I thought I already made it clear.
A change of attitude from reacting to crimes only, to preventative measures on smaller crimes. No crime should be considered acceptable.
Declining attitude to law and order
- Thread starter MookJong
- Start date
- Status
I thought I already made it clear.
A change of attitude from reacting to crimes only, to preventative measures on smaller crimes. No crime should be considered acceptable.
That's not a cultural change nor an issue of attitude, it's down to resources and priorities. The police aren't the sole gatekeepers for crime prevention either.
I'd like to think that a mother trying to get cannabis for their severely seizure ridden child, isn't going to be constantly arrested for it. Here lies the biggest issue, Either the police do their job and ruin the child's life or they take the moral stance that the government wont for political reasons, leaving them be.
That leaves us with the second issue, the contradiction of duty, to the law and to the people, both seem to be reported with varying degrees of opinion, but the fact is that it still leaves the opinion of the police that they're doing a job pointlessly. You can smell the scent of it pretty much anywhere you go, yet it's illegal, so you think to yourself "well the police are useless" and start rationanising less respect for various other probably vacuous reasons, all the way to the final rationalisation of committing a crime yourself, because they're "useless and can't possibly catch you".
We need to seriously get rid of this law, it does more damage simply existing.
That leaves us with the second issue, the contradiction of duty, to the law and to the people, both seem to be reported with varying degrees of opinion, but the fact is that it still leaves the opinion of the police that they're doing a job pointlessly. You can smell the scent of it pretty much anywhere you go, yet it's illegal, so you think to yourself "well the police are useless" and start rationanising less respect for various other probably vacuous reasons, all the way to the final rationalisation of committing a crime yourself, because they're "useless and can't possibly catch you".
We need to seriously get rid of this law, it does more damage simply existing.
Police are intervening in situations where someone beeps their car horn "aggressively" at someone, children scrapping in the school playground and "non crime hate incidents" which aren't even crimes but police want to know about anything anyone finds offensive anyway. Is it any wonder why resources are stretched? if they're wasting the resources they already have they'll just waste anything extra you give to them.
Respect has been lost because they've gone off the rails policing politically correct rubbish whilst violent crime has sky-rocketed, add to that the exposure of things like the cover up at Hillsbrough and inaction towards Jimmy Saville, grooming gangs, abuse of facial recognition etc. I'm not even sure how they regain trust at this point but when people lose trust in police to do their job they are less likely to report crime and as a result crime increases, I think that's partly what we're seeing.
Respect has been lost because they've gone off the rails policing politically correct rubbish whilst violent crime has sky-rocketed, add to that the exposure of things like the cover up at Hillsbrough and inaction towards Jimmy Saville, grooming gangs, abuse of facial recognition etc. I'm not even sure how they regain trust at this point but when people lose trust in police to do their job they are less likely to report crime and as a result crime increases, I think that's partly what we're seeing.
Last edited:
This is how you spot people who aren't criminals and don't have the criminal mind set.
Criminals do not plan on getting caught, they do not care about detriments because they don't apply to someone who doesn't get caught.
Actually, research shows it's fear of getting caught at all that's the most effective deterrent.
https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/five-things-about-deterrence
New York from the 70's vs 90's is a good example of zero tolerance working in combination with having more available police to flood back into neighborhoods for daily contact with people. Sadly it'll not happen here as we seem infatuated with the police being told to waste time on niff-naff like social media, thought crimes and hitting hate crime targets and we've no money for thr 50k+ extra cops we'd need.
Except they aren't wasting their time on that at all, you really think 120000 police are twiddling their thumbs in the office all day, and indeed want to?
I recently had a discussion with our local force which got their back up. Turns out they've spent £30k on having rainbow stickers fitted to their cars and vans. I asked them how many crimes it had helped solve or prevent. Their response was it raised awareness. Of what? Rainbows? If people already know what it signifies they're hardly going to become more aware because it's on a police van. If they don't know then they're not likely to give a crap.
'Oh, well I was going to beat that queer but now I know the meaning of the rainbow flag I guess I'll let them be'.
It's essentially vehicle wrap. I'd guess a good few hundred a pop and then there's the design fees on top.
If that is true, I don't know whether to laugh or cry at the lunacy.
Maybe you should tell Chief Constable Alex Marshall, the head of the College of Policing, as even back in 2014 he warned that policing social media is a massive drain on front line officers. Then again what would he know compared to you
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-27949674
It's probably less than they'd spend on leafleting or similar campaigns in the past to help promote an issue or show that they take it seriously.
IIRC a lot of forces basically use "wraps" (or partial wraps) for their vehicles these days because it means they can remove them easily (easier than the old stickers) when the vehicles go for resale, and they also offer some protection to the paintwork, so having them change the style costs almost nothing, but having the wraps potentially saves the force money over the traditional stickers.
