How senior is the officer who decides on a caution for offences of (presumably) criminal damage and theft from a motor vehicle?
|
How senior is the officer who decides on a caution for offences of (presumably) criminal damage and theft from a motor vehicle?
Custody Sergeant makes decision on whether to charge or not (send to court) in consultation with CPS, having regard to a Threshold Test set by the CPS. If no charge, then caution or NFA. Officer authorising caution has to be Inspector.
Attorney General's Guidelines brought this in 20 odd years ago. Since then CPS has come into the equation as well.
If you charge something that 'should' have been cautioned, CPS will send it back for a caution. It get's anomalous if the Insp still refuses to auth a caution (because he/she feels a charge is more appropriate) and the CPS has recommended it...the only way forward then would be NFA....so often caution's are done under sufferance to at least have something to show for it.
|
I asked the question because so much to do with cars appears so inflexible: you run a light or get flashed for speeding and the fine and points come pretty well automatically through the post.
Whereas if someone takes a brick to your car they may get cautioned or even be subject to no further action (NFA?).
While I believe that a caution creates a criminal record, I'm not convinced that matters to an individual prepared to take a brick to your car. And while in the spectrum of offences going through terrorism and murder, criminal damage may not be too important it is, IMHO, more worthy of pursuit and punitive action than piddling traffic offences.
But these get pursued largely because we have the technology with ANPR and all the rest to do it. So, really, it's not surprising the poor old driver feels a bit pressed.
Edited by Optimist on 28/04/2009 at 16:19
|
|
|
|
Same in Nottingham, capture car captures bonehead. Big publicity appealling for public to identify miscreant. Goes to court and gets let off despite 22 other convictions because at 37 he is "too long in the tooth to be locked up". I smell an election and it looks as though they are trying to keep as many of their voters out of jail.
www.thisisnottingham.co.uk/news/Notts-wanted-spare...l
|
>> trying to keep as many of their voters out of jail.
Tee hee Hamsafar. I never realised.
So all we have to do to see a change of government is 'apply the full rigour of the law' to all miscreants, is that it?
Sometimes this goes right to the top. Sarko is trying to get Jacques Chirac busted again, and I have high hopes that some of George W Bush's gang of criminals will get their collars felt soon.
|
|
So its really not ' serious crime " to bounce half a brick off a car window a dozen times . To the person who bears the brunt of the cost through either increased insurance premium or forking out for the replacement glass, it's serious enough.
|
|
Mr X......Terrorism, Murder, Rape, Armed Robbery, Kidnap, Criminal Damage to Motor Vehicle.....which is the odd one out?
|
|
I've told you this before. To the bloke struggling to make ends, meet, whose car is their life line to keeping their job, whose family circumstances mean they end every week in a negative monetary position, the damage to a vehicle that puts pressure on them and their personal finances is every bit as serious. I find your willingness to dismiss such things, especially in regards to the position you hold, nauseating.
|
I find your willingness to dismiss such things especially in regards to the position you hold nauseating.
Mr X,
Once again you have got it from the wrong angle. I have not said or hinted that i agree with cautioning. In fact i'm mostly against it... (there are occasions when it works e.g. someone does something foolish whilst drunk, like some minor damage...sobers up, pays for the damage... and continues the rest of their life without a conviction. How many of us here haven't done something daft when we were teenagers/students?)...because a number of people really do need to sit before a court AND have some meaningful punishment.
My post, above, covering the cautions...was to be informative and explain the procedure... and show how most of it was beyond the control of the police i.e. Attorney General Guidelines and CPS...because....the O.P.'s post could have been interpreted that it seemed odd that police would go to all the trouble of setting up a decoy car, only then to caution someone. The Govt in the past have set up the system for cautioning and then introduced the CPS system.
Please make an effort to get the facts right.... and i hope you've sorted out your nausea.
|
Mr X could I recommend a little light reading? Its called 'Wasting Police Time' by PC David Copperfield.
It puts a rather realistic angle on Policing in this country. Your nausea may have settled by the time you have read the book and had a little chuckle.
|
When you have read 'Wasting Police Time', then "Perverting the course of Justice" by Inspector Gadget gives the views of a police Inspector.
Then you will really know how things are and who you need to tackle.
|
|
|
|
On another front
tinyurl.com/cn5yzx
better than a caution I suppose but should it carries a maximum sentence of 7 years , so a 3 stretch should have been imposed.
Not impressed with the ' broke down in tears bit " during the court hearing. Manipulation right to the very end by some one who hoped to gain a lighter sentence.
|
Mr X, I'm afraid your view does not agree with mine. Violence directed against a person will (and always should be) rated as a higher crime than damage to a car or similar.
I've had cars damaged and stolen from the street, and I've been attacked in the street. I can barely remember the colour of the cars concerned, but I can remember almost every detail of the attack. It was 22 years ago.
|
|
Some forces have just used cars with the interior door handles disconnected but another force had a car thief who specialized in XR2s(some time ago);the police parked one in the area he was known to operate in but the only car available for surveillance wasn't fast enough.
|
|
|
|
Not dismissing violence as unimportant but everything is a matter of scale and personal circumstances. To some of the backrooms millionaires, it's just a £100 window and will come out the back pockets spending money. To those on very tight budgets, it could well mean car off the road or back to getting the bus.
|
To some of the backrooms millionaires
As far as I know there aren't any... your proof is? Or are you confusing being careful with money with being rich, in which case I suppose I'm guilty...
To those on very tight budgets it could well mean car off the road or back to getting the bus.
I accept that it may be the final straw, but if money is really that tight I'm surprised they can afford to run a car *properly* in the first place...
|
To some of the backrooms millionaires
As far as I know there aren't any... >>
b308 - you have bitten. Search the forum, you will find that the bait has been there but ignored until now!
|
|
|
'but if money is really that tight I'm surprised they can afford to run a car *properly* in the first place..."
Well be surprised. It is possible to run a car on a tight budget. However, although you may factor in the need to have money put a side for road going repairs, it's a sad state of affairs to have to have money put aside for wanton and deliberate damage, caused by people who are apprehended and merely cautioned for the offence. There are some who seem to think that such damage is unavoidable - I don't.
|
'but if money is really that tight I'm surprised they can afford to run a car *properly* in the first place..." Well be surprised. It is possible to run a car on a tight budget.
Up until recently I did run a car on a tight budget and I always put aside about £250 each year for the "unexpected", if nothing happenned then it went forward to the next year... but it could be used for all sorts of things... a stone breaking the windscreen for instance, or vandalism...
I don't agree that they should get off scot free, MrX, and like you I feel that the punishments aren't strong enough (that Aussie idea sounds good!), but the repair costs of a person breaking into a car should be affordable for someone who runs a car, if it isn't then I'd say that they couldn't afford to run it properly in the first place. TBH many people can't afford to run a car properly but continue to run them, hence many of the deathtraps we see...
Edited by b308 on 28/04/2009 at 17:31
|
' TBH many people can't afford to run a car properly but continue to run them, hence many of the deathtraps we see..."
Which leaves the roads clear for the rich and privileged, some thing which our govt seems determined to achieve.
Of course no one wants to see death traps on our roads but what if you had £100 put aside for new front tyres only to have to go and spend that money replacing a window the week previously because the punishments for criminal damage to other peoples property is so low and some see it as not worthy of court action or even detection.
I find it worrying that with the video evidence provided, W.Y.P couldn't secure a conviction .
Hardly worth the bother running such an operation, which is not a cheap option by any means, if it can't gain a conviction with evidence like that seen in the video.
|
' TBH many people can't afford to run a car properly but continue to run them hence many of the deathtraps we see..." Which leaves the roads clear for the rich and privileged some thing which our govt seems determined to achieve. Of course no one wants to see death traps on our roads but what if you had £100 put aside for new front tyres only to have to go and spend that money replacing a window
Tyres are part and parcel of normal running costs for a car, not the "unexpected"...
I agree, NC, that there are not the numbers there were in the 60s, but there are still lots around, caused due to scrimping on servicing and consumables, but they are not as noticable as they were because the bodywork tends to last better than it used to...
|
Tyres are part and parcel of normal running costs for a car not the "unexpected"...
>
Have you never heard of non repairable punctures?
