racialy engaged.....rubbish!!!!
 
Last edited:
david700 said:
Your quite right in saying that the first role of a police officer is to protect life and property.
Im slightly confused about the next paragraph. Are you saying that we cannot take reasonable steps to protect our own life when protecting the lives of others ?
I would suggest that If we cant protect our own lives, individually then government, local authorities etc maybe breaching article 2 of the Human Rights Act which gives EVERY person 'the right to life'.

Regards

David1963
Click to expand...

No, of course not. My next sentence read "Obviously, there are situations where an officer or officers cannot be expected to intervene immediately, without appropriate back up..." which, with respect, you didn't quote. I am saying that there appear to be far too many reports coming down the pike where the police do not respond appropriately, which was the substance of the Telegraph article.

I'm not quite sure what you mean in your second paragraph. If you're referring to arming the police, then I agree that perhaps this should be considered, but the principle of our democracy is government with the consent of the governed, and this would be quite a radical step. That is why is suggested that it should be tested by referendum. May I also assume that Article 2 of the HRA implies that the state is breaching my "right to life", as an individual, by denying me the legal means to protect my own life with the necessary and appropriate tools? I would far rather take responsibility for this myself, and face the legal consequences if I get it wrong, than rely on the police arriving at some later stage to take a statement, assuming I'm alive and in sufficiently good shape to make one.
 
foto kitsch said:
So today ive been phoned by police, was told they did not arrest anybody just yet, was asked if i could recognize anybodys(face) i said no (its not easy to see the black faces from the balcony about 6m high in the night time) so officer thanked me and that is it.
I ve decided that iam done with it, i know they (gang) came to sb living down the road from me, they came once they can come again.
Click to expand...

Well this now reads like you've had time to think about it and don't want to make a statement identifying the person you saw at the scene (who may or may not be involved) for fear of reprisals? Believe me I would understand that - you have to live there, but the fact is there is a line of enquiry here which could lead to this whole matter being cleared up. Choose to do what is right for you but you seem to be the key to these offenders possibly being arrested. The police can do nothing without evidence.

About arming the Force, well.....i work in construction, i met hundreds of yobs, criminals of any age, one think is exactly the same for all of them... absolute, totall disrespect to the force, they just know that police can do "f... all" iam not even mentioning PCSO`s
Click to expand...
Those same yobs have "**** all" respect for anyone and anything let alone the police. There's a great deal wrong with the police service today, largely because of the interference of politicians and governement spin doctors, and if indeed they can often "do **** all" it's the result of restrictive legislation which means they might as well not bother arresting anyone unless they already have the evidence to charge them. It's certainly not the fault of the officers doing the job, and most of them are committed hard working people. There are the inevitable bad apples and idle sods which you find in any occupation but that shouldn't be any surprise or any reason to tar them all with the same broad brush.

I would be opposed to widespread arming of the police. Most if not all forces have armed response crews on patrol 24/7 whoi can quickly respond to a firearm situation. The point is that these officers are highly trained and don't do anything else - it's the only way to approach arming the police. They train together on a very regular basis and have well drilled procedures for dealing with just about any situation they're likely to encounter working as a team.They invariably have a wide selectiion of weapons at their disposal in their vehicles which a foot patrol couldn't carry.

It's worth noting also that in West Midlands Police before the armed response units came into being, the force relied on a smattering of offcers throughout the force who were firearms trained . It was a lottery who was called upon- sometimes it was on duty officers,, sometimes it meant officers being called out half asleep in the wee small hours to tackle the most difficult siege situations They certainly never had the high standard of training which the armed response units get and they they often never even knew the other officers being called out with them. Believe it or not - many of those officers handed in their firearms authorisations when they were required to sign a form absolving The Chief Constable of all responsibilty for any mishaps.

Arming the police across the board would be lunacy. Not everyone has the restraint, self, control and judgement to carry a firearm in any situation let alone adrenalin charged situations where the public are at risk and split second judgement is needed.. It's in the nature of guns and the human element, that no matter how excellent the training, and how much care is taken in the selection of individuals that tragic mistakes will happen. They happen in the USA where cop kills cop or joe public with such regularity that it's accepted as the price to be paid. It happens in the military and it will happen with armed cops now and again -even under the current set-up.
 
Last edited:
CT said:
Choose to do what is right for you but you seem to be the key to these offenders possibly being arrested. The police can do nothing without evidence.
Click to expand...

There were at leats 3 to 4 other people who has seen gun and knife, and about 20who watched it from about different position. sadly no cctv though.
 
foto kitsch said:
There were at leats 3 to 4 other people who has seen gun and knife, and about 20who watched it from about different position. sadly no cctv though.
Click to expand...

Well it's up to those people who saw it to stand up and be counted if they want things to change. By doing nothing you allow these scrotes to take the high ground all the time. I really do understand the reality of the situation for you though - you have to live there. It's a nightmare for the cops trying to get witnesses to incidents like this, and they understand the reasons why too, but it doesn't make their job any easier.
 
It is quite interesting reading this forum...especially for someone who has previously served as a police officer in one of the most dangerous countries in the world - South Africa. I personally don't think arming all UK officers would make any difference to reducing crime in the UK. In fact it could quite often contribute if the training and understanding of firearm usage is not of a high calibre. SA has one of the highest police murder rates in the world, averaging roughly 90 officers killed a year. A large percentage of these are killed specifically to obtain their firearms. In my opinion the biggest change needs to be in the criminal justice system and reducing the bureacreacy that police have to endure and which makes them ineffective. Criminals here live a life of luxury really...getting cautions and minimal sentances for serious crimes, even if they have ofended before. Just look at the sentances PPO (prolific priority offenders) get for re-committing offences - really a joke. 2 weeks / months for committing their umpteenth burglary - a complete mockery. No only is this a slap in the face of victims, but equally dis-heartening for the police who often put in long hours of investigation for a measly outcome. I do think though that the generally police here have a much safer job than their colleagues across the world - and are well paid in that respect.

Finally - I blame all the do-gooders who want all their civil-liberties but still want to be protected all the time. The fact of the matter is that you can't live in a safe and secure society and not expect your rights to be slightly infringed at some time in order to maintain that environment.
 
Grayman said:
It is quite interesting reading this forum...especially for someone who has previously served as a police officer in one of the most dangerous countries in the world - South Africa. I personally don't think arming all UK officers would make any difference to reducing crime in the UK. In fact it could quite often contribute if the training and understanding of firearm usage is not of a high calibre. SA has one of the highest police murder rates in the world, averaging roughly 90 officers killed a year. A large percentage of these are killed specifically to obtain their firearms.
Click to expand...

Agreed. A lot of us thought it was a mistake to allow officers to take their service weapons home when they went off duty. I know the argument that they needed their firearms for self defence, but it made them targets too; and created opportunities for corrupt cops to claim they had "lost" their weapons in a robbery.

I was a civilian in SA, but I spent a lot of time interacting with the SAP and the SAPS. Where did you serve?
 
MartynK said:
I was a civilian in SA, but I spent a lot of time interacting with the SAP and the SAPS. Where did you serve?
Click to expand...

Hi Martyn

East London (Flying Squad) and Port Elizabeth. Do miss it loads though if I am honest!
 
MartynK said:
No, of course not. My next sentence read "Obviously, there are situations where an officer or officers cannot be expected to intervene immediately, without appropriate back up..." which, with respect, you didn't quote. I am saying that there appear to be far too many reports coming down the pike where the police do not respond appropriately, which was the substance of the Telegraph article.

I'm not quite sure what you mean in your second paragraph. If you're referring to arming the police, then I agree that perhaps this should be considered, but the principle of our democracy is government with the consent of the governed, and this would be quite a radical step. That is why is suggested that it should be tested by referendum. May I also assume that Article 2 of the HRA implies that the state is breaching my "right to life", as an individual, by denying me the legal means to protect my own life with the necessary and appropriate tools? I would far rather take responsibility for this myself, and face the legal consequences if I get it wrong, than rely on the police arriving at some later stage to take a statement, assuming I'm alive and in sufficiently good shape to make one.
Click to expand...

Martin -Firstly, apols if I quoted you out of context.
Having 'inside knowledge' of the way particular incidents are dealt with , usually with safety of all involved, it does appear that the police do not appear to be reacting immediatley, as some people would expect.
This could be for a multitude of reasons, but is mainly ,and particularly in the case of serious incidents,about getting it right.
Im speaking of course from personal experience, and I will be the first to admit, sometimes we get it wrong and our expectation, in the eyes of the public,diminishes.
But in most cases, a lack of apparent activity,doesn't neccesarily mean nothing is happening.
A lot of people nowadays, are not aware that the police work to government imposed response times,dependant on the grade/type of incident.
As an example, the incident mentioned at the start of this post,would be classed as an emergency incident with a maximum response time of 15 minutes.
From memory, the poster said the police arrived within 5 minutes,so that was within the response time.
At the opposite end of the scale, a non emergency incident,where no offenders are present and no threat exists, then it may take up to 48 hours before a patrol visits.
As I mentioned earlier,these are government imposed deadlines and gave to be adhered to.

