Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Britain's policing is amongst the worst in the world...

Re: Why didn't my mate complain about the police?

For exactly the reason stated his local plod has been known to make the lives of those people who complain "difficult". This is particularly true for those who rely on things that are in the "gift" of the police, like FACs and shotgun certs. One gamekeeper who complained that the police were doing nothing about the enormous quantity of deer poaching and illegal coursing on his shoot found that they wouldn't renew his certificates, losing him guns, job and house. The official reason was "threatening behaviour" towards some pikey coursers, even though no formal complaint had been made and no firearms were involved.

Allegedly the Staffordshire cheif constable has let it be known that anyone suspected of being involved in illegal Hunting after Feb 18th will find it difficult to renew their certificates.
This is ironic as Sir John Giffard is the (adopted) son of the last de Longueville Giffard, Peter, who was vice-president of the Albrighton Hunt for decades until his death. The large estate that Giffard inherited at Chillington near W-ton has been a sporting estate for centuries but since Peter died even the Pony Club has had their Gymkhana thrown off. A sad way for the family of William the Conqueror's standard bearer to end.
 

woody

LE
Saxon finally gets vengence :lol:
I got burgled and didnt have insurance police did nothing found out later scrote knew people who i shared house with still didnt get caught
I would hapily torture a burglar to death they are scum.
 
This sequence of people being 'punished' after falling out with cops seems quite large. I'd overlooked something tha happened to me. I had a TA and the investigating officer said that he doubted further action would arise. his boss had had same sort of accident at same place. About a month later I had cause to complain when police took over an hour to respond to a neighbour's report of two suspicious guys in my enclosed back garden abd some tools stolen from the shed. Just two days after my complaint getting to Kent policce HQ I received notice that I would be charged with driving without due care. Me and the AA solicitor beat the rp as they say. It's only after this thread that I'm wondering whether there was a connection.
 
Sounds paranoid doesn't it? Given their inability to know what one hand is doing let alone the other and yet it seems to happen too often for coincidence...

More on John Giffard. Apparently he disbanded the mounted and dog branches of Staffs plod to save costs. Problem is that every time Port Vale or Stoke play at home he has to import mounted officers from Manchester, which last season cost more than running the old mounted branch for a year :roll: .
 
OldAdam Wrote

'Service earns the right to vote because what comes free is never valued!'

It's been a while since I read Starship Troopers, although I have recently sent off for a copy from Amazon, but can definitly see some of its ideas working in society.

Just to add my experience to the many others who have been burgled.

My car was broken into, and a right mess they little fcuks made of it too!, and my radio nicked. I was gutted, I put a lot of time and effort in to my car rebuilding it for some scum bag to do that to it. SOCO came, found nothing. Could claim on insurance, but wasn't worth it. I felt like I'd been raped everytime I sat at the wheel, there the dash completely trashed.

Everytime I stayed at my wifes parents house, she went nuts, why? Because that's where it had been broken in to, and I spent the entire night jumping up and looking out of the window, fearing that my car was being done over again everytime I heard a sound.

This is what scum do to people when they go around commiting crimes. Perhaps instead of scum outreach programmes there should be more done to help the victims.

I remember from history that the term 'outlaw' came from those who didn't appear at court when they were accused. They lost all support from the community hence many lived in forest and caves.

Perhaps those who don't care about other peoples rights should not have any themselves. On conviction a percentage of NHS, pension, driving licences etc should be removed, including the right to vote.

People like to go on about "their" rights alot but how many have really earnt these priveledges? Another Sci Fi writer, somebody (Ben?) Bova wrote a book where to gain certain priviledges, such as votes and pensions a person had to complete a 2 year stint doing work for the community and put in a further 2 years before they were 50.

Combine these two, earn your rights, and lose them and you've got a good system for a good society.

Rot gone too far, I think you's be surprised at the speed crime would go down with public floggings in Tescos!!!
 

woody

LE
and for the scum who dont care about society no citizen ship no mobile phone sat tv or fast food they would starve or learn to cook :)
 
Still think ordinary coppers are good chaps let down badly by the government dept that looks after them, and a certain element of their own heirarchy more interested in their next step up the career ladder than what's right.

Mmmmm! now how does that sound familiar.
 
The society in Starship Troopers is ultimately fascist though because it's run exclusively by the military or ex-military. Henlein ignores the fact that such a society would soon become stagnant as all the people involved in the political process would think and act the in a similar way by virtue of their common training.
 
Bladensburg said:
Henlein ignores the fact that such a society would soon become stagnant as all the people involved in the political process would think and act the in a similar way by virtue of their common training.

But the Germans used "common service" as a way of keeping the military in check through exposure to the public at large, so it's a two way street.

The democracy I can think of where all the politicians are serious ex-military is Israel, and look at their readiness to think along the lines of "if you have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail".....

"Starship Troopers" was a bit too libertarian for my liking, and the funniest thing about the film was that it had to be explained to Hollywood that they were being sent up.... I mean, giving it to the director of Robocop, they must have known that it would end up a pi55-take.....

