Night coppers

[Blackswanwood]

Ever had a conversation with your son about what he thinks needs to change for the force as a whole to be more effective? I know what my answer would be, stringent pshychological screening. It's my suspicion that a significant portion of the police join for either the power trip, the fat pension, or because it's slightly easier than the army - the ones that actually WANT to "protect and SERVE" the more vulnerable members of the community are in the minority.

When I was younger I thought about joining, having been a Guardian Angel on the London underground for a couple of years; then I had a run in myself with 2 officers who tried to have me prosecuted for carrying an offensive weapon with intent to harm, when all I had done was collect the knife from a friend that had sharpened it for fishing. They claimed I was going to attack people with it and had resisted arrest, all of which was untrue. Apparently to them simply having a knife like that was ample evidence of intent to harm, based on nothing other than thier own opinion, even after speaking to my friend whom had sharpened it - the Judge however actually paid attention to my friends testimony, my fishing licence etc etc and threw the case out.

It was at that point I decided the police are just as crooked as everyone else and I've never trusted them since - especially so now they have targets to reach of successful prosecutions etc etc.

It's a point of annoyance to me that there's no simple mechanism for the public to have the police prosecuted / fined / mark put on thier record for false arrest - yes there is one, but it's both expensive, HUGELY time consuming often taking YEARS, and it seems a lot of the time the police win anyway because Judges don't want to undermine the system.

It should be that if you get arrested and it goes to court and the case is dismissed outright because it's bullpinapple, it should go on thier records - get 5 of those and boom you're out, no pension no nothing.

They should be forced to do thier due diligence to it's utmost, just like all the other professions that have a direct and serious, often longterm, impact on peoples lives, with a mentality of "if I've got this wrong I could ruin this persons life forever, so I need to make sure I'm right, not "maybe right" or "enough to get a successful prosecution right" but actually 100% right", however it seems like if a copper says "you did it" that's enough.

The people don't trust the police because too many by percentage are crooked and almost none of the good ones are doing anything to bring them in line for fear of repercussions themselves.

/rant

Yes I have. In the top three would be cut the paper work, sort out the wider system including being clear about the role of the police and resource it properly.

Like all jobs there will be good and bad individuals who end up doing them. I actually think the majority of people who join the police do so with the best of intentions and the bad ones perhaps develop as they become cynical due to the system. Unfortunately it only takes one experience with a bad one to leave people feeling they are all bad.

Sounds like a bit of an odd situation you were in. Given the CPS have to say who gets put in front of a judge perhaps it wasn’t as clear cut to an independent bystander as it was to you but glad it turned out okay.
I’m not commenting further on this thread as views are varied and it’s a topic that crosses into politics.

 

[Sean33]

Ever had a conversation with your son about what he thinks needs to change for the force as a whole to be more effective? I know what my answer would be, stringent pshychological screening. It's my suspicion that a significant portion of the police join for either the power trip, the fat pension, or because it's slightly easier than the army - the ones that actually WANT to "protect and SERVE" the more vulnerable members of the community are in the minority.

When I was younger I thought about joining, having been a Guardian Angel on the London underground for a couple of years; then I had a run in myself with 2 officers who tried to have me prosecuted for carrying an offensive weapon with intent to harm, when all I had done was collect the knife from a friend that had sharpened it for fishing. They claimed I was going to attack people with it and had resisted arrest, all of which was untrue. Apparently to them simply having a knife like that was ample evidence of intent to harm, based on nothing other than thier own opinion, even after speaking to my friend whom had sharpened it - the Judge however actually paid attention to my friends testimony, my fishing licence etc etc and threw the case out.

It was at that point I decided the police are just as crooked as everyone else and I've never trusted them since - especially so now they have targets to reach of successful prosecutions etc etc.

It's a point of annoyance to me that there's no simple mechanism for the public to have the police prosecuted / fined / mark put on thier record for false arrest - yes there is one, but it's both expensive, HUGELY time consuming often taking YEARS, and it seems a lot of the time the police win anyway because Judges don't want to undermine the system.

It should be that if you get arrested and it goes to court and the case is dismissed outright because it's bullpinapple, it should go on thier records - get 5 of those and boom you're out, no pension no nothing.

