Police theft ...

Status
Not open for further replies.
meghatronic said:
Bull****.
Click to expand...

Its a generalisation, yes, but can you explain why it is bull**** then?

rypt said:
ALL crime rates? Or just certain crime rates?

For instance Japan has a lower murder rate per capita than the UK (and is far more urban surely).
I'm willing to bet that Japan, Singapore and the like also have lower petty crime rates.
Click to expand...

There are obviously regional differences, I was speaking in the UK in general.
 
rypt said:
I want the police officer to ensure that any would-be thieves are apprehended and that items are recovered - by say giving them MUCH stricter sentences if they cannot be recovered (15 years hard labour for instance)
Click to expand...

Well I will agree with the first part of your comment - that I would like any thieves apprehended.

However I will correct you on the second part. It is NOT the responsibility of the Police to hand down sentences. The Police arrest, gather the evidence and then hand it to the CPS.

For approximately 25 years the CPS have decided who goes to Court or not. It is the Magistrates and Judges who decided on sentence for those found guilty. The sentencing guidelines are formulated by the Governing Political Party - the members of whom are voted in by a largely apathetic population - who often demand blood - but are too lazy to get off their backsides to change things.....
 
Andy90 said:
However I will correct you on the second part. It is NOT the responsibility of the Police to hand down sentences. The Police arrest, gather the evidence and then hand it to the CPS.
Click to expand...

Section 59 of the RTA disagrees with you as the Police officer can impound a car without it ever going near a court or the CPS :)

But I did not mean police hand out sentences, I mean't the system as a whole.
 
Azagoth said:
What's next, peering through house windows and removing expensive items that have been left on display because a prospective burglar might see them and think "ooh, I'm having that"?
Click to expand...

In the area I work, we had a spate of Burglaries in one area. When I came on nights I was told to hit that area - stop anything that moved, turned it over.

Added onto this two of the Community Action Team (local neighbourhood Police Officers) were in plain clothes wandering the area. One of their jobs was to check houses for insecure groundfloor windows and wake the house holder up to advise them.

Guess what - in that week or so that we did that the number of burglaries dropped dramatically.
 
rypt said:
Section 59 of the RTA disagrees with you as the Police officer can impound a car without it ever going near a court or the CPS :)

But I did not mean police hand out sentences, I mean't the system as a whole.
Click to expand...

Yes I know that the Police can remove a car under section 59 of the Road Traffic Act - I do it for a living mate. The Act doesn't disagree with me. The impounding is part of a preventative measure of that act - ie stop people driving without due care and attention or driving on land other than a road to teh annoyance of the public.

The thing is if an Officer is impounding a car under section 59, then they should be reporting the Offender for Reckless and Careless Driving or Driving on Land other than a Road (which will go to the CPS and possibly get to Court).
 
Andy90 said:
Yes I know that the Police can remove a car under section 59 of the Road Traffic Act - I do it for a living mate. The Act doesn't disagree with me. The impounding is part of a preventative measure of that act - ie stop people driving without due care and attention or driving on land other than a road to teh annoyance of the public.

The thing is if an Officer is impounding a car under section 59, then they should be reporting the Offender for Reckless and Careless Driving or Driving on Land other than a Road (which will go to the CPS and possibly get to Court).
Click to expand...

Until an officer issues sec 59 for the "manner of the overtake" (see Fett) or for something else - and the person has no legal way to fight the impounding (at the 2nd issue of a sec 59) and has to bear the costs of the removal.
 
rypt said:
Next time catch the burglars instead of preventing further burglaries in just that one area.
Click to expand...

Hmm let me see, I was patrolling an area that had a high rate of burglaries - erm how can I put it, looking for people out to commit burglaries.

If I stop them with items for use in going equipped to steal prior to them committing the burglaries, then they get locked up for that offence - net result they're in the cells and no burglaries get committed - which is erm let me see - a result for the persons whose house was going to get screwed (but obviously didn't because I nicked the burglar prior to it happening)....

I do hope your comment was an attempt at humour?!?
 
Burnsy2023 said:
Nope, as it's
a) not dishonest; there is no deception
b) there is no appropriation of the property (the note says that you can collect it at any time)
Click to expand...

Does that mean if I walked into a store, took a laptop and left a note with my address saying that they could collect it if they wanted it back its ok?
 
Andy90 said:
Guess what - in that week or so that we did that the number of burglaries dropped dramatically.
Click to expand...

Probably because the burglars moved to a different area when they saw a couple of plain clothes coppers walking about at night. Now, catching them and putting them inside would've been a far better use of resources.
 
rypt said:
Next time catch the burglars instead of preventing further burglaries in just that one area.
Click to expand...

How? Do all bugrlars have neon signs saying "I am here, nick me"? This isn't a game where if you have a high crime rate, just place a couple of police stations and everything magically gets better...
 
rypt said:
Until an officer issues sec 59 for the "manner of the overtake" (see Fett) or for something else - and the person has no legal way to fight the impounding (at the 2nd issue of a sec 59) and has to bear the costs of the removal.
Click to expand...

As I said they should on the second issue be reported for summons for the driving offences. If that is the case and they feel they are innocent they have every right to request a court hearing, during the course of which their solicitor (if they're doing their job correctly) should argue their case and hopefully win the case. If they win, then they should request the Police Authority for the area recompense them for the costs of the impounding (which I agree initially they will have to pay themselves).
 
meghatronic said:
Tokyo and Seoul are much more desnsly packed and urbanised. They have significantly less crime.
Click to expand...

I keep saying, you cannot compare different cultures. They have different expectations and socially accepted rules.

Would you compare drinking amounts between here and say Russia, and expect to correlate something reasonable?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom