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!

Holding the Police to Account

On the one hand, you've got the laws that the politicians choose to make. But on the other hand, you've got the laws that the police choose to enforce,
During the Blair years in the early 2000's the government was knocking out so many new laws that the police wern't aware of most of them. Blair thought that if you just made a new law, that was it, problem solved. No thought to how police can actually enforce those laws. It didn't help that the Met got rid of training days and it all devolved into a one hour computer based tick box exercise.
 
If you’ve got a light out or we’re going a bit fast and your attitude is good then I’ll let you go with advice or a driver warning ( not a ticket just a record of the stop) if you are arsey then you’ll get a ticket or a S59 warnjng.
Nice to see that the attitude test is still in use
then you’ll get a ticket or a S59 warnjng. Mobile phone users always get a ticket
And if they produce a Warrant Card and you find that they are in the Met. F*cking County Mounties!
 

GDog

Old-Salt
Ah, right... It's the Laws fault for making them criminals and nothing to do with their choice to use of illegal substances in the first place?.. Tip top reasoning and yet another example of why druggies always find an excuse for their use of damaging, mind altering substances..

I used the pedo example purely to illustrate something else that is illegal , yet, in the spirit on your reasoning, think of the Tax money we could make if we decriminalized it and openly sold it? ...

Good that you picked up on it and showed the typical paranoia common to users along with the usual bollox justification and complete and utter lack of acceptance of the harmful effects they have on many, if not most users .

I'm not discussing drugs,.... like i said, there been plenty of other threads for junkie scum to make excuses for their use.

...He said as he slams the door shut in a huff on his way to the pub and newsagents to pick up 20 B&H
 
During the Blair years in the early 2000's the government was knocking out so many new laws that the police wern't aware of most of them. Blair thought that if you just made a new law, that was it, problem solved. No thought to how police can actually enforce those laws.

Shamelessly copying and pasting the Winston Churchill quote ...
If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law.

If we've got to the stage that no one person can hold all the laws correctly in their head, and observing someone doing (or not doing something) cannot tell if a law has been broken or not, thus warranting further investigation, then that's a pretty bad place to be in.

I'm sure it's been posted on ArRSe before, but this video of an American lawyer defending "taking the Fifth" is excellent. He changed my mind about how I felt about it ... (Yes, just checked, it has been posted - no surprise there, it is brilliant)


When there are so many laws, and the application of them is so complicated, that no (normal) human can be sure of their legal status, what they have done/not done, that you don't know how even a seemingly innocent answer to the most innocuous query can then later be used to nail you, that does tend to undermine respect for the law. (And although it's not their fault, also, to a certain extent by association, the police themselves.)
 
...He said as he slams the door shut in a huff on his way to the pub and newsagents to pick up 20 B&H


Very rarely slam doors, or kick the dog or anything else of that nature or for that reason, find it a bit over dramatic TBH, and it's Malboro Gold.. .and they're not illegal - yet , weren't illegal when i started smoking plus they don't have the same mind altering effect, but if your are trying to equate and compare use of the two, it says a lot about your level of reasoning..


Must be from the same generation as catty mong who tried to blame society for having poor people and forcing them to be thieves and criminals.. ..and also forcing people to take illegal substances and making them criminals as well.

Yep, blame anyone or anything else rather than your own actions.... How appallingly gutless and weak can you get?
 
Last edited:

Green_Homer

War Hero
Someone gets abused on Facebook... ”have you blocked them?” Majority of replies to that are along the lines of “why should I block them? That means they’ve won...aren’t you going to do them?” As you’ll know, many people will be running a massive number of social media accounts, and will carefully provoke, attempt to entrap someone into an incidence of mal-comms. It’s always “I’ve been sent a screenshot of...” too, when in actual fact they’ve been stalking an ex on Facebook and see some comment that vaguely refers to them. Always seems to be women too.
Thankfully I have had zero jobs like that since joining MDP... And people call me stoopid

Sent from my HD1913 using Tapatalk
 

exsniffer

Old-Salt
I would be interested to see what our resident LE community think about the attached article

It seems to explain the current state of policing and the attitude of the majority of the paying punters who are not part of the benefits class.
 
I would be interested to see what our resident LE community think about the attached article

It seems to explain the current state of policing and the attitude of the majority of the paying punters who are not part of the benefits class.
Have just started reading it and was immediately struck by ‘public faith in police force’- which has prompted me to break off and reply to this.

Define ‘public’. Is it that same public where, out of say 1000 calls to police, only 50 of them will not already have had police interaction of some sort 5 times this month already- be it from reporting a neighbour for breaching covid, being insulted on Facebook etc etc...
Guaranteed, the first few 9s calls I’ll take tonight will be from some scrote chasing up when he can have his mobile phone back that was seized when he was arrested 2 days ago for aggravted burglary or whatever. He’ll get royally fecked off.
The same public who, of all reports to police, maybe only a small percentage DO NOT amount to issues of taking personal responsibility ..,Facebook bollocks, ex partners etc etc.
”real crime” from my point of view, is quite low down in the stats compared to the overwhelming amount of sheer bollocks the “public” find acceptable to expect the police to deal with.

Covid has also shown there is no longer a ‘man on the Clapham omnibus’ and the Jeremy Kyle types were equally matched in fuckwittery by those who otherwise consider themselves ‘pillars of society’.

Lexi-Ann (member of public) is not going to have much “faith” in police because- they fecked her off when she started getting lippy on 999 about her grandson Jayden being nicked for Twoc - and the OIC still hasn’t replied to his request for his seized belongings back whilst its still under investigation.
Nor is Mrs Miggins...who is disgruntled the police heli was not despatched over her 28th report of covid breach about the tenants in the house opposite to her own house.
Nor Sherlock Holmes who is irate that his 20th Intel submission of “man in blue car in town centre dealing drugs this afternoon” has not resulted in an arrest...

Thats what the “public” is nowadays. I’m about to spend 9 hours listening to them in various states of drunkenness / distress / annoyance. Out of however many calls I take, I reckon maybe only 5% COULD NOT be placed in the “for feck sake get a grip” category.

Remember- when someone is at your door with a baseball bat- the nearest tazor authorised unit is likely tied up elsewhere dealing with what turns out to be a low level verbal domestic or, someone who’s 15 year old son has stayed out past his bedtime for the 5th time this week.
You might even be placed on hold when calling 999, because all the call takers are 10 minutes into a call about being called a slag on Facebook or- dealing with an online report about “possibly” racist graffiti from someone identifying as non-binary...

Thats the very same public who respond to these opinion polls.

Id say only 1% of calls are from “Steve” reporting his car has been nicked, and it’s the first time he’s called police since 1998...

”managing expectations” plays a huge role. It’s about time people’s expectations were also “managed” and in many cases realigned though.

And I’ve said it before, it makes my heart weep when I take a call off 85 year old Mabel who has been waiting on 101 14 minutes reporting a strange bloke with a torch in her garden...but she didn’t want to cause a fuss.
 
Last edited:
Have just started reading it and was immediately struck by ‘public faith in police force’- which has prompted me to break off and reply to this.

Define ‘public’. Is it that same public where, out of say 1000 calls to police, only 50 of them will not already have had police interaction of some sort 5 times this month already- be it from reporting a neighbour for breaching covid, being insulted on Facebook etc etc...
Guaranteed, the first few 9s calls I’ll take tonight will be from some scrote chasing up when he can have his mobile phone back that was seized when he was arrested 2 days ago for aggravted burglary or whatever. He’ll get royally fecked off.
The same public who, of all reports to police, maybe only a small percentage DO NOT amount to issues of taking personal responsibility ..,Facebook bollocks, ex partners etc etc.
”real crime” from my point of view, is quite low down in the stats compared to the overwhelming amount of sheer bollocks the “public” find acceptable to expect the police to deal with.

Covid has also shown there is no longer a ‘man on the Clapham omnibus’ and the Jeremy Kyle types were equally matched in fuckwittery by those who otherwise consider themselves ‘pillars of society’.

Lexi-Ann (member of public) is not going to have much “faith” in police because- they fecked her off when she started getting lippy on 999 about her grandson Jayden being nicked for Twoc - and the OIC still hasn’t replied to his request for his seized belongings back whilst its still under investigation.
Nor is Mrs Miggins...who is disgruntled the police heli was not despatched over her 28th report of covid breach about the tenants in the house opposite to her own house.
Nor Sherlock Holmes who is irate that his 20th Intel submission of “man in blue car in town centre dealing drugs this afternoon” has not resulted in an arrest...

Thats what the “public” is nowadays. I’m about to spend 9 hours listening to them in various states of drunkenness / distress / annoyance. Out of however many calls I take, I reckon maybe only 5% COULD NOT be placed in the “for feck sake get a grip” category.

Remember- when someone is at your door with a baseball bat- the nearest tazor authorised unit is likely tied up elsewhere dealing with what turns out to be a low level verbal domestic or, someone who’s 15 year old son has stayed out past his bedtime for the 5th time this week.
You might even be placed on hold when calling 999, because all the call takers are 10 minutes into a call about being called a slag on Facebook or- dealing with an online report about “possibly” racist graffiti from someone identifying as non-binary...

Thats the very same public who respond to these opinion polls.

Id say only 1% of calls are from “Steve” reporting his car has been nicked, and it’s the first time he’s called police since 1998...
Make Misogny a Hate Crime

This will cheer you up. A campaign to make Misogny a Hate Crime by the woke brigade. It also ilustrates the thinking that if they just make a law then the problem is solved. No thought about how the police are going to investigate and enforce that law and the resources needed. Or even defining what constitutes misogny?

In the case of the two women in the article there were already long established laws such as assault and theft to prosecute the offenders. With a sentence in the upper part of the scale to take account of the homophobia.
 
During the Blair years in the early 2000's the government was knocking out so many new laws that the police wern't aware of most of them. Blair thought that if you just made a new law, that was it, problem solved. No thought to how police can actually enforce those laws. It didn't help that the Met got rid of training days and it all devolved into a one hour computer based tick box exercise.
It's almost as if he knew from being an ex lawyer, that another lawyer he knew and friends of that lawyer would benefit from such a strategy?
 
Make Misogny a Hate Crime

This will cheer you up. A campaign to make Misogny a Hate Crime by the woke brigade. It also ilustrates the thinking that if they just make a law then the problem is solved. No thought about how the police are going to investigate and enforce that law and the resources needed. Or even defining what constitutes misogny?

In the case of the two women in the article there were already long established laws such as assault and theft to prosecute the offenders. With a sentence in the upper part of the scale to take account of the homophobia.
As you’ll know, we only send maybe 60% of calls for despatch. Many of the others will be given a telephone appointment with an officer. One of those will be sat opposite me tonight, and I’ll get to listen to them having to take 20 minutes of his/her time trying to explain to someone that just because she’s a mixed race woman, her neighbour moving her wheelie bin away from his back yard gate does not constitute a hate crime.
 
As you’ll know, we only send maybe 60% of calls for despatch. Many of the others will be given a telephone appointment with an officer. One of those will be sat opposite me tonight, and I’ll get to listen to them having to take 20 minutes of his/her time trying to explain to someone that just because she’s a mixed race woman, her neighbour moving her wheelie bin away from his back yard gate does not constitute a hate crime.
Although according to that idiot Lord McPherson (unfortunatly still drawing breath) it is.
 
Although according to that idiot Lord McPherson (unfortunatly still drawing breath) it is.

Yep- technically it is- hence the rule 'report toi investigate' as opposed to 'investigate to report'.

If someone calls and says kids are knocking on on their door and running away, and they believe it's because they are <insert protected or otherwise characteristic> then I am not at liberty to decide otherwise and it gets logged and reported as such. An officer then has to investigate and reduce that member of public's 'faith' in the police force by telling them ts actually a load of old bollocks. (if of course it is)

Notwithstanding- there are of course real incidences of hate crime that do get 'gripped'.

When a significant proportion of the public have unrealistic expectations then it's not surprising so many have lost 'faith'. There is also very likely the silent majority - people such as....well I - who have only ever called police maybe twice in my life.
It's very rare for me to take a call from someone who has not already called police or had some sort on recent involvment. Putting their number into the system normally yields an average of 10 calls per year from that number. Quite a large amount have 10-20 calls per month made for one reason or another.

Of course- there are those who unfortunately live in a high crime area and have to report "crime" against them. Those people also tend to be the same ones who get aggrieved on facebook or whose grandsons get their phones seized as evidence...

It's a complicated sociological mess.
 
Last edited:
Have just started reading it and was immediately struck by ‘public faith in police force’- which has prompted me to break off and reply to this.

Define ‘public’. Is it that same public where, out of say 1000 calls to police, only 50 of them will not already have had police interaction of some sort 5 times this month already- be it from reporting a neighbour for breaching covid, being insulted on Facebook etc etc...
Guaranteed, the first few 9s calls I’ll take tonight will be from some scrote chasing up when he can have his mobile phone back that was seized when he was arrested 2 days ago for aggravted burglary or whatever. He’ll get royally fecked off.
The same public who, of all reports to police, maybe only a small percentage DO NOT amount to issues of taking personal responsibility ..,Facebook bollocks, ex partners etc etc.
”real crime” from my point of view, is quite low down in the stats compared to the overwhelming amount of sheer bollocks the “public” find acceptable to expect the police to deal with.

