MB wrote:
If more criminals were given longer sentences then there would be
not as
many out there committing offences.


If the police cannot or will not catch them in the first place, the
length of sentence is completely irrelevant.

On Dec 31, 3:26*pm, Bruce wrote:
MB wrote:
If more criminals were given longer sentences then there would be
not as
many out there committing offences.

If the police cannot or will not catch them in the first place, the
length of sentence is completely irrelevant.

Every month a villain spends inside is one less that the police need
spend on crimes he commits and therefore one more month devoted to
putting others in the same place.

As a policeman the ONLY thing that mattered was putting nominated
criminals away, thus they would be hounded for motoring offences to
get them disqualified and eventually jailed for disco driving. Only
politicians and top level officers worried overmuch about stats, we
knew who had to be off the streets.

George

On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 08:09:53 -0800 (PST), furnessvale
wrote:

On Dec 31, 3:26*pm, Bruce wrote:
MB wrote:
If more criminals were given longer sentences then there would be
not as
many out there committing offences.

If the police cannot or will not catch them in the first place, the
length of sentence is completely irrelevant.

Every month a villain spends inside is one less that the police need
spend on crimes he commits and therefore one more month devoted to
putting others in the same place.

As a policeman the ONLY thing that mattered was putting nominated
criminals away, thus they would be hounded for motoring offences to
get them disqualified and eventually jailed for disco driving. Only
politicians and top level officers worried overmuch about stats, we
knew who had to be off the streets.

I thought we employed judges to decide that ?

furnessvale wrote:
On Dec 31, 3:26*pm, Bruce wrote:
If the police cannot or will not catch them in the first place,
the
length of sentence is completely irrelevant.


Every month a villain spends inside is one less that the police need
spend on crimes he commits and therefore one more month devoted to
putting others in the same place.


That's a completely meaningless statement when 84% of miscreants get
away with it. Perhaps you could explain, based on your 20 years'
experience as a police officer, why the police catch so few?

I am reminded of the words of a former Commissioner of the
Metropolitan Police, who when asked what was the biggest challenge he
faced in his job, replied that it was stopping officers drinking cups
of tea in the police station and getting them out catching criminals
instead.

Charles Ellson wrote:
On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 08:09:53 -0800 (PST), furnessvale
wrote:
Only
politicians and top level officers worried overmuch about stats, we
knew who had to be off the streets.


I thought we employed judges to decide that ?


Ask the relatives of Mark Duggan, Jean Charles de Menezes and others
who have been summarily executed what they think about the police.

On Dec 31, 4:09*pm, furnessvale wrote:

As a policeman [...] we
knew who had to be off the streets.

The police knew that the Birmingham Six were guilty. The only problem
is that they weren't. The police knew who killed Carl Bridgewater.
Unfortunately, they were wrong.

ian

On Dec 31 2011, 8:52*pm, ian batten wrote:
On Dec 31, 4:09*pm, furnessvale wrote:

As a policeman [...] we
knew who had to be off the streets.

Nothing I have said has even implied that innocent men would be
"stitched up" simply that known villains would be reported for
motoring offences at every opportunity to deprive them of their wheels
which form such an integral part of their criminal activity.

The police knew that the Birmingham Six were guilty. *The only problem
is that they weren't.

What a pity that the more advance forensic tests now available weren't
available at the time of the appeal. The discredited griese test has
now been vindicated by more modern methods but, as you know, once
aquitted on appeal, no one can be reinstated as guilty.

George

furnessvale wrote:
On Dec 31 2011, 8:52*pm, ian batten
wrote:
On Dec 31, 4:09*pm, furnessvale wrote:

As a policeman [...] we
knew who had to be off the streets.


Nothing I have said has even implied that innocent men would be
"stitched up" simply that known villains would be reported for
motoring offences at every opportunity to deprive them of their
wheels
which form such an integral part of their criminal activity.


Do you condone the shooting by serving police officers of Mark Duggan
in Tottenham, then their attempts to "prove" that he fired at them
first - despite the fact that he was unarmed - by planting a weapon?

After all, he was said to be a 'known' villain. Not enough evidence
for a conviction, but enough for the police to shoot an unarmed man
in cold blood.

Presumably we should be truly thankful that the people of this
country are protected from unarmed men by their swift execution
without having to wait for the criminal justice system to put them in
prison.

On Jan 1, 4:38*pm, Bruce wrote:
furnessvale wrote:
On Dec 31 2011, 8:52 pm, ian batten
wrote:
On Dec 31, 4:09 pm, furnessvale wrote:

As a policeman [...] we
knew who had to be off the streets.
Nothing I have said has even implied that innocent men would be
"stitched up" simply that known villains would be reported for
motoring offences at every opportunity to deprive them of their
wheels
which form such an integral part of their criminal activity.

Do you condone the shooting by serving police officers of Mark Duggan
in Tottenham, then their attempts to "prove" that he fired at them
first - despite the fact that he was unarmed - by planting a weapon?

After all, he was said to be a 'known' villain. *Not enough evidence
for a conviction, but enough for the police to shoot an unarmed man
in cold blood.

Presumably we should be truly thankful that the people of this
country are protected from unarmed men by their swift execution
without having to wait for the criminal justice system to put them in
prison.

You have added an inability to read to your list of imperfections. I
have specifically stated that I don't condone "stitching up" but that
doesn't mean I would shy away from getting a villain legitimately
banned from driving to curtail his criminal activities.

Or, is that not cricket and you would rather the police spent 10 times
the manpower to catch him in the act of burglary to achieve the same
end?

George

furnessvale wrote:
Presumably we should be truly thankful that the people of this
country are protected from unarmed men by their swift execution
without having to wait for the criminal justice system to put
them in
prison.


You have added an inability to read to your list of imperfections.


I bet you think that of anyone who points out your nonsense.


I have specifically stated that I don't condone "stitching up" but
that
doesn't mean I would shy away from getting a villain legitimately
banned from driving to curtail his criminal activities.


The trouble is that you, along with thousands of other police
officers, believe that you are entitled to say who is and who is not
a "villain" on the basis of what you think you know.

Perhaps, like thousands of other police officers, you need to be
forcibly reminded that your job is to uphold the law and the whole of
the judicial system, not to operate outside that system and dispense
summary justice as you see fit to people you define as "villains".

Of course a large part of the problem is the very low average
intellectual ability of police officers that makes them so extremely
difficult to educate. It also means that many of the people who are
attracted to that career are fundamentally unsuited to the job.