With regard to your second paragraph (above) I am against arming all police officers. I personally think that this is not the way to go and would make the situation worse,rather than better.
What I did take issue with was a comment,from someone else, that unless my mindset was to ultimately lose my life in the protection of the public, then I shouldn,t be in the job.
Thats not to say that if I saw someone in mortal danger,I wouldn,t put myself at risk - of course I would and we have seen over the years,officers carry out extremely brave acts,protecting the public, sometimes causing serious injury to themselves, and sometimes the consequences have been fatal.
A quote from Shylock in the Merchant of Venice comes to mind, " If you prick us,do we not bleed"
As human beings who wear a uniform, most with pride and integrity and service of the public uppermost in their minds, we are just that - human- subject to all the faults,emotions and frailties of the human race.
Most times we get it right, sometimes we dont, but can that not be said of all of society nowadays

Regards

david700
 
Grayman said:
Hi Martyn

East London (Flying Squad) and Port Elizabeth. Do miss it loads though if I am honest!
Click to expand...

Don't blame you man. I spent the best part of 30 years in security risk management based in northern Joburg, but I travelled just about everywhere in SA. A company I used to do a lot of work for have asked me to go back for 6 - 12 months starting in January.

I've only been back in the UK for 6 months, but I miss SA badly and I'll probably go if this works out.
 
I'm just thinking about that poor copper who got drowned the other day. He was trying to help the public, he didn't watch from a distance and look at what happened.

The police in this country are in a no win situation. Be too cautious and you get this sort of reaction. Be too proactive and you've got a Jean Charles de Menezes situation. I know the police we have aren't perfect, who is, but I do believe they're as good as any.
 
Thoughts on these:
What would really help the Police Forces of this fair Isle out is to sort out the Judicial System.
Review the sentancing guidelines.
Build some bigger prisions, several of them.
Re-impose Capital Punishment for serious crimes such as murder.
Cut the goolies off of sex cases.
UK to withdraw from European Convention on Human Rights and by Act of Parliment establish its own, with a view to remove the sometimes ludicrous appeals of convicted criminals under said Convention.
If you've got nothing to hide you'v got nothing to be worried about.
Advances in forensic science make cases rock solid and remove possibilities of miscarriages of justice.

Lets give the Police the means, the Courts the ability and the Prisons the capacity.

I for one am seriously pi@@ed off that individuals like Ian Huntley are living and breathing, that 'rude-boy' gangsters get a couple of years tops for posession of lethal firearms and ammunition, that toerags that knife and murder outstanding young men like Jimmy Mizen are kept at the taxpayers expense and will be out in fifteen years time...
What do you think?
 
The only thing you can really say that capital punishment does is to reduce the re-offence rate... anything else is just a moot point really.

(thats a serious comment btw, which makes a change from me :D)
 
I'm still waiting for foto_kitsch to PM me with a date and location so that I can check the reality behind this crime report. I'm not asking for any personal details, but with a date and location, I will be able to have a look at the original CAD (created when someone called 999) and get a more informed perspective of what was going on.

I'm not going to debate what may or may not have happened at an incident based on hearsay. I get the impression that we're not being told a straight story, as the OP has originally said that he could name the suspect and knew where he lived, to now not being able to recognise them. I think he has made a very serious accusation that this is how the Metropolitan Police respond - on the face of it - to a very serious incident.

It is very easy for someone to come in here and blurt out a story about how rubbish the police are, so all I ask is for a chance to check the report.
 
Last edited:
dod said:
I'm just thinking about that poor copper who got drowned the other day. He was trying to help the public, he didn't watch from a distance and look at what happened.

The police in this country are in a no win situation. Be too cautious and you get this sort of reaction. Be too proactive and you've got a Jean Charles de Menezes situation. I know the police we have aren't perfect, who is, but I do believe they're as good as any.
Click to expand...


spot on
 
Photo Plod said:
It is very easy for someone to come in here and blurt out a story about how rubbish the police are, so all I ask is for a chance to check the report.
Click to expand...

I think it's fairly obvious that there are two sides to this story and that we've only heard one of them. ;)
 
foto kitsch said:
Yesterday i witnessed a stabbing and posesing of firearms.
It took them about 5 minutes to come to the crime scene, but it takes them seconds to give us parking tickets! When i phoned the force, was asked silly stupid questions, while few meters away from me people were fighting.
When they finally came, bunch of attackers had fled away, officers just walked around, joked about injured man. They took evidence, blocked the road and apart from that nothing!! Even when i said that one of the attackers was local and i knew where he lived. (just 100 meters away!!!!!!) Nothing! When i said about my neighbour that saw the situation officers did nothing?! (she was wery close to accident)!!!!! :gag:
Finally one of the officers said to me that he is paid 30k a year and he doesnt care and doesnt want to be killed, that was the reason to NOT to chase those yobs!!!!!!!:bonk:
WTF i served 3 years in the Army, but when i apllied for a job got the letter saying i wasnt competent enough.:bang::cuckoo: Simply didnt fit recruting policy (white, straight, catholic) Iam really angry!
One think is certain i would risk my life for 30k, because i would love the JOB!!

What is wrong with Met Police?
BTW ididnt mean to offend any fully commited, hard working officers, as i fully respect the force. Is just iam dissapointed with what i saw yesterday!
Click to expand...

I just stumbled across this thread before going to bed to have not read it in its entirety. From what I have seen this behaviour is not the not the norm. There are a lot of police officers out there who do work very hard, are proud to be Met officers and are very courageous. They like me get into situations at work we don't tell our wives about so they can sleep without worrying whether we are safe at 3am. As someone has already suggested if you feel strongly about it there is the police complaints commision ( very slow route ) or what I would suggest is a letter of complaint to the local chief superintendent ( quicker route as this is whom the letter would go to if you wrote to the commision ). For the record I am in the Met and if the events are as you said I am as appalled as everyone else.
 
Last edited:
Despite repeated requests, foto_kitsch has declined to PM me the date and location of this reported offence so that I could check what happened, and see if there was any action we could take. As people on this forum know, I am a Metropolitan Police officer, and am in a position to do something about it if he feels unhappy about something. I am not asking him for any personal information. He is, according to him, one of many witnesses to a very serious incident, so I would not be able to identify him among those on the report.

I can only assume that he has not provided the information for one of the following reasons:

a) foto_kitsch has somehow managed to miss my posts, even though he has read many others and responded to them

b) foto_kitsch doesn't want someone who can actually check his story to get involved

I said that I am not prepared to speculate on hearsay and debate what may or may not have happened. However, I take foto_kitsch's allegation very seriously, and despite what he says about not wanting to offend hard-working officers, I'm afraid I am. If someone had a bad experience with a soldier and then posted in here, "Army what a JOKE!!", I think they could expect some kind of reaction, and for other soldiers to feel affronted.

He originally states that he was asked "silly stupid questions" while the fight was going on. When you dial 999, the call handler you speak to (who is not the radio dispatcher) needs to ascertain what kind of incident you are calling about. Chiefly, they need to know what is happening and where it is. As they type this into the CAD system, it can be immediately passed to the controllers - even with minimal detail - so that officers can start making their way while the caller is still on the line. This is common; just because you are still on the phone does not mean that police are not on their way. However, more information allows us to prepare a better response - descriptions, directions of travel, anything carried, injuries - it all helps. There may be several units making their way (maybe ambulances too), all travelling from different directions. These "silly stupid questions" would have established just that. If 20 people were fighting with weapons, two officers are not going to be able to contain it.

Firearms incidents are especially dangerous for obvious reasons. The most dangerous situation is where a suspect is confirmed in possession of a firearm and either shooting it or threatening people with it. The most dangerous way of dealing with it, for the public, suspect and officers, is to dispatch firearms officers directly to the scene. It happens if there is no other way, but is thankfully exceptionally rare. There are numerous other safer ways of successfully apprehending a firearms suspect, such as plain-clothes observation or area containment; however, I hope people will appreciate that I am very limited in discussing police tactics on an open internet forum. They are never dealt with trivially.

Stabbings are, sadly, more common. Again, they are not dealt with lightly. Knowing that an armed suspect is on the loose, and has stabbed someone, generates a massive response as standard - especially as they are so high-profile at the moment.

foto_kitsch clearly feels undervalued as a witness, but reading his later posts he has little to say of evidential value: he cannot describe the attacker, but recognises one of the people present out of a group of around 20 by the nature of his haircut and a jacket. 30mins before the incident, they were loitering outside between no. 36 and no. 40. He states that he knows where to get fingerprints from, but is clearly unaware how difficult it is to retrieve usable prints even from inside a house, let alone an outside surface. Just because a suspect touched something, or leant against it, doesn't mean that we can retrieve a print or DNA profile from it that will solve the case. I assume that foto_kitsch does not know the victim, and cannot possibly be aware of every aspect of the investigation, so he is not aware of the entirety of what is being done. He also cannot be aware of what everyone else who apparently saw the incident has said. I expect the victim's evidence will be of far more value, and foto_kitsch has no way of knowing how we're following up the investigation.

My guess is that foto_kitsch has called us because he has witnessed an incident, which officers have responded to, but when pressed for evidential material (required for a prosecution), he has been unable to produce anything and has "presumed" an awful lot. That's not a criticism - he simply couldn't see it. However, because he regards our questions as "silly" and "stupid", he has now squeezed out a post writing us all off as a "JOKE" because he is frustrated that his "evidence" hasn't led to the immediate apprehension of the suspect. As such, he regards the officers that attended as being useless, which further compounds his frustration because he failed the selection process to become a police officer himself.

Again, foto_kitsch, if you PM me the barest details, I am happy to follow this incident up.
 
Last edited:
Sounds reasonable to me...
I'd still like to know why you're opposed to Firearms as a matter of course for all beat officers though...

Oh, and anyone can make fun of the Army - as long as you're in or have been in the Army (or uniformed service of some kind)...we like a good laugh...
 
Arkady said:
Sounds reasonable to me...
I'd still like to know why you're opposed to Firearms as a matter of course for all beat officers though...
Click to expand...

Hello mate,

There are three main reasons. Firstly, I rarely have to use my baton or CS spray, so I don't feel the need to have a handgun. I like the fact that firearms are only being handled by dedicated specialists who train, train and train again, and deal with firearms incidents every day. That backup is available very quickly, and I think it's far safer for all concerned. Secondly, I feel far more approachable if I'm not carrying a firearm. We're not used to them over here, and I don't think the public would like to see it. Thirdly, while assaults against officers are very common, firearms are very rarely used against us. If we were all armed, I think that would change. However, I'm all in favour of us being given tasers as standard.
 
Photo Plod said:
Hello mate,

There are three main reasons. Firstly, I rarely have to use my baton or CS spray, so I don't feel the need to have a handgun. I like the fact that firearms are only being handled by dedicated specialists who train, train and train again, and deal with firearms incidents every day. That backup is available very quickly, and I think it's far safer for all concerned. Secondly, I feel far more approachable if I'm not carrying a firearm. We're not used to them over here, and I don't think the public would like to see it. Thirdly, while assaults against officers are very common, firearms are very rarely used against us. If we were all armed, I think that would change. However, I'm all in favour of us being given tasers as standard.
Click to expand...

OK...

You might be surprised to know a lot of US Cops I know say the same thing regarding tasers - they'd happily swap their Berettas and SIGs for those...
Maybe I'm just used to seeing coppers armed all the time when in France or Germany - to a lot of people (over there) now, a pistol isn't regarded so much as a weapon as a badge of rank - just part of the uniform...
German cops look like Park-Rangers anyway with that scruffy green and tan uniform - though some Kreise have finally woken up to it and started issuing black and blue in line with the rest of Europe...

A German Bundespolitzei ARU is a thing to behold, however...:eek:

An H&K MP5 sends a different message to a Glock IMO...
 
Although not an officer or involved in any way, I tend to agree with Mr Plod's ideas on the subject.

The actual incidents where a firearm would be useful to an officer are minimal. You wouldn't use one whilst aprehending someone painting grafitti on a wall or a drunken yob making a nuisance of himself in the street.

Also if police were armed I think we would see a large increase in criminals being armed.


Steve.
 
Rob, Mrs Frac was a uniformed officer for 19 years, before being thrown down some concrete steps,in the process of doing her job, and fracturing three vertabrae in her lower spine,resulting in the fusion of said vertabrae and her being pensioned out,not something she wanted.The force involved were very unsympathetic to her desire to stay active doing her job,which for the previous 7 years had been heavily involved in child abuse and sex offences,I won`t horrify anyone on here with the details of some of the cases she solved. So there are very few who hold the police hierarchy with such scant disregard as I.
She ,and a lot of her colleaugues of similar service and experience always said that they would resign if they were forced down the road of being permanantly armed, they thought it was the road to more armed criminals.

In my own opinion, until the justice system starts handing out long sentances to people involved in knife crime,firearm crime and other acts of extreme violence, like kicking a father to death in Warrington for example, then the Police on the ground are banging thier heads against the wall,that starts hurting after a while,so they stop doing it.A perfect human reaction which I don`t blame them for.I am also in favour of paying foreign countries to hold these people in thier prisons,Turkey and Sudan for example, no playstations nor Sky TV over in thier prisons, i`m sure it would work out cheaper for the decent taxpayers of this country and be a more meaningful deterrant.

Sure,some officers are crap.So are some soldiers,postmen and God forbid,some MPS`s etc etc.But I get sick of reading rubbish like this,sweeping statements and generalisations about one specific case,that has changed in its entirety since the original post by the way, PP has offered and asked twice now for further details with no reply. So ,once again, the great British public moan and do nothing.

If some people think the police are so bad, here is an idea,rather than bitch annonymously on an internet forum, like wimps, go and join up,you may make a huge difference.
 
Last edited:
From speaking to my mates on the job, a lot could be achieved if what Fracster and others have mooted - more civilian personnel to do the routine paperwork, thus freeing officers to get vback out on the ground as soon as possible after bringing someone in.
A Criminal Justice system with teeth.
An overhaul of the Prison system that reflects the need for 'punishment' as well as 'rehabilitation' - on a sliding-scale according to the offence committed. Less playstations or TV's: more road-building on Chain-gang principles...
Or better still outsource the Prison Service to India, not our call-centres...6 months in a Bangladeshi nick wouldn't have quite the same appeal as Ford open Prison, I think (not putting 'our' prisoners in twith the general prison population there - that'd be akin to a death-sentence in some cases).

No to the Death-Penalty - I always cite the case of Myra Hyndley - all she could think of every single day of her miserable life, was getting out of gaol - right to the end - if she'd been hanged, that suffering, scant though it was compared to what she visited on those children, would have been over.

Life sentences should mean life - no parole - you die in gaol and get buried in the Prison garden. And your family pays for your food while you're in there - that way parents and relatives will take more responsibility for bringing kids up properly - if they're the ones that'll be out of pocket as a result of any misdemeanors...

Also more discretionary powers for beat officers - when I was a kid, I nicked some plums from the greengrocers round the corner and sure enough walked straight into a copper. Massive bloke (I was only 8), old-style uniform, big hob-nailed boots, the lot...
Got picked-up by my ear-lobe and given a stern talking-to on the way back to the shop...where I spent the next hour sweeping the back-yard while the copper watched and drank a cup of tea provided by the shop-owner.
Bizarrely, the shop owner than gave me a half-crown for the work - I learned two valuable lessons - doing bad things has consequences - you get caught - and it's a much better feeling to work for something than just take what doesn't belong to you...

I also learnt that The Law was all-powerful and all-seeing...and fair - I'd done something wrong, been caught, been punished, but then rewarded as I'd learnt my lesson...

In my 8-year old's eyes, that beat copper represented all the values that 'old' Britain stood for - in his antique gas-cape, zebra-stripes on the cuffs, ammo boots and Privet-Hedge moustache.

More thick-ears and fewer ASBO's...we'd be in a far better place...
 
Arkady said:
Life sentences should mean life - no parole -
Click to expand...

I agree with this but I would go one step further. The sentence which a judge gives to an offender should be the actual sentence served.

Quite often you hear of a case where a jail sentence of thirty years was given... of which the offender will probably serve only twenty... What's the point of that?


Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
Also if police were armed I think we would see a large increase in criminals being armed.


Steve.
Click to expand...

Maybe. I have reservations about this too, but for other reasons. It's speculative to assume that arming the police would lead to more criminals carrying firearms. They don't seem to have any difficulty obtaining and carrying them now - it's only law abiding citizens that have been targeted by the state - judging by the increase in the number of crimes involving firearms in the last 10 years or so.
 
:plusone:
From speaking to my mates on the job, a lot could be achieved if what Fracster and others have mooted - more civilian personnel to do the routine paperwork, thus freeing officers to get vback out on the ground as soon as possible after bringing someone in.
A Criminal Justice system with teeth.
An overhaul of the Prison system that reflects the need for 'punishment' as well as 'rehabilitation' - on a sliding-scale according to the offence committed. Less playstations or TV's: more road-building on Chain-gang principles...
Or better still outsource the Prison Service to India, not our call-centres...6 months in a Bangladeshi nick wouldn't have quite the same appeal as Ford open Prison, I think (not putting 'our' prisoners in twith the general prison population there - that'd be akin to a death-sentence in some cases).

No to the Death-Penalty - I always cite the case of Myra Hyndley - all she could think of every single day of her miserable life, was getting out of gaol - right to the end - if she'd been hanged, that suffering, scant though it was compared to what she visited on those children, would have been over.

Life sentences should mean life - no parole - you die in gaol and get buried in the Prison garden. And your family pays for your food while you're in there - that way parents and relatives will take more responsibility for bringing kids up properly - if they're the ones that'll be out of pocket as a result of any misdemeanors...

Also more discretionary powers for beat officers - when I was a kid, I nicked some plums from the greengrocers round the corner and sure enough walked straight into a copper. Massive bloke (I was only 8), old-style uniform, big hob-nailed boots, the lot...
Got picked-up by my ear-lobe and given a stern talking-to on the way back to the shop...where I spent the next hour sweeping the back-yard while the copper watched and drank a cup of tea provided by the shop-owner.
Bizarrely, the shop owner than gave me a half-crown for the work - I learned two valuable lessons - doing bad things has consequences - you get caught - and it's a much better feeling to work for something than just take what doesn't belong to you...

I also learnt that The Law was all-powerful and all-seeing...and fair - I'd done something wrong, been caught, been punished, but then rewarded as I'd learnt my lesson...

In my 8-year old's eyes, that beat copper represented all the values that 'old' Britain stood for - in his antique gas-cape, zebra-stripes on the cuffs, ammo boots and Privet-Hedge moustache.

More thick-ears and fewer ASBO's...we'd be in a far better place...
 
Last edited:
Gary said:
the idea of prison isnt just to punish, its also to rehabilitate if possible. They dont let people out early unless they judge them to be rehabilitated.
Click to expand...

FFS Gary!! :lol:
 
Gary said:
the idea of prison isnt just to punish, its also to rehabilitate if possible. They dont let people out early unless they judge them to be rehabilitated.
Click to expand...

He's right you know...

And thats also why they want to stop sending people to jail for less than 12 months, because there is no time to rehabilitate them.

That doesn't of course stop you lot from shouting for shoplifting to be a 75 year jail term and move upwards from there :bonk:
 
But what was the cost of keeping Hindley locked up, fed and watered all those years....

It goads me to think of what its costing to keep people like Huntley locked up, Brady all those years (and those two showed no remorse whatsover, just self-pity for themselves) ,what it cost to keep the two murderes of Jon Venables locked up, so called rehabilitated then the cost of new identities for them and their families, resettlement, new lives, etc.
Then thers Maxin Carr, shes going to get a new identity when shes let out in a few years time....

Sorry, but its all at the emotional expense of the families involved, the fiscal expense to the taxpayer and the message it gives to offenders and potential offenders.

There are too many people who claim its against human rights to execute someone for murder, but the question remains, what about the rights of the victim - the perpetrators have forefited any rights they previously otherwise had in my opinion.

I have kids and I desparately want to see them brought up in a fair and just society where those who commit henious crimes are suitably punished.
 
Gary said:
the idea of prison isnt just to punish, its also to rehabilitate if possible. They dont let people out early unless they judge them to be rehabilitated.
Click to expand...

And who decides that they are suitably rehabilitated?
Can you rehabilitate a murderer, a premeditated murderer, for example?
There's a whole bunch of Healthcare Professionals that make clinical judgements on these sort of offenders and they sometimes get it woefully wrong - that person goes out to murder again.
 
desantnik said:
That doesn't of course stop you lot from shouting for shoplifting to be a 75 year jail term and move upwards from there
Click to expand...

The people who usually shout for 75 years for shoplifting and similar zero tolerance to all crimes also seem to be the same people who think it's o.k. for themselves to break the speed limit and are horrified when they get caught by speed cameras!


Steve.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top