Or even worse when some mindless prat decides its good fun to stick a knife in all your tyres?
running a car on a tight budget can be done, but there are unexpected things that can get in the way of the best planning....
|
As an example of "unexpected" I said vandalism, Tony, and yes, a blowout would also fall into that catagory... but normal wear and tear on a vehicle... which includes most tyre purchases... is not "unexpected", is it?
And the point I was making was that to run a car properly and safely you should also allow for the unexpected over and above servicing and consumables... but many people don't...
|
>>hence many of the deathtraps we see...
No - never have there been so few bangers on the road.
It's a telling indictment of today's poor society. ;-)
30, 40, 50 years ago, yes, there were real deathtraps, but, not so many now.
|
30 40 50 years ago yes there were real deathtraps but not so many now.
True, been there, done that. Not 50 years ago though, that was my dad!
Edited by Old Navy on 28/04/2009 at 17:43
|
|
|
There are two different arguments here. One is about police crime priorities - obviously serious crimes should go straight to the head of the queue - and the other is about the apparently lenient treatment given to small-time toerags who selfishly damage property for the sake of a fiver or tenner profit.
Clearly this must be more than irksome to people trying to make an honest living in high-crime areas. They (and the abrasive Mr X) can be forgiven for wanting to see these offences properly discouraged. I doubt if many here would disagree actually. The problem though is how these anti-social, despicable behaviours are to be discouraged really effectively in the society we have given ourselves.
Most of us here would feel very uncomfortable if we had long petty crime records, ASBOs, unpaid fines and so on and were, er, 'known to police'. Unfortunately quite large numbers of our fellow-citizens are used to it. It's a dispiriting spectacle to one of my age, but some here are young enough to be... used to it.
|
(and the abrasive Mr X) >>
;-) IMO., somewhat more than abrasive going by the number of edits made by the Mods in this thread:
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=74270&...f
:-0
|
We've all been censored in our time for intemperate comments or provocative choice of words jbif...
:o}
|
We've all been censored in our time for intemperate comments or provocative choice of words jbif... :o} >>
A fine or caution is OK for the likes of you & me, Lud. But the punishment should be more than a caution, according to Mr Cross!
Hang him, he would say, applying his own rules.
Edited by jbif on 28/04/2009 at 17:03
|
|
Ist offence - Stocks
2nd offence - birch
3rd offence - execution
Third offenders fate to be shown nightly on tv after the weather on the late evening news.
Bet it would get better ratings than "Britains got celebrity ice dancers with talent" or whatever. What's more it'd work.
;-)
|
|
I quite fancy street-cleaning chain gangs, give the place the look of civic pride I noticed in Australia, I do believe the element of morale in all of this is grossly underrated. The country's in a depression, not economic but psychic.
|
I quite fancy street-cleaning chain gangs give the place the look of civic pride I noticed in Australia
We have lost it with punishment in the UK. The Aussies have it right. I saw orange overalled teenagers laying a stone slab, (big and heavy), path to a viewpoint in sweltering heat. On enquiring was told by their supervisors, "The local bad boys and girls on payback".
Edited by Old Navy on 28/04/2009 at 17:10
|
|
So in a series of chess type moves, we have gone from looking at the failure to prosecute a wanton act of damage to car to some how saying that people who can't afford to repair such damage shouldn't be on the roads. Amazing.
|
So in a series of chess type moves we have gone from looking at the failure to prosecute a wanton act of damage to car to some how saying that people who can't afford to repair such damage shouldn't be on the roads. Amazing.
Two seperate issues, MrX... and I kept to the OP subject as well as commenting on the other issue...
Edited by b308 on 28/04/2009 at 19:02
|
Must say I agree with the OP, it's not only the glass that might have to be replaced in a case like this but the door panel and rubber seals also.
I don't think a caution would worry the young sir featured even a little. This was no nervous 1st timer but someone who was fully aware of the methods normally used and prepared to try each of them until access was gained.
Work party would be an excellent punishment!
|
|
Yes, I forgot to mention to those who may not have watched the video ( worth a look ) he tries various methods as well as the brick in order to gain entry. There must be damage to the trim and body at the bottom edge of the window, as well.
|
The video doesn't work.
It's the first .wmv I've played (successfully) in Linux!
|
|
For once Mr. X I have to agree with some of your sentiments. I'm not going to defend cautioning outright but it might help if you fully understood why it's used. Firstly, there can be no caution without a full admission of guilt. A caution is a conviction (and the Police have the offender in the system with fingerprints, photo and DNA, for future benefit). It can normally only be given for a first offence, in exceptional circumstances a second time, but rarely. Most (No, not all, most) offenders do not re-offend, the caution diverts them from court saving time and money in producing files, mounting the prosecution case, court time etc. Having said all this you must understand that countless cautions are given that Police officers would not want to give, but they must follow Government guidelines. There is no choice. The criminal justice system is extremely expensive and there is not limitless money to keep more offenders in prison. Whether it is cheaper to pay for damaged windows or pay extra taxes for prison upkeep I really don't know, but I suspect that's the choice.
|
Woodster wrote: 'A caution is a conviction.'
www.homeoffice.gov.uk/police/powers/cautioning/
Quote: 'A caution is not a conviction, but it will be recorded on the police database.'
Woodster,
I don't take issue with your post, but anyone thinking of accepting a police caution should know that it is not a conviction.
Edited by ifithelps on 28/04/2009 at 19:35
|
At the end of the day, is the person receiving a caution going to think long and hard before undertaking another criminal act or are they going to see it as a let off ?
If it's the latter, then time to put a stop to issuing them for this type of crime which I regard as serious but which some others don't.
|
If it's the latter then time to put a stop to issuing them for this type of crime which I regard as serious but which some others don't.
As I understand it you class it as serious because it badly affects someone who is under financial strain. Surely that must rank much lower than 'traditional' serious crimes (murder, rape etc.) whose effects do not depend on the financial circumstances of the victim? If not, which crimes wouldn't you class as serious?
|
This man has eight previous convictions for house burglary with no mention of the number of burglaries taken into account at each court appearance.
I wonder how many of the sitting judges have the experience of being burgled?
They, presumably. will have the benefit of much better burglary protection than the typically burgled residents.
Chain gang sentences seem a good idea to me.
|
...I wonder how many of the sitting judges have the experience of being burgled?...
Quite a few, but they are rich and are usually done by the few remaining professional burglars who target high-value premises, leave no trace and are rarely caught.
The burglars you routinely see in court are the drunk, drug addicted losers who lob a brick through a window, leave blood and prints all over the scene and are easier to catch than a cold.
|
|
a Caution is a temporary conviction, in effect... it lies on file for 5 years and can be referred to if you transgress again..however you don't have to disclose it for most (not all) job applications, visas to travel, etc
|
a Caution is a temporary conviction in effect... it lies on file for 5 years and can be referred to if you transgress again..however you don't have to disclose it for most (not all) job applications visas to travel etc
No 100% accurate AFAIK (family member was cautioned with myself present)
I was told that the caution stays on record until the person is 99 years of age - but is not acted upon after the 5 years period - and the reason for the caution (ie type of crime) also has some bearing on the need for disclosure re job applications etc.
|
never heard that 'swiss'....the 99 years bit is definitely not the case. Cautions should come off the system after the 5 years are up.
|
I dont wish to teach my (deceased) grandmother to suck eggs...nor argue with a Police officer regarding the law.... BUT
tinyurl.com/cbdbxc
''A caution is not a criminal conviction, so if you are asked whether you have any previous convictions you may say no. However, the police will retain records of your caution in the Police National Computer. This record will normally be stepped down after 5 years but will never be deleted.''
Edited by the swiss tony on 28/04/2009 at 20:58
|
|
Yep, family member was cautioned (for something considerably less harmful than demolishing someone's personal transport) and was told it comes off the system in 5 years.
|
|
Put it into legal perspective - Rehabilitation of Offender Act 19?? decrees that a Caution will be considered as "spent" as soon as its administered - however it remains on PNC as long as you live and although you don't have to declare it as a "conviction" in many cases there are exceptions - such as Firearms Act applications and for certain categories of work.
|
sq
Which is what I said - 'I was told that the caution stays on record until the person is 99 years of age - but is not acted upon after the 5 years period' more or less...
Edited by Pugugly on 28/04/2009 at 21:09
|
I've just copied this from Home Office Circular 30/2005, headed Cautioning of Adult Offenders:
31. Simple Cautions must be entered on the Police National Computer (PNC) if they have been given for a recordable offence. Under the current ACPO Rules, Simple Cautions should be removed from the PNC after 5 years, provided there are no convictions on the record and no further Simple or Conditional Cautions have been given, except where the caution is accompanied by an "offends against vulnerable person" information marker. Under the new Retention Guidelines such records will be kept for longer periods of time. Non police users of PNC will have their access to the data restricted after a specific period of time. The time period will be determined by the nature of the offence rather than the vulnerability of the victim.
|
www.homeoffice.gov.uk/about-us/publications/home-o.../
this one's more up to date....and you have to read it in conjunction with ACPO Guidelines
in a nutshell Swiss Tony is mostly correct...
there are 3 different categories of offence 'A', 'B' and 'C'. 'A' is the more serious and 'C' the least. They all stay on the PNC (Police National Computer) until the person is deemed to be 100 years old.... 1 year out Tony...:-)
'A' category offences cautioned remain on PNC for 10 years, then "step down"
'B' for 5 years
'C' for 5 years
"step down" means they stay on the PNC, but only the police can have access to them. Prior to the above system the cautions were removed completely after 5 years if the person had no other previous convictions. So if they had a conviction and a caution, the caution would remain on the system with the conviction.
I'm happy to stand corrected.
|
I'm happy to stand corrected.
As am I when Im wrong! Im sure i was told 99, but that hardly matters!
Thats the problem with the law of course... its constantly changing, and totally impossible to keep 100% up to date with.
BTW, thats one fact, I would rather not known, seeing a relative on the wrong side of a cell door isnt something one wants to see!
|
|
Ifithelps - I think we're arguing a point of semantics here. If a conviction can only be acquired in court then a caution is not a conviction. But what practical difference is there? I'd disagree with Westpig as most job applications now ask for cautions and convictions. It stays on PNC for life but can be disregarded under certain circumstances as can many 'proper' convictions under the rehabilitation of offenders act. Quotable in subsequent court proceedings and evidence of bad character. I'd say there's little difference.
|
..Ifithelps - I think we're arguing a point of semantics here...
Inclined to agree, but I know which one I'd rather have, and I bet you do, too.
|
|
In my book a caution is not a punishment.... so argue away.
|
I take on board your comments HJ. I find the Westpig character extremely abrasive ( note they found the need to argue the toss with swisstony's posts on this thread ) and would dearly like them to stay away from my posts but as this is an open board, I presume I must put up with their attempts to shout down my offerings.
Please lock the thread now that they have done their usual damage.
|
..by Westpig and by midlifecrisis were very enlightening until they gave up in exasperation at the continued attempts by Mr X to turn it into an argument...
HJ,
Whichever you look at it, the early posts by Westpig and, - I think you mean Woodster, not midlifecrisis - on the caution were off the mark.
I didn't think anyone on here was above being corrected and it's a bit unfair to characterise that as being argumentative.
All in my opinon, of course, which I imagine might be about to be corrected. :)
|
I always get the blame!! :)
Mr X, if you don't want to buy 'Wasting Police time', take a look at this instead.
inspectorgadget.wordpress.com/
Edited by midlifecrisis on 29/04/2009 at 09:54
|
I'm not in the early posts!
Yes, I guess I'd rather have the caution than try my hand at court IF I knew I was guilty.
Moving on, and trying to gauge others opinion, I'm quite happy to have firm discussion on here with most of the contributors, and quite happy to be corrected. That's partly what the forum is for isn't it? I tend to respond less to certain contributors posts, and only do so with those I think will respond in an adult fashion. The mods reserve the right to moderate but I resist the temptation to join in with the puerile and so self moderate!
|
Whichever you look at it the early posts by Westpig and - I think you mean Woodster not midlifecrisis - on the caution were off the mark.
I can't really see how, I found their posts explaining how the system worked most enlightenning...
This post by MrX got rather lost amongst the rest, and, tbh, its probably the key to the whole issue:
>>At the end of the day, is the person receiving a caution going to think long and hard
>>before undertaking another criminal act or are they going to see it as a let off ?
>>If it's the latter, then time to put a stop to issuing them for this type of crime which I
>>regard as serious but which some others don't."
I think that the little dig at the end was unneccssary, but the rest of the post makes an excellent point, and its the one thing that the Government need to address if they are to prove that they are "fighting to reduce crime"...
If the criminal feels that the punishment is just an "occupational hazard" (shades of "Porridge"!) then they will continue to do it but if they see the punishment as sufficient to deter them they will not do it again... There are probably some crminals around who will continue anyhow, but I strongly feel that a large percentage would change their ways...
But what should be the punishment? I'd suggest the Aussie way mentioned would be a good start, but I expect the Unions would scupper that one as it would be taking work away from their members!
Edited by b308 on 29/04/2009 at 10:09
|
I lived in an area where vandalism and car related crime were an almost daily occurrence. It's incredible how much less tolerant you become to such things when you have to live with them day in, day out. When every noise outside wakes you up in the night and you find yourself running to the window to check that your car is still in the state you left it. When a group of youths shouting noisily in the distance gives you that stab of dread in the pit of your stomach. This is daily, routine life for many people in the UK, and I don't believe it is taken seriously by government, or the police.
That said, I am intelligent enough to appreciate that the police have finite resources, and that they must prioritise more serious crimes, particularly those where someone has been assaulted or killed. The problem that few in power seem to grasp is that the neglect or "tolerance" of so-called petty crime (it's anything but petty in reality and I agree with Mr. X on that), turns a type of crime that genuinely makes life hell for a proportion of the population into a self-perpetuating problem. Chav does a grand's worth of damage to a parked car. Chav gets a laugh and the perverse current teenage interpretation of "respect" from his mates. Consequences for chav from the legal system = nil. Chav does a grand's worth of damage to another parked car. Etc etc... It's not rocket science.
Where I live now, one thing has happened to any car in our street ever in five years, and the local police were ace - they caught and arrested the kids who did it, and made them apologise in person to the owners of affected cars. It's easy from here to shrug and say it's not a problem, or there are bigger priorities, but if you've ever been on the receiving end of these little scrotes' actions, it's not that easy.
This is the fault of parents, government and the legal system far more than the police, but at the end of the day the police are there to solve crime and deter criminals from committing crime. There is a whole spectrum of crime in this country at which, for whatever reason, they are completely ineffective. That's not having a pop at anyone, but a simple fact. It's clearly not the fault of the individual officer who is out there, but management and government must acknowledge the issue.
It's no consolation to the poor sod who parks his car outside his house of an evening, to find it trashed in the morning, and to get nothing more than a crime reference number and a photocopied letter through the post offering counselling a few days later. I've been there, and trust me it makes even the most straight, hard working, law abiding citizen start to question the point of playing by the rules.
Rant over! :-)
Cheers
DP
Edited by DP on 29/04/2009 at 10:03
|
I`ve known people who have been absolutely desperate with finances and trying to keep a roof over their heads and a car for their job. Suicidal in fact and that`s been on the referral to me (to the Community Mental Health Team) from their GP.
A brick through their car window could be the final straw - and writing as a retired mental health social worker and team leader - I can tell you there is a lot more of that than often realized.
Criminal damage to a car can be as serious for some people as to another suffering physical harm (and yes, I`ve dealt with that too) you just can`t tell the risk to them other than by detailed and skilled risk assessment. Even then...
So although I`ve never agreed with MrX yet and typically avoid his posts - he does have a valid point in his early posts on this thread about the impact a broken window can have.
|
|
I agree oilrag, One of my daughters was struggling financially with a new first flat, and an old car needed to get to work. When a brick was put through the car rear window it could have been a serious problem if not for the bank of mum and dad. Not everyone has this backup. Must have done her some good though, she has just put a big extension on her current house!
|
but at the end of the day the police are there to solve crimeand deter criminals from committing crime.
Quite right. Unfortunately, peoples expectations far surpass that and it has a significant impact on what the Police can provide.
If we could stop being a surrogate parent, social worker, dog warden. housing official, teacher, marriage guidance councillor etc etc, then the Police would have far more time to actually deal with crime.
|
..then the Police would have far more time....
The obvious answer is employ more police officers.