Covid has also shown there is no longer a ‘man on the Clapham omnibus’ and the Jeremy Kyle types were equally matched in fuckwittery by those who otherwise consider themselves ‘pillars of society’.

Lexi-Ann (member of public) is not going to have much “faith” in police because- they fecked her off when she started getting lippy on 999 about her grandson Jayden being nicked for Twoc - and the OIC still hasn’t replied to his request for his seized belongings back whilst its still under investigation.
Nor is Mrs Miggins...who is disgruntled the police heli was not despatched over her 28th report of covid breach about the tenants in the house opposite to her own house.
Nor Sherlock Holmes who is irate that his 20th Intel submission of “man in blue car in town centre dealing drugs this afternoon” has not resulted in an arrest...

Thats what the “public” is nowadays. I’m about to spend 9 hours listening to them in various states of drunkenness / distress / annoyance. Out of however many calls I take, I reckon maybe only 5% COULD NOT be placed in the “for feck sake get a grip” category.

Remember- when someone is at your door with a baseball bat- the nearest tazor authorised unit is likely tied up elsewhere dealing with what turns out to be a low level verbal domestic or, someone who’s 15 year old son has stayed out past his bedtime for the 5th time this week.
You might even be placed on hold when calling 999, because all the call takers are 10 minutes into a call about being called a slag on Facebook or- dealing with an online report about “possibly” racist graffiti from someone identifying as non-binary...



Thats the very same public who respond to these opinion polls.

Id say only 1% of calls are from “Steve” reporting his car has been nicked, and it’s the first time he’s called police since 1998...

”managing expectations” plays a huge role. It’s about time people’s expectations were “managed” and in many cases realigned though.

And I’ve said it before, it makes my heart weep when I take a call off 85 year old Mabel who has been waiting on 101 14 minutes reporting a strange bloke with a torch in her garden...but she didn’t want to cause a fuss.



Yep, make you right . I read the link against my better judgement - knowing that me and Con Wom had not a lot in common and were highly unlikely to have a similar perspective.
 
As a reader of Terry Pratchett, I suspect that a slightly more Morporkian approach to lawmaking could be worth considering!
Yes indeed. The mandatory public execution of mimes and other street theatre 'artists' through the medium of a sealed glass box would definitely be a vote-winner.
 
Shamelessly copying and pasting the Winston Churchill quote ...


If we've got to the stage that no one person can hold all the laws correctly in their head, and observing someone doing (or not doing something) cannot tell if a law has been broken or not, thus warranting further investigation, then that's a pretty bad place to be in.

I'm sure it's been posted on ArRSe before, but this video of an American lawyer defending "taking the Fifth" is excellent. He changed my mind about how I felt about it ... (Yes, just checked, it has been posted - no surprise there, it is brilliant)


When there are so many laws, and the application of them is so complicated, that no (normal) human can be sure of their legal status, what they have done/not done, that you don't know how even a seemingly innocent answer to the most innocuous query can then later be used to nail you, that does tend to undermine respect for the law. (And although it's not their fault, also, to a certain extent by association, the police themselves.)

Yes it is an absolutely wonderful video and should be compulsory viewing for anyone living in, or visiting, the USA. I saw the video early on in my time over here in the USA and was quite perplexed initially about not wanting to speak with police officers. However, my opinion has changed.

British police officers go through a standardised training process which, hopefully, and theoretically. means they are all of the same minimum standard. Everyone has heard about "police academies" in the US, but they are not what you may think that they are. Many officers go through training programs that you could say were similar to the police training programs you see in europe - large centrally administered dedicated training centres with planned curriculums. Those institutions would include Federal agencies, state agencies ( @Sam The Bam was a state police officer and will confirm this), and many of the larger cities such as New York, Chicago, Los Angeles have their own training schools. However, when you get to the city of Buttfcuk, North Oklacaldia, population 6,000 with a police department of 65 officers they cannot afford a training school. What fills the gap for those small towns and cities to recruit "trained" police officers is the local community colleges who run what they call a "police academy".

The community college "police academy" class is run for 4 to 5 months and is taught by mainly part-time instructors who are generally serving officers with small police departments. No officers from the larger departments with their own training school would want, or need, to work at a community college teaching policing. Actually I lie, the dad of a mate of my son is a Captain in the State police, nice bloke, he was approached to go and teach at a community college "police academy", so he did. He lasted less than a month. He was applying the same standards required in the state police training school to the college police academy. The students complained, the head of course called him in for a chat to be easier on them and to lower the standards........long story short, he told them to poke it.

So, you get variable quality of potential police officers falling out of the community colleges whose most likely employer will be a small town police force which is a reflection of the attitudes and mentality of the person running it. Actually, the person running the show often times does not run the show, the police chief that is. The police chief is appointed by the local mayor on an at will contract and can be fired at any time by the mayor - so basically local police forces are a reflection of the attitudes and mentality of the local mayor.

Then we get on to actual "policing". The poorly trained officers you see whizzing around in their cars don't do much of what I consider to be actual policing. They will stop people for traffic offences and issue tickets, they will attend small crimes, take some details and issue a crime number, but that is it for them, they are nothing more than security guards with some police powers. The clever stuff of statement taking, interviewing and investigating is done by detectives (in the UK police officers generally do their own work unless it is deemed to be needed to be passed on to a specialist). I have seen first hand the difference in the report writing abilities of patrol officers and detectives, its not pretty. Patrol officers are like semi-literate/dyslexic 12 year olds, and I'm being kind, whereas the detectives are able to write and put together reports like literate grown ups.

So, back to the video. The reason you do not talk to police officers in the USA is that the first point of contact for most people is ordinarily with poorly trained, semi-literate, morons, who to be honest do not know that much about the laws they are enforcing. Do not speak with the police if not actually arrested, if arrested then give them your name and address and the phone number of your lawyer - we all carry a lawyers business card in our wallets. Our lawyer used to be an Assistant District Attorney. If the police say that they are not arresting you and are only detaining you they may handcuff you, that is allowed - don't argue the point.

As an FYI point of interest which was bought up in a chat some friends (couple of police and a lawyer in the group) and myself were having a few years ago. When you go to the airport the TSA bloke checks your ID and might ask you where you are going, etc, then one of them might ask you about your luggage. They are federal law enforcement officers of the lowest level, but legally they are required to explain your rights to you if asking you a question. They never do, and if you told them that they would bugger you around so much you would never get on your flight. Just interesting.

Just remember in the UK when cautioned for interview it may harm your defence if you fail to mention something which you later rely on in court.
 
Last edited:
This video camera footage of police in NSW Australia arresting an unconscious man concerns me. Yes he is a big unit, a professional athlete, he is what used to be called "drunk and incapable" and the police's primary concern should be for his welfare. From the very beginning the police to me seem to be aggressive and overbearing. perhaps some of the currently serving officers could comment and give their views on how they see it.
 
During the Blair years in the early 2000's the government was knocking out so many new laws that the police wern't aware of most of them. Blair thought that if you just made a new law, that was it, problem solved. No thought to how police can actually enforce those laws. It didn't help that the Met got rid of training days and it all devolved into a one hour computer based tick box exercise.

I have been wondering about this sort of thing. Do we as a country need a complete top to bottom overhaul of the law? The Laws keep getting fiddled with things bolted on to it, so it seems rather unsteady in places. Equally a lot of these laws are for changes to society and the equipment society is run through. When a lot of Laws were written the Internet was not even on the horizon.

Nor Sherlock Holmes who is irate that his 20th Intel submission of “man in blue car in town centre dealing drugs this afternoon” has not resulted in an arrest...

I must admit I've tried to explain the process of intel to many people, and how with a large log of minor incidents will eventually generate a response. Some people get it, some really don't.
 
I have been wondering about this sort of thing. Do we as a country need a complete top to bottom overhaul of the law? The Laws keep getting fiddled with things bolted on to it, so it seems rather unsteady in places. Equally a lot of these laws are for changes to society and the equipment society is run through. When a lot of Laws were written the Internet was not even on the horizon.



I must admit I've tried to explain the process of intel to many people, and how with a large log of minor incidents will eventually generate a response. Some people get it, some really don't.


It could work, and could work a lot better if we also have a complete overhaul of shitty attitudes from certain sections and age group of society including middle class c@nts who think that they are just as special .......and a return to the BFO Stick , increased use of Tazer and Pepper Spray and any Cop who is hesitant to use these items or doesn't use them enough, to be given a stern talking to.

.... also deploy a 100 or so Nigerian Mopol for say 3 months to every city on an exchange visit and allow dem to do de policing dey way sah
 

Latest Threads

Top