Heinlein wore his politics on his sleeve; about the only author further down that road is Ayn Rand (don't even think about it). All very well saying "if you work hard, you will succeed", but the heavy implication is that anyone who hasn't succeeded is at fault.

Bit like the Daily Mail's view of the world; "don't worry about single mothers in crap accommodation, they only did it to get a council flat, and if it's not their fault, it's all the fault of those asylum seekers anyway, so I don't need to feel any guilt or responsibility".... contrasts nicely with the Guardian's view of the world "it's not their fault, they're just let down by the cruel heartless system, poor dears, yadda yadda yadda, let's go hug a tree"....

After all, newspapers exist to sell advertising; and people choose their newspapers for reassurance that their point of view is correct.....
 
OldRedCap said:
This sequence of people being 'punished' after falling out with cops seems quite large. I'd overlooked something tha happened to me. I had a TA and the investigating officer said that he doubted further action would arise. his boss had had same sort of accident at same place. About a month later I had cause to complain when police took over an hour to respond to a neighbour's report of two suspicious guys in my enclosed back garden abd some tools stolen from the shed. Just two days after my complaint getting to Kent policce HQ I received notice that I would be charged with driving without due care. Me and the AA solicitor beat the rp as they say. It's only after this thread that I'm wondering whether there was a connection.

it would be very difficult to link the two even in a small county like kent, and anyway its the traffic CJU who authorise prosecutions not the local police. you are being paranoid

trotsky
 
My mate is in the police and they do have a stupid amount of paper work which frustarting for them when they want to be out and about catching criminals. (And eyeing up totty, eating donuts etc etc!!)
A lot of it is detection rather than prevention though which is arrse about face.
 

Tommy

Old-Salt
ZERO TOLERANCE vs ZERO IMPACT
By Alasdair Palmer and Charles Laurence
(Filed: 09/01/2005)

Splashed across many of last week's newspapers was the headline: "UK police are the worst in the developed world". That claim will have confirmed what a lot of people in the UK already believe.

It was prompted by a book by Norman Dennis and George Erdos that compared the British police's performance in dealing with rising crime rates with the forces in America, France and Germany. The British police came out of the comparison very badly.

"In fact, I don't think our police force is among the world's worst," explained Mr Dennis, who works for the think-tank Civitas and for the University of Newcastle. "But I do think that it is demonstrably true that our police force has failed, and failed miserably, to respond effectively to rising crime rates.

"The British police seem to me to have given up altogether on low-level crime – and the result of their decision to concentrate only on solving serious crimes has not been that those crimes have diminished. On the contrary, offences involving violence against the person have rocketed. Our cops have mistakenly put all their efforts into detecting crime once it has happened, rather than into trying to prevent it from happening in the first place."

Part of the problem, Mr Dennis maintains, is that the Home Office, along with a lot of academic criminologists, insist on denying the most fundamental fact about crime in Britain: that it has been, and is, increasing.

"That denial is just silly," he says. "Fifty years ago, there weren't 400 street robberies in the whole of Britain. In 2001, there wasn't a single month in the borough of Lambeth – that is just one London borough – in which there were fewer than 400 street robberies. Crimes against the person involving violence go up every year. There is no doubt about that at all.

"But if you insist – as the Home Office claimed, absurdly, in response to our book – that `the latest figures show that the risk of being a victim is at its lowest since records began', then of course you find it difficult to persuade the police to tackle the problem," Mr Dennis says. "Obviously, you can't respond to a problem if you don't think it exists."

There is also the conviction, deeply ingrained in the Home Office, large portions of the judiciary and even much of the police hierarchy, that, even if some crimes are on the increase, it's not their fault: they should not be blamed because there is nothing anyone can do about the "vast, complex sociological patterns" that cause increases in crime.

They argue that we simply have to get used to higher crime rates and deal with them by such steps as improving the security in our houses and cars – measures which, famously, Lord Woolf, the Lord Chief Justice, advised Britons to take on the grounds that they were the best, if not the only, way to reduce crime.

"This depressed and depressing defeatism is rubbish," responds Mr Dennis. "And to see it is rubbish, you only need to compare London with New York."

The two metropolitan areas have comparable populations of just over seven million. In 1991, while London's crime rate was, by the standards of big international cities, relatively low, New York had the reputation of being the crime capital of the world.

There were more than 2,300 murders a year in New York in 1991 and well over 100,000 street robberies. London, by comparison, had 181 murders and 22,000 street robberies in that year.

Last year, there were 538 homicides in New York. That means the murder rate has decreased by a factor of five over the past 13 years. London's murder rate has not reduced at all over the same period: there were 186 homicides in the capital last year.

More astonishing still is the comparison in the statistics for street robberies. In 2003, the last complete year for which records are available, there were just 24,334 street robberies in New York – while in London, 38,490 people were robbed in the street.

It takes some time for the significance of that statistic to sink in. New York, from having had a rate of street robbery five times that of London a decade ago, now has 14,000 fewer street robberies every year than our capital.

That statistic is not the result of manipulating figures. It is simply proof that those who insist that "nothing can be done about crime" are wrong: crime can be dramatically reduced – it can be, because in New York it clearly has been.

How have the Americans done it? What is being done in New York that is not being done in London? Police numbers are an important part of the solution. New York has consistently increased its police head count so that it now has more than 40,000 uniformed officers patrolling the city. With only 30,000 officers available, London has 10,000 fewer active policemen than New York.

More revealing still is the ratio of crimes to police officers in the two cities. In New York, there is one police officer for every seven recorded crimes. In London, each officer has to deal with 41 recorded crimes, which might help to explain why London's police seem so uninterested in responding to calls from homeowners about burglaries or thefts.

Police numbers, however, would not count for much if police officers were not used effectively. "Aggressive policing is the key," says Mr Dennis. "In New York, the police have taken back the streets. They have refused to tolerate low-level crime, from prostitutes or drug dealers soliciting customers, graffiti artists or abusive behaviour. They have even taken steps such as cordoning off whole apartment buildings and refusing entry to anyone who is not a resident or does not have authority from the NYPD. They have targeted the high-crime areas and the individuals and gangs who are responsible for dozens of offences, and arrested them."

Dr Eli Silverman, a professor of police studies who teaches New York police officers at the John Jay College for Criminal Justice, agrees that it is the tactics of the New York police that have been critically important: "We've taken back territory," he insists, "we've gone into the gang-controlled areas and cleaned them up, stopping gangs from being able to operate. It's a strategy of crime prevention, as opposed to one of waiting for crime to happen and then trying to clear it up afterwards."

Dr Silverman has tried to persuade the British police to adopt New York's methods. He even held meetings with David Blunkett, the former Home Secretary. But he says he discovered that "the trad‐itional British approach considers New York's techniques too in-your-face, too aggressive in managerial style. I told them that it works and that is the difference between our police and yours. But the British police are all planning and no doing: they get bogged down in procedures. What they need is ruthless command and accountability all down the line. They haven't got it."

Police numbers and techniques are, of course, only one part of creating a comprehensive strategy that has a realistic chance of reducing crime. The police themselves argue, with some justice, that what happens to criminals after the police arrest them is an even more important element.

In London, the courts are extremely reluctant to sentence burglars and street robbers to prison. Many street robbers will commit dozens, if not scores, of offences before finally standing before a judge who decides on a custodial sentence. Usually, the sentence will be a few months at most. The average sentence for those convicted of burglary or robbery with violence is, in London (as in Britain as a whole), less than four years.

In New York, the same offence receives double that tariff: the average sentence for robbery or burglary with violence in New York is more than eight years. And whereas offenders in London are routinely let out after having served half their sentence, and are often subject to only the lightest supervision from parole officers, in New York parole has to be earned – and the smallest infraction of its conditions can lead to the offender being sent back to prison to serve double his original sentence.

New York is not the only American city to have seen spectacular falls in crime. Crime of almost all varieties has tumbled across America over the past decade. The falling crime rate has coincided with decisions by the courts to increase prison sentences and by central government to embark on a colossal prison-building programme to house the more than two million Americans who are now serving time in jail.

One example of the new-found severity of America's penal code is California's "three strikes and you're out" law. Introduced after a referendum on the issue in 1994, the law mandates that any individual convicted for a third time of a serious offence – which in California can include stealing from a shop or a car – will be sentenced to life imprisonment.

California's crime rate is now a third of what it was a decade ago. In November last year, Californians were invited to repeal their "three strikes" law, which some claimed has led to too many people serving life sentences without parole for insignificant crimes. The voters of Californians refused the invitation: the law was supported by a large margin in a popular referendum.

Voters in Britain are not given the opportunity to express their preferences on a proposition such as California's "three strikes" law. When Michael Howard was Home Secretary, he attempted to introduce a mandatory sentence of three years for a third offence of domestic burglary. Tony Blair, then leader of the opposition, with help from the Law Lords, managed to insert a clause into the Crime Sentencing Act of 1997 that allowed judges not to impose the mandatory sentence if they did not think it appropriate.

The result has been that in the seven years since the Act came into force, fewer than 15 of the hundreds convicted of burglary for a third time have been given the mandatory three-year sentence. The great majority have been allowed "back into the community" – which is one reason why domestic burglary in Britain has stayed roughly constant, as opposed to falling more by than a third, which is what has happened in the US.

The lesson from America appears to be straightforward: if Britain is to tackle rising crime, police numbers will have to increase, their tactics will have to change, we will have to build more prisons, and the judges will have to sentence more criminals to longer spells inside them.

There is, however, absolutely no indication that the Government will even attempt to achieve any of those goals. Do not expect rates of street robbery in London, therefore, to drop by a factor of five, as they have done in New York.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top