It's my answer, too.
I would happily pay a good few quid in extra tax to achieve it.
I have a dream sometimes - it involves having a couple of Robocops in every division.
|
The way some of these posts evolve amazes me sometimes. You post facts to add to a debate, to inform people, so they can have a bigger picture view...then get put into a particular 'camp' with a presumption you agree/disagree with a certain angle of the debate, when in reality that is far from the truth.
I happen to think the Criminal Justice System is virtually on its' knees when you consider the more minor crime (and 'yes' damage to a motor vehicle is minor crime). It annoys me greatly that there are insufficient resources do deal with some things (it can be better in rural areas) when the scum of the earth continually get away with these things, with in effect no penalty, because nothing less than jail counts to them. A good friend of mine is a Magistrate...and we have exactly the same discussions. I suspect my views are virtually the same as Martin Devon's, (before he gets them moderated)..:-)... and I sometimes agree with the sentiment's of Mr X to start with...then he ruins it by 'going off on one' or through lack of thought/knowledge or lateral thinking, blaming those who have little or no control of the issue.
I post in depth comment on here to be informative.. and sometimes.. to show that the blame is often not the fault of my organisation...because despite knowing it is a far from perfect outfit, nothing is, I don't see why the 'armchair lawyers' shouldn't be informed, so they can send their vitriol to the correct place...(and that vitriol is often echoed by me personally, my wife, all my immediate family/friends, etc).
Out of respect for this site..and the fact it should remain with motoring... i'll call it quits.
|
Westpig.
Please don't do a Bell Boy and disappear (even temporarily).
I, and no doubt many others on this forum, value and respect your contributions and opinions, even if we don't always agree.
I've followed this thread, but haven't contributed until now. I try to keep out of this type of 'discussion'.
I believe the best way to deal with ill-informed, self-opinionated bigots, is to give them the facts and let them wallow in their own mire.
|
Westpig,
I don't know if mine was one of the posts which annoyed you, but that wasn't my intention. I wasn't having a pop at the police, just trying to express my exasperation at the current situation.
Cheers
DP
|
Westpig.
I and no doubt many others on this forum value and respect your contributions and opinions even if we don't always agree.
Seconded
|
Please don't do a Bell Boy and disappear (even temporarily).
sorry...could have been more specific...I meant i wouldn't keep blahing on about it on this thread.
|
I was going to respond to mlc above (teachers, wardens, carers etc) but got side tracked.
I think a lot of the problem is Chief Police Officers who have gone along with the pink and fluffy nonsense in order to show they're made of the right stuff. They have a "President" of their "Association". What? What's that all about?
Then, like nineteenth-rate politicians, they spin crime stats in their areas until you go dizzy trying to understand them.
I could go on but it'd have nothing much to do with cars. I know WP wants people to write to their MPs. I do wonder to what extent he and his colleagues actually stand up in their own forces and say very loudly and very clearly where they see things going wrong.
I, no more than anyone else, know what the answer is to the problem of a little yob who damages a car to steal from it. But I am clear that it isn't treating the vast majority of drivers as if they were speed-crazed nutters who have to be observed and tracked everywhere they go.
Edited by Optimist on 29/04/2009 at 13:40
|
. But I am clearthat it isn't treating the vast majority of drivers as if they were speed-crazed nutters who have to be observed and tracked everywhere they go.
I'm a Traffic Officer now. Surprisingly enough, we do nothing of the sort! This is contrary to the Daily Mail wailings that seem to pervade this forum on regular occasions. 90% of my time is spent dealing with crime. (My motorway unit made 2000 arrests last year, this is down from 3000 the previous year because we've stopped counting non-crime arrests such as illegal immigrants and others which don't result in a charge). The prisons are overflowing and the criminals didn't put themselves there.
As for challenging the current nonsense that comes from on high. The odious Tony Mcnulty when he was a Home Office minister challenged officers to send him examples of ridiculous policy and procedure. I did, as did a good number of my colleagues. Never heard another thing.
|
I would have been surprised MLC if you had received a reply!
Unfortunately there is a lot of frustration out here in the real world and when either you or one of your colleagues pops your head above the parapet, someone will take a shot, doesn't mean that we don't value the fact that you do.
The more interaction there is between people the more understanding there is of other situations.
|
I have said this before but I have full respect for the police in our country, yes there are bad apples, the same as any other job / industry.
I could not do the job day in / day out dealing with the same people, arresting them, then arresting them again and again. It must be so infuriating that it would result in stress. I wonder how much of the absence rate is due to mental demands of the job???
I used to work in a supermarket and daily dealt with shoplifters. We had one that we must have caught at least 30 times. Police would come, take him away and he would either be processed and released , or appeared next day in court. It was a bonus if you caught him on a Friday as that would at least mean he was locked up till the Monday.
Going back to Mr X's point, does this shoplifter feel punished? Of course he doesn't. What else do we do though? Lock him up - how much does it cost to keep someone in jail now - I would guess a good few hundred a week if not a grand? Community Service - that is open to abuse and of course, they are free to do what they want in their own time.
So if we lock them up, how do we get better value from them? Chain gangs? Bring them out each day and get them to do community stuff, paint fences, etc? No doubt this will contravene all their human rights? Up here in Scotland there is a huge payout to every prisoner who was in Barlinnie prison and had to "slop out" as this contravened some Human Right. So not only does it cost to bang them up in prison and keep them fed and watered, they then got (I think) about £1500 compensation!!!!
The world has gone mad, we are a world worked by spin, stats and people saying the right things for self preservation and self interest.
|
I don't doubt that what mlc says is entirely accurate. More power to his elbow.
When I posted earlier in this thread I was pointing up the fact that because of ANPR, speed cams and so on, motorists are soft targets who can be "policed" by machines. And the assumption is that cars are a bad thing.
So there is a proposal to reduce speed limits and so road deaths. That's fact and previously debated on here.
There's a school near me for tiny kids. Road humps and flashing lights on both sides of the approach. The kids are never outside the school on their own and only cross the road with parents twice a day, 5 days a week, forty weeks of the year. But the humps are there all the time.
Like everyone else I drive through roadworks "policed" by average speed cams. Sometimes there isn't another car or a workman as far as the eye can see. How does making me maintain 50 at that point benefit anyone?
I wonder if mlc thinks we'd be a lot worse off if we spent the time and effort used in "policing" motorists in catching criminals?
Edited by Optimist on 29/04/2009 at 15:01
|
The whole system is too lenient.
You tend not to get car damage or theft in the Philippines. Open topped Jeeps stand there at the roadside all night with keys in the ignition.
I saw this when out for a crack of dawn walk a few years back and asked my BL who is a Lawyer out there. Apparently `car napping` carries a life sentence - and you can guess what the jails are like.
So no one steals cars.
Yeah, you might get shot, stabbed, raped, be given a drink with a sedative in and so on, or kidnapped, held for ransome, bled dry in Hospital if you are a `foreigner` have to pay a for that if you want to visit caves on samar...
But the motor is safe..... well, safer than here. Of course you can be shot at with a rifle for being white (and heading away from arrivals) but if you have the windows open the bullet might pass straight through without damaging the car....
(attempt at wry humour - based on reality 3981)
oilrag 2009
|
I wonder if mlc thinks we'd be a lot worse off if we spent the time and effort used in "policing" motorists in catching criminals?
But that's the point. Despite what certain contributors think, actual flesh and blood Officers only spend a tiny proportion of their time 'policing motorists'. Although my department is referred to by some as 'Traffic', that's not what we call ourselves. Our main reason for existing is (and sorry for Police speak) 'Denying criminals the use of our roads'.
|
In our area, between two villages is an open country road about a mile long. Lamp posts were put in and it aquired a 30mph limit (from 60).
A traffic car with two officers then hid in a farm gateway at the top of this road. It was there constantly for the next couple of weeks catching all the regular users of the road. loads of us were caught - ordinary law abiding citizens going into town on a Saturday morning.
When everyone knew about it the traffic car was gone and has never been seen hiding there since.
If a light up 30mph sign had been fitted the public education would likely have been better without alienating the people who should be natural allies in the fight against crime.
Edited by oilrag on 29/04/2009 at 18:47
|
|
Thats the problem, easy target, keep the boss happy for his monthly figures. Quiet life for the troops.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