They should be forced to do thier due diligence to it's utmost, just like all the other professions that have a direct and serious, often longterm, impact on peoples lives, with a mentality of "if I've got this wrong I could ruin this persons life forever, so I need to make sure I'm right, not "maybe right" or "enough to get a successful prosecution right" but actually 100% right", however it seems like if a copper says "you did it" that's enough.

The people don't trust the police because too many by percentage are crooked and almost none of the good ones are doing anything to bring them in line for fear of repercussions themselves.

/rant

Thought I would just ask my son that question, we are currently in Spain so asked the question what do you think is the difference between the police here and in the UK? His response was Dad you wouldn’t mess with the police here they carry guns.
My response was, what do you mean by ‘mess’, well you know take the pi55, if they tell you to move on here you do it, don’t give them a reason to get angry with you
Following question was, well would you do that to the police at home then, no not really but they are powerless at home to really do anything about it, I feel a bit sorry for them.
Give me an example then. ‘Well you know when you see the news, tik tok, you tube, Instagram etc of people gluing themselves to the road in protest, wouldn’t happen here they would either move them on or let the other drivers do something about it. When the clubs shut here there is always a few police outside moving people on and it doesn’t matter how drunk you are you know not to mess about’.
Now this is one 18 yr old lad so hardly compelling but it did make me think maybe these social media companies should have more of a responsibility. Should there be a 24hour window before anything can be seen by the public and in that time vetted to see if it is in the publics best interest ?
Guns another ball game entirely, for me yes, but I’m old school, still think they should get the cane at school, never done me any harm, the couple of times I got a whack I didn’t do it again.

 

[dangles]

Thought I would just ask my son that question, we are currently in Spain so asked the question what do you think is the difference between the police here and in the UK? His response was Dad you wouldn’t mess with the police here they carry guns.
My response was, what do you mean by ‘mess’, well you know take the pi55, if they tell you to move on here you do it, don’t give them a reason to get angry with you
Following question was, well would you do that to the police at home then, no not really but they are powerless at home to really do anything about it, I feel a bit sorry for them.
Give me an example then. ‘Well you know when you see the news, tik tok, you tube, Instagram etc of people gluing themselves to the road in protest, wouldn’t happen here they would either move them on or let the other drivers do something about it. When the clubs shut here there is always a few police outside moving people on and it doesn’t matter how drunk you are you know not to mess about’.
Now this is one 18 yr old lad so hardly compelling but it did make me think maybe these social media companies should have more of a responsibility. Should there be a 24hour window before anything can be seen by the public and in that time vetted to see if it is in the publics best interest ?
Guns another ball game entirely, for me yes, but I’m old school, still think they should get the cane at school, never done me any harm, the couple of times I got a whack I didn’t do it again.

Sean.
If you got a wack a couple of times
you must have done it again.

 

[Noel]

..........make me think maybe these social media companies should have more of a responsibility. Should there be a 24hour window before anything can be seen by the public and in that time vetted to see if it is in the publics best interest ?
Guns another ball game entirely, for me yes, but I’m old school, still think they should get the cane at school, never done me any harm, the couple of times I got a whack I didn’t do it again.

Vetting? Not really practical Sean:
Youtube upload at least 65,000 videos per hour
Twitter? 37 million per hour, 900 million per day
FB? 290,000 images per day, 500,000 posts per minute
Insta? 90 million images per day, 100 million stories per day.

On top of all that there's Snapchat, Tik Tok, Linkedin etc, etc.

 

[Sean33]

Vetting? Not really practical Sean:
Youtube upload at least 65,000 videos per hour
Twitter? 37 million per hour, 900 million per day
FB? 290,000 images per day, 500,000 posts per minute
Insta? 90 million images per day, 100 million stories per day.

On top of all that there's Snapchat, Tik Tok, Linkedin etc, etc.

Don’t get me wrong I know the numbers are huge but with the technology available today, not to mention the potential gain in employment it could work. Either that or fine the social media companies for allowing dubious content. Yes they would be up in arms and it would hurt there bottom line but legislation has hurt other companies before and will do so again
Let’s face it our laws are so archaic written before the advent of social media!

 

[Sean33]

Sean.
If you got a wack a couple of times
you must have done it again.

Obviously