Chat & Social > The Bar - General Chat
A crushing blow
Terminus:
--- Quote from: "Skibum346" ---**Bows low and reaches for the Wenslydale**
**Blinks at you hoping you'll recognise a doggie request for "two sugars this time.... please!**
:lol: :lol:
--- End quote ---
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Bob696:
--- Quote ---the difference here is as I said earlier you need evidence not just someones word to back up.
--- End quote ---
But who judges the evidence? "12 good men and true"? Or the local PC and his chain of command. Which would you prefer to be tried, judged and sentenced by?
--- Quote ---
If it's wrong for thje police to back each other up "even once" to the detriment of another... doesn't that bring us back to the core of the argument... the youth, riding an uninsurable bike in a public place when legislation has been through the mill to put in place a "fixed penalty", bike crushing. Surely it is wrong for him, even once, to ride an uninsurable bike in a public place, to the detriment of others?
--- End quote ---
Two wrongs do not make it right I am afraid. I have no problems with condemning the youth IF he is guilty. But in this case who has prooved that he is guilty? Who has provided the evidence, judged it and imposed the punishment? The answer appears to be the police force to all three. Anybody who remembers the Serious Crime Squad of the west midlands police from the 70/80s will recognise just how dangerous this is.
I have personal experience of police covering each others backs ... its not nice to be on the recieving end. Long story but I can retell it if needed. No complicated legislation and I wasnt accused of anything.
The trouble is that people expect police to be whiter than white and has been said before they are only human which is why they should not be judge jury and exicutioner.
Skibum346:
--- Quote from: "Bob696" ---
--- Quote ---the difference here is as I said earlier you need evidence not just someones word to back up.
--- End quote ---
But who judges the evidence? "12 good men and true"? Or the local PC and his chain of command. Which would you prefer to be tried, judged and sentenced by?
--- Quote ---
If it's wrong for thje police to back each other up "even once" to the detriment of another... doesn't that bring us back to the core of the argument... the youth, riding an uninsurable bike in a public place when legislation has been through the mill to put in place a "fixed penalty", bike crushing. Surely it is wrong for him, even once, to ride an uninsurable bike in a public place, to the detriment of others?
--- End quote ---
Two wrongs do not make it right I am afraid. I have no problems with condemning the youth IF he is guilty. But in this case who has prooved that he is guilty? Who has provided the evidence, judged it and imposed the punishment? The answer appears to be the police force to all three. Anybody who remembers the Serious Crime Squad of the west midlands police from the 70/80s will recognise just how dangerous this is.
I have personal experience of police covering each others backs ... its not nice to be on the recieving end. Long story but I can retell it if needed. No complicated legislation and I wasnt accused of anything.
The trouble is that people expect police to be whiter than white and has been said before they are only human which is why they should not be judge jury and exicutioner.
--- End quote ---
Yeah.. I see what you mean... why trust someone who has been evaluated, recruited, trained, mentored and who knows the law and their place in it.... over a "spotty" youth?
Are you seriously suggesting that actually... what happened was... PC Toobigforhisboots spotted the youth playing in a field, with the permission of the farmer... but decided sod it... "having a bad day and your gonna pay for it"?
I did jury service once, fairly straighforward case... known disqualified driver, spotted driving, followed, helicopter was in area so joined in. Driver & passanger de-camped, was followed by helicopter observer with camera, 100% coverage. Other officers were talked into their hiding place and they were arrested. During deliberations and individual who shall remain nameless actually suggested they'd rather believe the driver as all four officers involved ( and I guess he must have included the video camera in his thinking) werein it together and the bloke was innocent.
What IS clear to me is that despite the expending of lots of words, examples, etc some of us will inherintly trust the police force to do a fair job within the legislation given. Others will inherintly mistrust the police and the judiciary in general. It will take more than a mud club discussion to alter the minds of either.
BOB696 I believe your arguments about representatio in court are flawed. You have a right to those opinions and I'll fight for you to have them... however... it don't make you right.
Skibum
Bob696:
Skibum if you are seriously suggesting that people should have the right to a fair trial removed then I really do feel sorry for you. Just think of all those totalatarian goverments of past and present which we now decry, USSR, Nazis, italian fascists, Franco, China, North Korea, Pinoche etc etc. Do you really want to live like that?
Remember that the basis of British justice is "innocent until PROOVEN guilty"
--- Quote ---why trust someone who has been evaluated, recruited, trained, mentored and who knows the law and their place in it
--- End quote ---
That would be why they have internal investigations into corruption ....... mind you the police at least get to stand in a court and defend themselves.
--- Quote ---
BOB696 I believe your arguments about representatio in court are flawed. You have a right to those opinions and I'll fight for you to have them... however... it don't make you right.
--- End quote ---
I would rather you didnt if its all the same to you. Not sure what your country would be like.
att:
I have many things to say on this, but I fear that my veiws would be too extreme for this forum, besides, I do not really have time to tell of my experiences both recent and in times gone by.
I will just say though, I have spent much time with Police on both sides of the Atlantic, I have had both good and bad experiences, it is the bad experiences that allow me to KNOW that the Police should never, ever be Judge and Jury, they are seldom impartial and there is not a human being on this planet that cannot be totally be impartial to everything, we internalise all our experiences and process them in different ways, that will affect our judgement in the future to some degree, we are all different, so there is no way in this world that a decision would be totally fiar in anybody`s eyes.
The Americans have it really sussed, they have little or no nuisence crime, anti-social behaviour etc. The population respect the Police becuase they carry guns, you cannot argue with a gun, it is final.
I have been on many patrols with the Police in the States and found it both exciting and educational, however, each Police Dept. was different, this was down to the individual and they would handle incidents in different ways.....Each time.
The Police in this country have it hard, they are bound by silly legislation and political correctness at every turn, I know a retired policeman really well, he retired because the job was a joke for him, I also know a current serving officer who feels the same, he is eeking out unitl he has his pension rights.
Just my 2pth.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version