This is why people are losing respect for the police...

Status
Not open for further replies.
What? He has a name he used for a martial arts channel and simply kept the blackbelt name for his legal channel. He is a practising barrister in England. I've watched his channel for a while and it can be very informative on UK law. If you've got an issue with his explanation of UK law then what it is?

He's been found to be lacking knowledge on quite a few occasions. Gets very upset when it's proven!
 
Pharmacies used to have panic alarms that resulted in an immediate police response. I bet they have stopped that now.

I didn't get my Meds because of the commotion so will find out more tomorrow.
I actually dreamt about the lad last night, I can still see his drugged up face and how he was completely out of it.
One thing, he didn't go back for the knife so was that high he forgot about it.
 
He's been found to be lacking knowledge on quite a few occasions. Gets very upset when it's proven!

Hey I'm no legal expert but from watching/listening to lawyers there is no shortage of different opinions on the law. I'm not defending the guy because my own knowledge is limited to say the least. I just think attacking him due to the channel name seems silly.
 
Last edited:
You must have seen a different video to this one then.
If the dogs (or a person for that matter ) are immediately posing a threat to public safety then the police can use reasonable or even lethal force to stop the threat.

I saw dogs on a lead that could reasonably be seized, as I've seen happen before. If they were off lead it would be totally different. We're just gonna go round in circles if we continue this discussion.
He's been found to be lacking knowledge on quite a few occasions. Gets very upset when it's proven!

Where is this? I mean every barrister and solicitor lacks knowledge on many areas of the law, this is why they specialise and don't give legal advice on youtube, just informational content.
 
Last edited:
Thought I'd create a separate thread for disucssing ebikes/policing as I feel it warrants it's own one as a separate topic!

 
The good old days were horrifically violent.

Just to underline your post

I wouldn't trust any source that deliberately misleads people into believing that the vast majority of murder victims are women murdered by their past or present male partner. That's blatant disinformation for the purposes of promoting sexism.

The historic murder rates stated may well be reasonably estimates, but then as now the majority of murder victims would have been men. Probably even more so in the past.
 
I wouldn't trust any source that deliberately misleads people into believing that the vast majority of murder victims are women murdered by their past or present male partner. That's blatant disinformation for the purposes of promoting sexism.

The historic murder rates stated may well be reasonably estimates, but then as now the majority of murder victims would have been men. Probably even more so in the past.

Possibly, I'm not sure how good stats were in the 16th century.

I think, to be fair, homicides of women are often by partners- not sure what proportion that is of female homicides.

Around 2/3 of homicide victims are men in the last few decades, once you remove Harold Shipman and the relatively few terrorist attacks.
 
The good old days were horrifically violent.

Just to underline your post

Worth noting there was a massive drop in the homicide rate before the police came into existence by those stats, only a relatively small one after they came into being, I would suspect because changes in society and advances in technology that improved peoples lives resulted in less homicides. The drop in the homicide rate is relatively small since the police came into being and I would question how much of it is causation given the existing trend towards a lower murder rate. I mean really the police are not going to stop most murders because they occur in the spur of the moment, they can reduce murder by stopping serial killers, but I imagine the deterrence factor is pretty low.
 
Worth noting there was a massive drop in the homicide rate before the police came into existence by those stats, only a relatively small one after they came into being, I would suspect because changes in society and advances in technology that improved peoples lives resulted in less homicides. The drop in the homicide rate is relatively small since the police came into being and I would question how much of it is causation given the existing trend towards a lower murder rate. I mean really the police are not going to stop most murders because they occur in the spur of the moment, they can reduce murder by stopping serial killers, but I imagine the deterrence factor is pretty low.

The drop is relative, though. Homicides halved between the 19th and 20th centuries.

No-one really knows the answer to that one. One thing that does seem to be linked is
"civilization", whatever that means.

Primitive peoples were often staggeringly violent. There are lots of examples from the Yanomami, Papuan highlanders, the Maori and others. People who think they all lived in peace and harmony need to read more!
 
I mean really the police are not going to stop most murders because they occur in the spur of the moment, they can reduce murder by stopping serial killers, but I imagine the deterrence factor is pretty low.

DV-related homicides can be prevented by breaking the cycle of violence either through prosecution or protection orders, encouraging victims to report to police and support investigations, and ensure that referrals and support mechanisms are in place from an early stage to prevent further escalation.

Gang and OCG related homicides can be prevented by robust policing, stop and search, preventing access to weapons, dealing with County Lines criminality and diverting vulnerable young people away from it, and by dismantling the gangs/networks themselves.

There are just two examples. I realise your intent is to try to minimise the positive aspects of policing but you're going to need to actually put some effort in.
 
How do you divert vulnerable people from crime when they've got nowhere else to go thanks to some bright sparks eviscerating youth services everywhere.
 
There are just two examples. I realise your intent is to try to minimise the positive aspects of policing but you're going to need to actually put some effort in.

Hardly, I would feel safer if we had more police on the street, as long as they were tackling real crimes, i.e. someone harming another person. And not wasting time and my tax money on drug use offences.

One just has to be realistic about the impact police can have on preventing murder, and the data shows the limitations. You are speculating on what could be achieved in an idealistic scenario but what does the data show? As far as gang related murders go, I imagine legalising drugs would be far more effective in reducing gang violence as that's what a lot of it revolves around.
 
Last edited:
I'm a bit ignorant of how the old work houses used to operate. But the base idea of offering bed and food in exchange for a low wage to do low qualified manual work seems reasonable.

I'd focus it on crafting items to sell, and jobs related to cleaning up the local area.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom