Jump to content

whats wrong with the police


KD

Recommended Posts

at work yesterday i had a delivery of paint, stupid i know, but the driver left the engine running as he had had trouble starting it at his last drop. anyway with the driver still in the back of the van and me taking paint of at the rear some little swine drove off in the van. the driver dived out and with the doors open about 50 tins of paint fell out and burst open outside my shop on a busy road painting it white. funny now i know, police were phoned showed little interest never attended the crime sceme just simply gave the driver a crime number. point is today i have noticed at least 8 in different locations police cars with speed cameras all day trying to nick people going slightly over the speed limit and then being classed as criminals. when the real criminals can do as they like
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess the basic issue here is one of each citizens personal judgement as to which are "more" or "less" serious crimes.

 

People who break the speed limit are committing a criminal offence, just as people who steal are.

 

Just to play devil's advocate for a moment:

 

If you roll into your personal judgement equation for a moment, the number of people who are killed, maimed, or seriously injured by others who's vehicles crash into them because the driver of that other vehicle was committing the criminal offence of speeding; versus the number of people killed, maimed or injured in an act of having their vehicle taken because they'd left the keys in the ignition and the engine running - my guess is that it's the speeding drivers who cause many many more deaths, and injuries, and insurance claims, and costs for the NHS, and other drivers and businesses to have to pay.

 

In a perfect world of Policing, there would be enough Police Officers employed to instantly react to every single reported incident at any time of the day and night.

But we live in the real world - and there aren't.

Policing is a massive cost to the taxpayers, and the additional cost to the taxpayer of recruiting, training and paying (let's say perhaps) 3 or 4 times more of them than we have and pay for at the moment, would be a total vote loser. would you be prepared to have your Community charge doubled, or trebled forever in the future in order to achieve this?

 

I guess (hope) at the end of the day, your driver's employers can claim on their vehicle insurance for the van, if it is not recovered. They can also discipline the driver for his actions (negligence, and also breaking the law by leacing the driving seat whilst the engine was running on a public highway).

But none of these remedies are available to the parents/siblings/friends of all those people killed or maimed by criminally speeding drivers.

 

As I said, I believe it all depends on how each of us rates the relative seriousness of the various categories of crime; and upon how much we are as a society prepared to stump up out our own incomes to fund the Police Service that we'd like.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok you wanna know .........

 

One car thief apprehended means the possibility of imprisonment .

 

The prisons are full let alone the cost to the judicial system the courts 20 motorists £100 a time for half an hours work each or less equals profit .

 

police prioritise on response calls the vehicla has gone as has the suspect ,they have made contact by phone with the informant /looser and if investigated properly over the phone they should have all the relevant details that could be taken by an officer attending the scene.

 

It would be sensible for a full investigation to send an officer to the scene promtly to give a first class service.

 

This stopped along time ago as stated above they have to prioritise resources. stopping motorist for speeding is a serious issue dont forget that every traffic officer by his /her mere presence on a motorway or busy road junction saves lifes , not anybodys life ultimately your familys life.

 

But there is a serious problem with the Police Force ...It's run by the Home Office and that is all political spin and they involve the public in it .

 

They involve the public in it to their ends.

 

During the election campaign they talk about cracking down on crime most memebers of the public if asked about repeat offenders would say put them in prison and throw away the key .

 

Only this week the governments answer to overcrowding prisons is to reduce sentencing .

 

The public ask for more visable Police on the street the govnerment introduce PCSO's . The idea itself is not bad to have a uniform presence the reality will be an army pf PCSO's ,who stand by and watch people drown because they can't be trusted to be near water ,they cannot arrest or report crime they are members of the public wearing uniforms.

 

Get used to it they are the answer to Policing on the cheap . Presently to join the regular Force the joining requirements are exceptionally low which is an indication in itself to the abilities of the average PCSO .

 

Police force of the future will be a few dedicated investigators who have never been experienced or capable uniformed Police Officers and a small core of uniformed response officers that attend more serious incidents.

 

Most other Police work will be conducted by PCSO's and civillians.

Civillians employed in Police rolls due to the low pay attracts poor quality staff ,it's not that civillians can't be trained to do an efficient job but the right type are not being recruited .

 

Presently the old Policeman who everybody wanted out of offices and back on the streets are being sent to control rooms because the majority of staff cannot read or write I kid you not, take down simple details of an incident are unable to work out where in the city the caller is because of total lack of knowledge and experience .

You cannot replace an experienced officer with a civillian .

 

Cost wise they seem to be employing three civillians to cover any role that was preciously performed by one police officer..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michelle and BDG are spot on with their comments. Because the politicians will do anything to get voted in none of them, of any party, will do anything to put up taxes. Because they know no matter how angry the public gets over the lack of police, losing fire engines, less rubbish collections and everything else we moan about, none of us are going to vote for someone who puts up your tax.

 

So it's easier to use people who can spin things to make the illusion that everythings alright, even when you know it aint!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

im all for safe driving but these speed limits were introduced in the fifties when cars didnt stop like they do now, housing estates yes 30 is in fact probably to fast what with all the parked cars kids playing you have to be very visualant. but the main roads where the police are targeting you go above 30 without noticing i drive a 3lt 4 wheel drive automatic and must confess to regularly looking down at the spedo and realizing im going to fast but dont feel im being dangerous or risking lives after all alot of the time i have my 3 kids in the car with me
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe the police, having spent time and trouble catching the van thief, know that he will be either: told off, let off with a caution or get a three week suspended jail sentence (later reduced to one week).

Whereas if they catch someone 'exceeding the limit' they are sure of a 'result'.

 

The word speeding is a bit misleading.

( Which is why,I believe, the charge is: exceeding the limit).

If you drive past a school at 35 mph on a weekday afternoon, that may be regarded by most people as speeding, and dangerous.

If you go past the same school at 35 mph at 3 a.m. on Sunday morning, that's 'exceeding the limit', but would you regard it as speeding ?

Same crime of course, but is the risk the same.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

K&D - 2007-10-05 2:04 PM

 

im all for safe driving but these speed limits were introduced in the fifties when cars didnt stop like they do now, housing estates yes 30 is in fact probably to fast what with all the parked cars kids playing you have to be very visualant. but the main roads where the police are targeting you go above 30 without noticing i drive a 3lt 4 wheel drive automatic and must confess to regularly looking down at the spedo and realizing im going to fast but dont feel im being dangerous or risking lives after all alot of the time i have my 3 kids in the car with me

 

 

Hi K & D - A few points in reply to your post:

 

1. These speed limits were introduced when traffic volumes began to increase rapidly, as economic prosperity began to build again after WW2, and more and more people started to by able to afford to buy motor cars.

Since then, traffic volumes on the roads in Britain have built up and built up and built up.

Nowadays, with the density of vehicles numbers on the roads there simply isn't the big amounts of space between vehicles that there was in the 1950's. Although the road network has been hugely expanded, the volume of motor vehicles using that network has expanded far far more, thus vehicle congestion is massive now.

Thus it seems to me even more important now, than then, to have speed limits which give drivers more chance to stop/avoid pileups/children running into the road etc.

 

2. You're quite right about the "not feeling" the speed that you are actually travelling at in a modern motor vehicle.

As manufacturers have improved the vehcicle drag coefficients, and improved noise and vibration dampening, so the senses of the humans inside the vehicle have become more and more isolated from the environment outside of it.

Once you become acclimatised to this 1 or 2 tonne steel "cocoon" that you are driving, you are lured into a totally false sense of security about the actual velocity at which that "cocoon" and all of you inside, is travelling.

 

As an experiment one day - drive your 3 litre four-wheel-drive automatic at (say) 30 mph for a while - then pop an open-face crash helmet on and hop straight onto the pillion of a friends motorcycle, and repeat the route at 30mph again. The difference really is astonishing!

When removed from the cocoon and exposed to the wind, the air flow etc, your brain re-learns very quickly that 30 mph is actually pretty fast.

 

Then ask the bike rider to accelerate up to 60mph for a while.

Watch how fast you REALLY pass by things that are close to you at the side of the road.

The reason I invite you (and everyone else) to do this experiment is that, if you were in your steel cocoon, travelling at "only" 30mph, and you were to hit something coming the other way, also travelling at "only" 30mph...........the actual impact speed would be DOUBLE, ie 60mph.

 

Please just think for a moment about what would happen to you, your adult passengers, your children as passengers, and the people in the other vehicle at that impact speed?

It would have exactly the same effects on your bodies, organs, bones, as if you drove into a solid stationary object (say a bridge support) at 60 mph.

The forces of inertia, regardless of seatbelts/airbags etc (which make you FEEL safer) are enough to snap bones like twigs, rupture organs, tear skin, muscle and sinews like paper - and that is BEFORE you then start to consider debris from the vehicle you've just hit coming at you through your windscreen into your faces and bodies as shrapnel at 60mph.

 

Now, all that I have described above would happen if you collided with an oncoming vehicle at 30 mph, (now 'cos every single one of us is at all times of the day and night the best driver that we know, let's assume it'll always be the other driver who's at fault, it'll always be the other car or lorry that has the front-wheel blowout and swerves into your path).

Then let's also assume that both your and the other driver were both thinking "30mph is such a stupidly low speed limit on this stretch of straight road, I'll edge up to 40mph 'cos I still feel safe in my steel cooon at that speed".

The speed at which you and the other vehicle now actually crash into each other - the impact speed - is now 80 mph. And remember, that impact is instantaneous.

Have you ever seen what's left of a car when it hits something solid at 80mph??? From 80mph to zero mph in the distance of the two vehicles crumple zones (say about 2 metres when added together).

That's enough deceleration to make eyeballs literally pop out. To rupture your heart, your kidneys, your bladder.

 

Please, actually go out and try the 30mph and then 60mph test on a bike, and then get the rider to accelerate further, to 70mph for a while, so you can really understand what hitting something at that impact speed or above would do to you and your families bodies.

.

It really is (or it should be for a lot of people) a total attitude-changer.

 

PLEASE, everyone, try the experiment. Find out by leaving your steel cocoon, and remind your brain what 30mph, and 60mph and 80mph are REALLY like as speeds to travel along our congested roads at.

 

Then I reckon you'll probably grasp the reason why to break those speed limits, and wilfully or negligently put your passengers, and everyone else on the road at needlessly great risk of death or serious injury, is a criminal offence.

 

Something like 3,000 people died on the roads in Britain last year; and tens ot thousands of adults and children were seriously injured.

Not a single one of them left the house that morning and got into their steel missiles thinking "I'm going to be killed today, or my body is going to be horribly mutilated by the massive risk I'm about to subject myself and my passengers to by driving this thing".

 

Maybe some food for thought.

 

Cheers,

 

Bruce.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BGD, Would you like to be Prime Minister? Your replies are so concise and explained in detail and are so right!

 

So if you want to I'll vote for you!

 

Seriously though I think if politicians cam and explained things like that then maybe, just maybe people would really think about these things.

 

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will try not to get onto my soap box over this as being a retired officer I could go on forever comparing today with yesterday. What I will say is that as far as I was always concerned and instucted my officers accordingly, is that EVERY Crime is as important as another to the person who is reporting it and the Police should respond as such. The 'little old lady' who has had her milk stolen believes her crime to be as serious as the shop keeper who has had, say, £30;00 stolen from his till, (could be robbery depending on the circumstances). He feels his crime to be as serious as the local car dealer who has had a £10,000 car stolen etc. etc.

Of course the police must prioritise, (Unless there are sufficient officers to send one to each crime). Those circumstance above I would have sent an officer to the eldery lady as a priority as she would be under more stress that the others and would need succour.

 

There was a paper exercse we used to give our recruits to assess how they would prioitise if they were the only officer on duty. If I remember correctly the 4 scenarios are; in no particular order.

 

1) A report from neighbours of a noisey possible violent row between the husband & wife in the next house.

2) A person has had their money stolen and can name the thief.

3) An intuder alarm sounding at a empty house.

4) A report of a person aged 21 years not return home from work.

 

In all the above the time is 20:30hrs. on the same day.

 

Which one would you do first??

 

Regards, Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are we supposed to choose one Mike? I hope this is not a trick question.

 

My choice is 1 because you could prevent a serious situation developing. The rest have happened and can wait a month or two!

Col

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Col, Yes No 1 is first response as most murders are domestic based. The others have 'happened' and will keep. We found that the majority of recruits went to the stolen money as thay said that they could make an arrest! I always felt that if I had to 'feel a collar' I had, perhaps failed in what I was trying to acheive.

 

Regards, Mike.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

K&D - 2007-10-04 8:18 PM at work yesterday i had a delivery of paint, stupid i know, but the driver left the engine running as he had had trouble starting it at his last drop. anyway with the driver still in the back of the van and me taking paint of at the rear some little swine drove off in the van. the driver dived out and with the doors open about 50 tins of paint fell out and burst open outside my shop on a busy road painting it white. funny now i know, police were phoned showed little interest never attended the crime sceme just simply gave the driver a crime number. point is today i have noticed at least 8 in different locations police cars with speed cameras all day trying to nick people going slightly over the speed limit and then being classed as criminals. when the real criminals can do as they like

The very simple answer here is that if you are caught speeding, then that's a "Tick in the box". You go down as a crime solved which in turn boosts the so called STATS, that crime is being solved.

I have 2 very close & good friends in the police, who have managed to move into the weapons section, because they are fed up with the paperwork associated with resolving a "Crime" statistic.

Thai

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With regard to PCSO's, yes, I think that they are a great idea. Their uniform is quite similar to that of a police officer so, at a quick glance, a villain may be deterred. Their limitations are only in place because of the PC brigade (not police) who have enforced over-stringent health and safety regulations, together with all other sorts of do' and don'ts. We live in a world of litigation now and the slightest mistake or perceived mistake made by an individual no matter how good his/her intentions can lead to a law suit. I am required in my job to be a first aider and regularly re-qualify. Not so long back I was involved in a CPR situation on a guy who had hanged himself. Well I knew from the start that the guy was dead but CPR was applied until a doctor certified his death. Had he been alive and my efforts had say, broken a rib which punctured a lung and caused irreparable damage, I could well have ended up in court. Would I apply my training in a situation outside of my job? I'm not sure. After all, if I were to help an RTA victim for example, and I made the slightest error of judgment, I could end up being sued. What I am saying is, the PCSO's at the scene of the drowning child may have been morally wrong in what they did but their standard of training precluded them from assisting. Further, if they were to be trained to a much higher standard then the cost would be the same as training a police constable.

 

Many years ago whilst under the employment of Mrs Windsor and in Germany, I was advised during first aid training, to pass by any incident I may come across. As a human being this is very difficult, but as a logical thinker, the possibility of losing everything I have through a lawsuit will make me think of self preservation first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am also a First Aider through my work and have been qualified since I was a Boy Scout many years ago. It is almost impossible to ignore any situation where your skills are needed but the main thing to remember is that 'good faith' will always be taken as a defence in any litigation brought against you. My First Aid instructors at my re qualifying sessions ( every 3rd year) despair when I alway say I will place a torniquet on a wound as that is not taught today, but they have the grace to admit that as I have been trained in the use of one, albeit a long time ago, I could 'get away with using one'.

I have a problem, to some, in that I never worry about the risk and always use my common sense and logic.

 

Regards, Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

K&D - 2007-10-04 8:18 PM

 

at work yesterday i had a delivery of paint, stupid i know, but the driver left the engine running as he had had trouble starting it at his last drop. anyway with the driver still in the back of the van and me taking paint of at the rear some little swine drove off in the van. the driver dived out and with the doors open about 50 tins of paint fell out and burst open outside my shop on a busy road painting it white. funny now i know, police were phoned showed little interest never attended the crime sceme just simply gave the driver a crime number. point is today i have noticed at least 8 in different locations police cars with speed cameras all day trying to nick people going slightly over the speed limit and then being classed as criminals. when the real criminals can do as they like

 

i feel the the title should be (whats wrong with the driver)

i have delivered goods to supermarkets for over 27 years, and know that should you leave the keys in the ignition, your van will get nicked at some time, yes he had problems, but most firms have roadside assistance.

 

we would have been sacked, he should also have to pay for the clear up.

 

anyone who steals a van or car in these cicumstances is in a flight situation, and could possibly kill or mame someone during their escape.

pete

Link to comment
Share on other sites

K&D - 2007-10-06 6:54 PM

 

in all fairness he was an agency worker and was instructed to leave the engine running, the van was going in the next day for repairs, and he wasnt the one that commited the crime

 

 

 

Really??

 

His employers actually told him to break the law??

And so he did so. And thus he actually did commit an offence.

 

Of course that's what he as the driver would say to anyone who asked him at the scene after the event, but do I find that really difficult to believe.

 

In both employment law, and criminal, law, an unlawful instruction from an employer does not have to be complied with , and indeed should not be complied with.

 

It would be a very very stupid employer who would ever even consider telling their emplyee (or agency emplyee agent) to commit an offence.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I too am a qualified first aider and as far as I understand it if you are giving first aid and you are qualified, the presumption would be that you were doing it correctly and so you couldn't get sued because you were trying to save a life. The fact you broke a rib or two means that you were most likely doing it correctly anyway!

 

The only bit of the CPR I wouldn't do is mouth 2 mouth without a mask, and even then I would think twice! The chances of catching Hep. B are quite high in the UK never mind any other STDs!

 

In France you can be prosecuted for not helping even if you are not qualified.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BGD - 2007-10-06 8:16 PM

 

K&D - 2007-10-06 6:54 PM

 

in all fairness he was an agency worker and was instructed to leave the engine running, the van was going in the next day for repairs, and he wasnt the one that commited the crime

 

 

 

Really??

 

His employers actually told him to break the law??

And so he did so. And thus he actually did commit an offence.

 

Of course that's what he as the driver would say to anyone who asked him at the scene after the event, but do I find that really difficult to believe.

 

In both employment law, and criminal, law, an unlawful instruction from an employer does not have to be complied with , and indeed should not be complied with.

 

It would be a very very stupid employer who would ever even consider telling their emplyee (or agency emplyee agent) to commit an offence.

 

 

bruce maybe we should have given the thief who set off with the driver in the back of the van at great speed then mounted the curb to avoid congestion not giving two sh1ts who was in is way a big pat on the back

Link to comment
Share on other sites

K&D - 2007-10-07 10:23 AM

 

BGD - 2007-10-06 8:16 PM

 

K&D - 2007-10-06 6:54 PM

 

in all fairness he was an agency worker and was instructed to leave the engine running, the van was going in the next day for repairs, and he wasnt the one that commited the crime

 

 

 

Really??

 

His employers actually told him to break the law??

And so he did so. And thus he actually did commit an offence.

 

Of course that's what he as the driver would say to anyone who asked him at the scene after the event, but do I find that really difficult to believe.

 

In both employment law, and criminal, law, an unlawful instruction from an employer does not have to be complied with , and indeed should not be complied with.

 

It would be a very very stupid employer who would ever even consider telling their emplyee (or agency emplyee agent) to commit an offence.

 

 

bruce maybe we should have given the thief who set off with the driver in the back of the van at great speed then mounted the curb to avoid congestion not giving two sh1ts who was in is way a big pat on the back

 

Hi K & D.

 

No I don't think you should; and I don't think you actually believe that yourself - if you've read my earlier comments further up this thread.

 

But I was responding specifically to your post in which you recounted that the driver had told you his employers had told him to break the law himself.

His commiting that offence of leaving the drivers seat with the keys in the ignition and the engine running whilst parked on a public highway; and thus his contributory negligence were clearly factors in this particular case.

 

Your OP didn't include all the relevant details relating to this case that subsequently you added in later posts.

If one were only to read the OP, one would draw conclusions very different to those one can now draw, now that a far more complete picture which has emerged once you added additional details.

 

The thief clearly committed an offence. And so did the van driver with his actions whilst responsible for his employers property.

 

Cheers,

 

Bruce.

 

:-D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

cheers bruce, but i cant agree with you whether it be the law or not that the driver did anything wrong apart from in hindsight he should have stopped at the door or i should of while the paint was unloaded, but hindsight is a wonderfull thing. but i can asure you as an eye witness he was instructed to leave the van running and no blame was attatched to him by jonstones paint
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...