I think a lot of forces also use the wraps/stickers routinely to give messages/information, so having them show support for LGBT won't be out of step.
Short:
If they use the wraps anyway, it basically costs nothing (and it'll come out of their PR/information budgets not active policing ones).
Maybe you should tell Chief Constable Alex Marshall, the head of the College of Policing, as even back in 2014 he warned that policing social media is a massive drain on front line officers. Then again what would he know compared to you
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-27949674
And yet your making it out to be far more than it is, the Chief is just worried about the stress on already reduced resources by a government program of immolation in services.
In reality it's better that the police deal with it, as otherwise GCHQ will be drafted in on a distinctly automatic basis because apparently people keep voting for more and more surveillance.
Whether or not your theory is correct, it doesn't "cost nothing" - it cost £30k. Whichever budget it came out of, there is £30k less in that budget for actual, useful work to be done.
If the "PR budget" is so flush that there is money to waste, then that budget should be cut, and the funds redirected.
Presumably whatever these "wraps" are (not a car-head), they had to be changed to accommodate the new rainbow motif, and the act of changing them/printing the new ones cost £30k.
There is no sensible justification for a £30k spend to put rainbows on police cars.
This is (presumably) what happens when you have somebody with a media studies degree fairly high up in the command chain
The Police aren't supposed to be political footballs.
I think something that hasn't been discussed much, is how the world of fake news, nonsense and conspiracy theories also damages the police.
In the last 10 years, there's been a number of high-profile incidents, (Mark Duggan, Yasser Yaqub, to name 2) where the police have performed a planned operation, somebody has ended up being shot dead for reasons which largely make sense. However the fallout of this tends to spawn a wave of conspiracy theorists and also media moguls, who attempt to 'investigate' the incident. In doing do, they draw their own conclusions, often from incorrect or distorted information, where the actual outcome has been pre-determined ahead of any actual analysis of the evidence.
The end result is the decisions which are made by the police, get repeatedly thrown under the limelight, often where the intention is simply to write a book, or shoot a documentary and make money, where facts or evidence are often substituted for pure fantasy and hyperbole. (Making a murderer would be a perfect example of this) Often casting a known, harmful, obviously-guilty, dangerous criminal - with a history of convictions and violence, as an Angel who could never hurt anybody.
I think the 2019 world of information distortion, spin and essentially outright lies - circles back, and actually erodes trust in the police and the authority of law as a whole. Not because the law or the police are fundamentally bad, or make mistakes, but simply; you can make a lot of money, and generate a lot of 'clicks' from seeding that narrative in the public mind, and I think it's now starting to hurt us as a society.
I'm not suggesting for a moment, that if the police ever get something wrong they should be left alone with impunity, because they should ultimately be accountable for the decisions they make. The problem is, every time an incident occurs, the default response is to cast a huge shadow of distrust on the police and come to the hasty conclusion, that they must have 'gotten it all wrong' or they 'had it in for that guy from the start'. When actually, when you look at the evidence, the guy had it in for himself from the start because he was a highly dangerous criminal who needed to be behind bars.
In the last 10 years, there's been a number of high-profile incidents, (Mark Duggan, Yasser Yaqub, to name 2) where the police have performed a planned operation, somebody has ended up being shot dead for reasons which largely make sense. However the fallout of this tends to spawn a wave of conspiracy theorists and also media moguls, who attempt to 'investigate' the incident. In doing do, they draw their own conclusions, often from incorrect or distorted information, where the actual outcome has been pre-determined ahead of any actual analysis of the evidence.
The end result is the decisions which are made by the police, get repeatedly thrown under the limelight, often where the intention is simply to write a book, or shoot a documentary and make money, where facts or evidence are often substituted for pure fantasy and hyperbole. (Making a murderer would be a perfect example of this) Often casting a known, harmful, obviously-guilty, dangerous criminal - with a history of convictions and violence, as an Angel who could never hurt anybody.
I think the 2019 world of information distortion, spin and essentially outright lies - circles back, and actually erodes trust in the police and the authority of law as a whole. Not because the law or the police are fundamentally bad, or make mistakes, but simply; you can make a lot of money, and generate a lot of 'clicks' from seeding that narrative in the public mind, and I think it's now starting to hurt us as a society.
I'm not suggesting for a moment, that if the police ever get something wrong they should be left alone with impunity, because they should ultimately be accountable for the decisions they make. The problem is, every time an incident occurs, the default response is to cast a huge shadow of distrust on the police and come to the hasty conclusion, that they must have 'gotten it all wrong' or they 'had it in for that guy from the start'. When actually, when you look at the evidence, the guy had it in for himself from the start because he was a highly dangerous criminal who needed to be behind bars.
- Status