Chat & Social > The Bar - General Chat
A crushing blow
Bob696:
--- Quote ---Absolute nonsense - these are not things listed in priority these are primary duties all of which have equal importance... the order they are written in does not depict a level of importance.
--- End quote ---
Then the UK is in a worse situation than I thought tbh.
--- Quote ---
There is an offence of failure to produce but this is different from the crime of not having the documents - failure to produce is used when someone often has certain documents but ignores the law and does not produce them at a designated station in the time period given.
--- End quote ---
Thanks for the correction.
--- Quote ---Your link bob relates to the serious crime squad of quite some time back - firstly as I said earlier accountability wise a lot has changed since then (but of course you want to believe it hasn't) there of course are incidents relating to this in the past that will continue to be investigated - secondly stop trying to divert the point. That is in relation to "serious and organised crime" this topic is about penalties given out under lesser crimes.
--- End quote ---
TBH it is not important if it or hasnt changed. The fact that it happened once many years ago means that it can happen again perhaps many years in the future and will be of a smaller scale and less organised. If things have changed then all well and good it is less likely to happen again on such a scale but no system is perfect. What it does prove is that certain 'bad eggs' are capable of doing these sort of things.
The point about 'serious crime' is taken but is still relevant. The point of my argument is that this is the thin end of the wedge. When does society decide that something is a lesser crime? If this band of crimes is expanded to make more time in courts then when does it stop? When a term in goal is required for instance?
--- Quote ---You can't... I said " in drink" a term similar to under the influence of alcohol. As judged due the the smell of alcohol on the breath or other such symptoms. These days, similar symptoms can indicate being under the influence of drugs.
Hence your argument is diversionary.
--- End quote ---
Not at all. If you want to you can replace the word 'drunk' as I used it with 'a person in drink'. I suppose you could say the person was guilty of being 'in drink and disorderly' if you wanted but the fact remains that the policeman on the spot decides that the person 'in drink' (happy with that?) deserves punishment.
--- Quote ---Who has defined what level of 'disturbance' is not acceptable?
A member of the public making complaint I believe starts that process... oh... perhaps they aren't independant?
--- End quote ---
That dosnt answer the question. It simply states how a process is started
--- Quote ---See my earlier post regarding the workload of the existing system and another posters response regarding increased taxes to provide necessary staff to allow the system to work that way.
--- End quote ---
I did and I will state my point of view again in as simple a set of terms as I can. I think it is immoral for justice to take a back seat to money. If this society has decided that the risk of potential miscarriage of justice being increased is more than offset by savings in the goverment purse then it is on its way down into the sewers along with the crap it is trying to deal with.
--- Quote ---As to your question... yes.. I will trust a policeman without question... until they provide me with evidence that they do not deserve my trust.
--- End quote ---
By which time it will be too late for you and everybody else.
BTW as you seem a trusting sort of fellow (and I like that) I have this tombraider for sale at £3100, it will need shipping from portugal though ....
Time to pack for Malvern ...ta tah for now
Skibum346:
--- Quote from: "Bob696" ---
--- Quote from: "Skibum346" ---You can't... I said " in drink" a term similar to under the influence of alcohol. As judged due the the smell of alcohol on the breath or other such symptoms. These days, similar symptoms can indicate being under the influence of drugs.
Hence your argument is diversionary.
--- End quote ---
Not at all. If you want to you can replace the word 'drunk' as I used it with 'a person in drink'. I suppose you could say the person was guilty of being 'in drink and disorderly' if you wanted but the fact remains that the policeman on the spot decides that the person 'in drink' (happy with that?) deserves punishment.
--- End quote ---
So you've taken something I've said, quoted it out of context, changed the word and expect me to take your response seriously?
In drink means "influenced by" not necessarely "drunk".
--- Quote from: "bob696" ---
--- Quote from: "Skibum346" ---As to your question... yes.. I will trust a policeman without question... until they provide me with evidence that they do not deserve my trust.
--- End quote ---
By which time it will be too late for you and everybody else.
BTW as you seem a trusting sort of fellow (and I like that) I have this tombraider for sale at £3100, it will need shipping from portugal though ....
--- End quote ---
Yes... I'll trust you... what colour is it? Oh.. and you won't mind swapping some basic security information so that I can clarify who you are and you can clarify who I am...? For both our protection.
The point is, you seem have decided that because some police in the past have been corrupt, that all police are therefor corrupt. I disagree. I agree it is possible for history to repeat itself but the application of the law of diminishing risks comes into effect, the more safeguards there are, the less likely it is that it will happen again.
What is the alternative, after all, it's feasible that the lawyers could be corriupt, or the judges are corrupt, or the jury is corrupt, or the politicians are corrupt.
Please, help me understand, what is your system that prevents the influence of all these people being involved in the conspiracy?
Bob696:
--- Quote ---So you've taken something I've said, quoted it out of context, changed the word and expect me to take your response seriously?
--- End quote ---
I didnt quote out of context I quoted the last part of what you said.
So change the phrase "drunk" to "in drink and argumentative". The question is still who decides the level at which someone deserves a fine? Hence your argument is diversionary.
--- Quote ---Yes... I'll trust you... what colour is it? Oh.. and you won't mind swapping some basic security information so that I can clarify who you are and you can clarify who I am...? For both our protection.
--- End quote ---
But you are a trusting person, my word should be good enough for you I dont need evidence. What do you want protection for anyway?
--- Quote ---The point is, you seem have decided that because some police in the past have been corrupt, that all police are therefor corrupt. I disagree. I agree it is possible for history to repeat itself but the application of diminishing risks comes into effect, the more safeguards there are, the less likely it is that it will happen again.
--- End quote ---
I have NEVER said all police are corrupt and in previous posts I have gone out of my to say that the majority are not. Fair comment on the less likely to happen (just as I said) but how many instances of miss use of this power are acceptable to you? 1, 2 a dozon a 100? Simple way to have zero miss uses/mistakes is not to give the police the power.
--- Quote ---What is the alternative, after all, it's feasible that the lawyers could be corriupt, or the judges are corrupt, or the jury is corrupt, or the politicians are corrupt.
--- End quote ---
Yes the judge might be corrupt but the jury and the barristors at the same time? The press in it as well? The public in the gallery? It is simply safer for all. Miscarriges of justice still occure but in all recent cases I remember it has been down to the 'expert witness'. If the 'expert witness' had fewer controls on him/her how much more likely would a miscarrige be to occur?
Skibum346:
--- Quote from: "Bob696" ---
--- Quote ---Yes... I'll trust you... what colour is it? Oh.. and you won't mind swapping some basic security information so that I can clarify who you are and you can clarify who I am...? For both our protection.
--- End quote ---
But you are a trusting person, my word should be good enough for you I dont need evidence. What do you want protection for anyway?
--- End quote ---
I'm a trusting fellow yes... that's not the same as a stupid fellow, I know the price of a tomb raider and the dangers of ebay like scams. Hence I'll put safety steps in place.
I trust the police directly because in my opinion the correct safety steps have been put in place and continue to be amended as and when necessary. On top of that, they are more qualified to be both witness providing evidence and agent of the law applying the prescribed punishment.
We trust all kinds of professionals in life, surveyors & bank managers for instance. Each has the potential to cost any of us many thousands of poiunds if they get it wrong. Do we remove their ability to carry out their prescribed role because there is a danger they cannot be trusted?
att:
Personally, i do not trust a soul.
This may appear a sad state of affairs upon first glance, but it has enabled me to become experienced in many things in life, as I tend to do most things myself, or learn from professionals whilst I am in their company.
I even did my last divorce myself.
I always question Police, whatever they are doing, I want a reason for their actions everytime......It is the way that you do it that makes the difference.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version