Discussion
Ok that's all good but did anyone see the program about car thieves last week?
This kid got caught red handed by 2 officers sitting waiting for him to try and steal a car, also was caught on cctv AND the tv cameras filming the program. The police grab him and obviously all the local chavs come out claiming he's innocent. Anyway after being caught absolutely obviously with evidence to back it up - he got... a caution!!!!
What the hell is that about? How is it going to deter these car criminals by giving them a caution?
Another thing on that show was a 12 year old who had stolen a Transit van. He drove for miles and miles with police behind him as it was too dangerous to pull him over - fair enough. However all he got was 3 months in Juve 'prison' and a ban from driving? He has no licence anyway so what's the ban going to acheive?
No wonder car insurance is so high - car theives get away with it all the time.
This kid got caught red handed by 2 officers sitting waiting for him to try and steal a car, also was caught on cctv AND the tv cameras filming the program. The police grab him and obviously all the local chavs come out claiming he's innocent. Anyway after being caught absolutely obviously with evidence to back it up - he got... a caution!!!!
What the hell is that about? How is it going to deter these car criminals by giving them a caution?
Another thing on that show was a 12 year old who had stolen a Transit van. He drove for miles and miles with police behind him as it was too dangerous to pull him over - fair enough. However all he got was 3 months in Juve 'prison' and a ban from driving? He has no licence anyway so what's the ban going to acheive?
No wonder car insurance is so high - car theives get away with it all the time.
mungo said:
Lambochick - I'm Hants police. We also now have tickets for no insurance so on top of what you saw on that tv programme we can also give them a Fixed Penalty Notice for £200 and 6 penalty points for not having insurance on top of having their vehicle siezed under Section 165
6pts + £200 for no insurance?; a step in the right direction maybe, but not really good enough - I got 6 pts + £300 for a slight (ahem
) speed 'indiscretion' yet I was insured, taxed, safe & otherwise legal. Makes me puke when people with no tax, no insurance and indeed no licence get a 'non' punishment, eg when 15 year old 'joyriders' (aka car thieves) get a driving ban - WTF? 
catso said:
Lambochick - I'm Hants police. We also now have tickets for no insurance so on top of what you saw on that tv programme we can also give them a Fixed Penalty Notice for £200 and 6 penalty points for not having insurance on top of having their vehicle siezed under Section 165
6pts + £200 for no insurance?; a step in the right direction maybe, but not really good enough - I got 6 pts + £300 for a slight (ahem
The driving ban isn't toothless, it's arming the court for if they continue to drive.
Driving without a licence is not a custodial offence. If the court then ban you for it, but you drive again, that is now disqualified driving which is a custodial offence.
If they didn't ban them, then they can't be charged with disqualified driving next time and that would mean them again being charged with just no licence & no custodial sentence being available come sentencing (again).
Disqualified driving & driving without a licence are not the same thing.
>> Edited by vonhosen on Friday 5th May 07:14
PEDMEISTER said:
The Police DO NOT hassle motorists for the sake of it.
Like when 2 police men stoped me in broad daylight, and accused me of driving down a one way street the wrong way, WHICH I DIDNT, only when I came on strong and demanded their names to put a complaint in, did they back off.
Like when there was a spate of coloured drivers in Beemas getting stopped in London for no apparant reason, until one night this nice coloured chap who was stopped in his very nice expensive Beema showed the nice policemen HIS WARRANT CARD, and he outranked them as well, so why was he stopped, because he was in a nice car, and was coloured, YES SOME OF THEM DO HASSLE MOTORISTS.
Sadly you do meet some TOSSERS in uniform, and its those incidents folk tend to remember.
Having said that, I genuinly find your comments on this site eductional, seriously I do, but cannot agree on your comment on this one having been hasseled myself as described above. I have also met a good bunch of policemen as well, which outnumber the TOSSERS by a long shot.
PEDMEISTER said:
..............
People like you make me vomit. You are obviously anti-authority/anti anything in a uniform. However, I bet I can guess who the first people you call will be if your car gets stolen, or your house burgled! They won't be 'TOSSERS' then will they?!
Unfortunately, as far as a large proportion of the public are concerned, they may very well be when the only action a stolen car/burgulary seems to get is the issue of a crime number to claim off your insurance.
mungo said:
Bigbob - I am sure you are aware but police can only take action if they have evidence of an offender for the offence.
Sometimes what makes me laugh is the amount of people very quick to talk badly of the police yet are not willing to make a statement or provide police with evidence when they have a complaint to make.
Yes mate I understand that but surely the collection of evidence requires an officer to attend and/or investigate.
In a couple of instances where I've been personally involved (caravan stolen off my drive and four tyres slashed on a car) the reports were filtered out by a 'crime management unit' as being below a 'value' worth investigating.
Might not always BE the case BUT that is the perception of lots of MoP.
BB
PEDMEISTER said:
Nice one, these are the sort of drivers the cops should be stopping and having a go at, not someone whos only crime is owning a flash car, lets hope the london cops start this also
Umm, most interesting comment. When I attended my Police Probationary training centre for 6 months classroom instruction & practicals, I never once came across an offence regarding the ownership of "a flash car." Have I been missing something for the last nine years I have been engaged in Policing? Where does it specify in PACE 1984 that it is a crime to possess "a flash car?" Please elaborate my friend.
The Police DO NOT hassle motorists for the sake of it. The only people who bang on about this either:- 1) Despise the Police & authority in general, or 2) Have been committing some form of moving traffic offence that has caused an officer to take appropriate action ie excessive speed in an urban area, contravention of red T-light, or sloppy/careless/inconsiderate driving. If you get pinged by Plod, don't whinge & moan, accept responsibility for your own actions.
I am VERY anti-speed camera, as many Police officers are. It removes discretion from the equation, and human interaction. It is doubtful if cameras have improved road safety. In addition, many non-traffic officers believe that greater flexibility in relation to speed limits are required. I believe that the speed limit should vary according to the time of day, the volume of traffic, and the prevailing weather conditions. The appropriate limit could be displayed on the Matrix signs on the motorway. If it is 3am in the morning during BST and fine weather prevails, I see no reason why a motorist should not be permitted to cruise at 100+mph. However, until the law changes.......
What do people out there think in relation to my suggestion?
Cheers,
Ped
Im sorry but just because you are a good copper and never hassle anyone for no reason that doesnt mean they are all like that, i have been stopped plenty of times and YES it was for no reason whatsoever, its funny that i have never been stopped in my 1.1 fiesta runabout in the 7 years ive had it, yet i had my TVR less then 2 weeks when i first got stopped, and its been the same story with other people i know with nice cars, im sorry if its somthing you dont want to hear about yopur collegues but it does happen, other then that i have the maximum respect for the police as we do NEED them, and i suppose there are bound to be a few bad eggs in there!
vonhosen said:
Disqualified driving & driving without a licence are not the same thing.
Indeed and I'm not condoning driving whilst disqualified, but a Disqualified driver will (in most cases at least) have passed a driving test and may well be a very good and safe driver with many years experience (but just been scammed a few too many times), whereas a 15yr car thief will not have learnt how to drive, is highly dangerous, is a thief and doesn't give a f**k.
I know which offence is worse in my book......
>> Edited by catso on Friday 5th May 12:20
mungo said:
Most disqaul drivers I have dealt with were disqual through drink driving not points accumulation... and a lot of the disqual drivers I have nicked were disqaulified and pissed up at the time!
That maybe so but a person who is banned due to a speed that for 40+ years was seen as acceptable, a person with no accident history, a person who doesn't drink-drive, a person with an otherwise unblemished record who, for whatever reason, drives after being disqualified gets treated more harshly than the thieving scumbag with no licence, no insurance, no morals and no real driving ability who steals and trashes somones P&J, how can that be 'right'?
vonhosen said:In law they may not be the same.
.
Driving without a licence is not a custodial offence. If the court then ban you for it, but you drive again, that is now disqualified driving which is a custodial offence.
If they didn't ban them, then they can't be charged with disqualified driving next time and that would mean them again being charged with just no licence & no custodial sentence being available come sentencing (again).
Disqualified driving & driving without a licence are not the same thing.
One does wonder, however, what is the conceptual difference between driving whilst disqualified and driving whilst unqualified.
Is the point that one lacks the capability to drive, or is it that one's right to drive should be constrained by force in order to penalise something else?
This reeks of the same "logic" by which people in the UK can get driving bans for "offences" that have nothing whatever to do with driving.
mungo said:
Bob - I suppose every force is different with their own policies etc...
Every reported crime will be investigated but the level of investigation depends on evidence available / seriousness of crime etc...
..............
I don't know the circumstances of your caravan being stolen and your car tyres being slashed so can't really comment but with the tyre slashing incident for example, can you answer the following questions:
1. Is there any cctv covering your car where the tyres were slashed?
2. Did anyone see it happen?
3. Were any implements left at the scene that could have been used to slash your tyres?
>> Edited by mungo on Friday 5th May 10:48
M
No there were no cctv cameras overlooking the enclosed courtyard where the tyres were slashed but there were 5 houses overlooking the area. I spoke to 4 out of the 5 families - the 5th I suspected of carrying out the attack - and none of them had seen anything neither had they been visited by the police.
What does take the urine though is that about 6 weeks later I get a postcard saying that ".... despite exhaustive enquiries ........ no further action ........ if further information....." etc. Not quite sure what 'exhaustive enquiries' were carried out - none that I was aware of.
Enquiries of a friend - who at the time was a fairly senior BiB - came up with the fact that crimes where under £4K theft/damage were involved were 'filtered out' of the investigation proccess.
OK, I suppose in the cold light of day I can understand that a line must be drawn somewhere, and it makes little sense to spend £25,000 investigating a £250 crime but unfortunately incidents like this don't help change the public perception that the police are more interested in hitting easier targets than solving crime.
Hence my original post that very often the MoP WILL think the BiB are 'T0SS3RS' when they have their car stolen or home burgled - sad, not neccessarily deserved, but too often true, mate.
BB
BigBob said:
What does take the urine though is that about 6 weeks later I get a postcard saying that ".... despite exhaustive enquiries ........ no further action ........ if further information....." etc. Not quite sure what 'exhaustive enquiries' were carried out - none that I was aware of.
That's what happened when my car was broken into at the railway station.
BigBob said:
Enquiries of a friend - who at the time was a fairly senior BiB - came up with the fact that crimes where under £4K theft/damage were involved were 'filtered out' of the investigation proccess.
OK, I suppose in the cold light of day I can understand that a line must be drawn somewhere, and it makes little sense to spend £25,000 investigating a £250 crime but unfortunately incidents like this don't help change the public perception that the police are more interested in hitting easier targets than solving crime.
Hear, hear. The Police are having their cake and eating it, by using commercial reasoning to fob off the people who pay their wages, even though they aren't a commerical organisation. I don't hold it against the Police, though, they do whatever they are motivated to do by their political masters.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff