• This is a stand-to for an incoming competition, one of our most expensive yet.
    Later this week we're going to be offering the opportunity to Win £270 Rab Neutrino Pro military down jacket
    Visit the thread at that link above and Watch it to be notified as soon as the competition goes live

Man arrested for confronting gang

#1
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tyne/7559202.stm

An ex-detective has condemned the actions of Northumbria Police as "an utter disgrace" after he was locked up for confronting beer-throwing youths.

Paul Lawson, 52, said a gang threatened to kill him when he challenged them, but he was later arrested on suspicion of attacking one of the them, and then had to wait two months before being told no further action would be taken.

The news comes less than a month after Northumbria's chief constable urged the public to tackle rowdy behaviour. The force said it stood by the actions of its officers.

Last month Northumbria's chief constable Mike Craik urged ordinary people to challenge rowdy behaviour like swearing and drinking.


And........
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/7558560.stm

A man who was arrested and cautioned for slapping his 13-year-old daughter across the face fears he will no longer be able to work with children. Jim McCullough, of Manchester, hit Jess after she banged a neighbour's window at midnight, and she called the police.

He has now quit the football coaching and community work he has done for over 15 years, as the caution could stop him working with vulnerable children.
 
B

Biscuits_AB

Guest
#2
I slap kids regularly. It's great fun and unlike many sports and activities nowadays, it's free. You should try it. Next time your wandering round Sainsbury's, just have a crafty slap as one passes you by, then stop, and have a look at the price of a box Uncle Ben's long grain rice as the little f*cker goes whining to his mum. The cakes and biscuits isle is like treasure island. You can run your trolley right into the little c*nts and get away with it all day there.
 

TheIronDuke

ADC
Book Reviewer
#3
ukdaytona said:
Last month Northumbria's chief constable Mike Craik urged ordinary people to challenge rowdy behaviour like swearing and drinking.
Lawson was ex Met. I'm surprised they didnt nick him for attempting to pervert the course of justice then discover a wrap of Ching in his sock.
 
#4
ukdaytona said:
Last month Northumbria's chief constable Mike Craik urged ordinary people to challenge rowdy behaviour like swearing and drinking.
This'll be because outside of towns like Newcastle, Morpeth and Alnwick Northumbria police actually have no presence anywhere.

Is he mad? You'd have to be mental. Risk getting filled in and stabbed only to get FA back up if and when the police turn up.

I'll join the army next. :x
 
#5
doesn´t surprise me in the least regards the gang and the ex copper.

They were probably "hard as nails" when in a gang and stairing down a lone man, then turned soft as the sh1t the are actually made up of in front of the coppers "pleease, sir, he grabbed me. All I was doing was walking minding my own business... init."

This country has gone to the dogs.

Re the 13 yo. It´ll be funny in 3 years time, you´re a big girl, out you go. earn your own way, you can look after yourself. Just call 999.


"National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) policy manager Lucy Thorpe said: "All parents can sometimes be pushed to the limit by teenagers who are looking to see how far they can go but smacking won't solve the problem.

"It simply tells your child that violence is acceptable and gives the message that it's all right for them to hit other people."

Sorry, all I hear is, blah, blah, blah, let the kids run riot. They will soon calm down. A good slap is what some of ém need to ground them again. Obviously the NSPCC prefer our kids to try hard drugs and prostitution before "coming around" again to normal behaviour.

And from the girl herself.
"I was expecting my dad to come home from the police station and for everything to be the same as before."

They haven´t got a fcuking clue have they? No idea of the responsibilities behind their rights, nor any concept of what they do to others. Callous little brat.

Not to mention the kids that wont get to benefit from her fathers work. 15 years down the pan, by some fickle brat who ran to the cops rather than face her the consequences of her OWN actions.

I was slapped as a child, and it seems odd to me that such treatment DIDN´T show me taht it was acceptable to hit other people. Far from it. I certainly don´t go round now slapping people willy nilly (ie happy slapping). It taught me that I had gone to far, and that I should not do what I had done ever again.

So I got slapped, and because of this ...

I didn´t mug anybody,
rob anybody,
do drug,
join a gang....

I had a real good childhood. (apologies to original).
 

TheIronDuke

ADC
Book Reviewer
#6
chocolate_frog said:
They haven´t got a fcuking clue have they? No idea of the responsibilities behind their rights, nor any concept of what they do to others. Callous little brat.
Its not always the kids. In the first incident (Morpeth) it is. Street smart kids know exactly the sort of grief they can cause by saying "He hit / grabbed / touched me"

But many years ago my youngest, aged about 6, arrived home from school and started babbling about her day as Mum made her tea.

"Babble babble, and oh, Mrs XXX says that if you or Daddy hit me I must phone the police"

And freeze. I never hit them and the worst would be a quick slap on the leg from Mum.

Cue serious family chat about the consequences of grassing Mum & Dad to Babylon.
 
#7
It's the story we've seen approaching for a long time. Kids who know what they can do and expect to get away with it. Not learning respect, manners or any important social skill that will stand them in good preparation for life. Then when they are a bit older and unemployable, it will them who will cry that society has let them down.

The truth is, the only responsible people who actually care will be in jail or unable to work with children due to false accusations and the inability for teenagers to actually accept the consequences of their actions. Either that or not daft enough to get involved knowing that they will get no thanks.

You reap what you sow..... and as far as I'm concerned todays teenagers have to prove they are worthy of help before getting it rather than the other way round.
 
#8
Typical bloody Britian.
 
#9
The problem is too many police see arrest as the only option. If we receive a complaint from someone - no matter how much of a toerag they are - then we are obliged to investigate. Most police see arrest as merely an administrative procedure to allow evidence to be examined and interviews to take place.

However, in lots of circumstances I don't really see why they can't be investigated through polcet book interviews in people's houses and by taking statements off people - outside of the custody suite. And persued with reports for summons if necessery.

SOCAP2005 was designed to make arrest a "last resort" if necessary (if someone was in danger, if evidence was goig to be destroyed, if someone was blocking a highway, if you can't verify an identity and so on...) but it still seems that people are nicked when it really doesn't have to happen.

TheIronDuke said:
"Babble babble, and oh, Mrs XXX says that if you or Daddy hit me I must phone the police"
what!? I really think a complaint against the teacher is in order. While the teacher may have meant "if your being given black eyes by mummy and daddy then tell someone" the message that is being sent across is that "your parents have no authority and if they give you a clip round the ear ring the old bill" - the kids can't and wont be abel to tell the difference from such a statement.
 
#10
Mr_Deputy said:
Come on Police, Government and local people (you/us) - look after your area. Be vigilant (not vigilante) and help us reduce the risks of this crap on our streets.
none of this will improve until the government give back control of policing to the police.

Policing should be "of the people, for the people", not "by the state, for the state" which it currently is. (since labour changed the law to give them direct control)

I always took a dim view of the US situation where they can elect the local police cheeses. Considering what labour have done to our police and that the police are utterly unaccountable to the public, perhaps we need to go down the route where we elect our local police chiefs. If the people of an area want a 'robust' policy toward youths, you'll get it.
 
#11
bensonby said:
TheIronDuke said:
"Babble babble, and oh, Mrs XXX says that if you or Daddy hit me I must phone the police"
what!? I really think a complaint against the teacher is in order. While the teacher may have meant "if your being given black eyes by mummy and daddy then tell someone" the message that is being sent across is that "your parents have no authority and if they give you a clip round the ear ring the old bill" - the kids can't and wont be abel to tell the difference from such a statement.
Too right. Wasnt it recently clarified that it was permissible to strike a kid, as long it doesnt mark them? As an aside I wonder if that extends to kids to whom you are not related? :D

Complain. Or hit the teacher :twisted:
 
#12
Mr_Deputy said:
According to Radio 4 apparently you can still caused reddening of the skin (not inflammation) to your child without serious repercussions/conviction. Any coppers confirm that fact???

Basically that's right. "Reasonable chastisement" is the buzzword.
 
#13
bensonby said:
Mr_Deputy said:
According to Radio 4 apparently you can still caused reddening of the skin (not inflammation) to your child without serious repercussions/conviction. Any coppers confirm that fact???

Basically that's right. "Reasonable chastisement" is the buzzword.
actually, that used to be the case. but the law was changed since then.
 
#14
bensonby said:
Mr_Deputy said:
According to Radio 4 apparently you can still caused reddening of the skin (not inflammation) to your child without serious repercussions/conviction. Any coppers confirm that fact???

Basically that's right. "Reasonable chastisement" is the buzzword.
What about other people's kids? Just to subdue them, you understand. 8O
 

TheIronDuke

ADC
Book Reviewer
#15
Rachel Johnson had a good piece in the Sunday Times the other week. At the start of the school hols. Kids saying to their parents "What are we going to do today?"

ie: What are you going to do to entertain me? An idea that would be laughable to my generation.

Q: How many 14 year olds does it take to change a light bulb?

A: One to hold the lightbulb. And 500,000,000 people to make the world revolve around them.
 
#16
SkiCarver said:
bensonby said:
Mr_Deputy said:
According to Radio 4 apparently you can still caused reddening of the skin (not inflammation) to your child without serious repercussions/conviction. Any coppers confirm that fact???

Basically that's right. "Reasonable chastisement" is the buzzword.
actually, that used to be the case. but the law was changed since then.
No. Reasonable Chastisement is still the defence for common assault on their children or of children which they are in loco parentis (which reddening of the skin would be)

- It used to be a defence for parents charged with GBH and ABH on their offspring 8O before the Children Act 2004. That's what has changed.

It can be a bloody fine line though.
 
#17
Mr_Deputy said:
bensonby said:
SkiCarver said:
bensonby said:
Mr_Deputy said:
According to Radio 4 apparently you can still caused reddening of the skin (not inflammation) to your child without serious repercussions/conviction. Any coppers confirm that fact???

Basically that's right. "Reasonable chastisement" is the buzzword.
actually, that used to be the case. but the law was changed since then.
No. Reasonable Chastisement is still the defence for common assault on their children or of children which they are in loco parentis (which reddening of the skin would be)

- It used to be a defence for parents charged with GBH and ABH on their offspring 8O before the Children Act 2004. That's what has changed.

It can be a bloody fine line though.
I'd say this is the problem with constantly changing laws. Confusion and no place to get a moral footing.
(Don't want to deviat as this is an interesting and USEFUL thread/discussion but look at drugs for example as well - confusion and very mixed signals.)
Absolutely. "Common sense" (often outlined in common law) has gone out the window to be replaced with dozens of pieces of statute law.

Did I read somewhere that the labour government introduced more laws in their term of office than the whole of the rest of the 20th century?
 
#19
Mr_Deputy said:
Detonator said:
I've read that.
I'd give the number of new laws but I don't have enough keys on my keyboard. Plus dont want to wear it out.
Any coincidence that Mrs Blair was a lawyer/liar?
And nothing more ex than an ex copper. Think of the larffs in ve station
 
#20
Common Law essentially used to say "Course you can do it squire - unless we say otherwise"

The Law as it has mutated to says "You can't do a fecking thing - unless we legislate to say it is alright"

On the "reasonable chastisement" thing. Proper barsteward that. My Snot Goblin bruises like a peach. :D
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top