No, and I suppose what remains is often lost behind 'bad press'. So - thank you all.

I see where you're coming from. As a 'dip sample' it's not particularly inspiring.

How can I put this?
These people tend to punish themselves.
They're not like you or I - they simply don't give a fk and this pervades their entire lives. They haven't saved up for a car, so they want to keep it nice and enjoy it and perhaps keep its value sp they can p/x it for something a bit better if work goes well next year.
They wake up, about 1pm, smoke a J, finish off last nights can of 'K', then smoke a fag and watch 2 hours of Jeremy Kyle. Then Donna calls on their mums mobile cos they pawned theirs for a bit of blow last week, and she's having some fking crisis because the staff has just given birth on the carpet and she's going mental and little connor needs to get down to the medical centre to pick up his ritalin script or some st. So being a happy go lucky type and knowing full well they're banned they hop into mums motability ford C-max and drive over to Donnas, but low and behold becuase they've not no seat belt on and they're driving like a prick they get pulled by police. Mum goes mental and tells police of course she didn't lend them the car, (but will never give a statment to that effect so the TWOC is never proven) and they get nicked for TWOC ,no insrance and driving whilst disqualified. The lazy copper never finds grounds to search the car and so misses the crowbar and gloves in the wheel well and the ounce of skunk hidden somewhere cunning.

In short, this blokes life is crap because he has never given a damn and never will. In court the TWOC goes away for reasons stated, the judge wants to jail him for disqualified driving but he is already on probabtion and a drug rehab programme which is going eally well (he's attended once) and if jailed it would interrupt this mans rehabilitation into a productive member of society. The only option left is to fine him, but because (on paper) he gets just £42.75 a week in benefits, he can only be fined a fiver a week for the next 14 years, which he'll never pay anyway.

So he gets to go back to his crap life living with mum, drinking all day and watching Jeremy Kyle. Donna wants him to go on it to take a lie detector test ,but in his heart of hearts he knows little Connor was conceived to the barman over the pool table because Donna wanted another lambrini and had no cash.

It's not like they're 'winning' because they've saved £500 in car insurance. Heir lives are chaotic and unplesant and their lawbreaking is born of lazyness ,ineptiude and an inabiliy to read ,write or function in normal society.

Don't feel that they get away with anything. An arrest and prosecution for minor traffic offences is but a comma in the book of woe that is their life.

Can I reply to this tomorrow (actually later today) when the red wine's gone?

For now - "They'll come again."

There really is no such thing as 'Traffic' anymore and it's sad to see even serving Officers suggesting that Road Policing Officers aren't investigating crime. 90% of our work (m/way) is dealing with serious criminals. Not shoplifters, but major class A dealers, foreign gangs, organised gangs involved in car theft etc etc. I haven't given a speeding ticket out in over a month.

Opening the boot of a car and finding a large amount of drugs or catching members of gangs who travel over the country is nice, but you know they'll be out on bail the next day and I've long since stopped even wanting to find out what sentence they got.

Victims don't really count where courts are concerned. It's the offenders 'last chance', prison will damage their job prospects, they have a new family, they have changed their ways, they are responding well to treatment. All excuses given by defence Solicitors in order to help their client escape punishment and continue their crime spree.

The origins of "Old Bill" are unknown, but do not - in the main - appear to be derogatory. See here for the Met's view.

Streaky

I find it sad that I routinely deal with prisoners arrested by others where there is NO initial investigation done. Often, there's no evidence at all in terms of arrest notes and I am starting from square one and first principles in order to find offences and evidence to charge.
I don't know what the situation is like where you work, but I work in a "handover culture" where dragging the prisoner in in handcuffs is how uniformed officers see their role, and everything else is down to "CID" or prisoner processing teams. It's all well and good nicking someone for drugs or going equipped, but if there isn't evidence and the arresting officer has done a shoddy job, serious offences can fall by the wayside.
We're very quick to blame CPS for what I often see as police failings. Of course CPS are going to decline charge is fundamental evidence isn't there. Of course cases are going to run into the rocks if the files are lazily prepared and missing key evidence.
I had a conversation with a very good mate a few weeks back -we joined at the same time but his path took him to traffic. He was talking about a guy he "knew" to be dealing but couldn't find anything on him when he arrested him for disqualified driving. he was bemoaning the fact that the guy was getting away with it. I asked him if he'd thought about phone intel, financial investigation, getting warrants, or asking another (local) team to assist in doing so. His response was "that's what you guys do - I'm out on the streets". So that's an opportunity lost because his hunch was not acted on through lack of resources (his time) and lack of knowledge (that if he passed his information on someone might be able to do something with it).
Front line officers in some areas are sadly becoming de-skilled. The pressure is on them to get back out there and get to more calls, so they don't have time to be investigating officers any more.

Why are they getting bail? Who interviews/charges/prepares the files? I honestly can't remember the last time I bailed someone after charge, and I can't remember the last time the courts bailed someone the next day (juveniles excepted). It's not hard to prepare the paperwork (where proportional and justified obviously -it's not going to happen for public order or motoring offences in general) in such a way that the courts hands are pretty much tied and they HAVE to remand in custody. I make a point of emailing those involved when people they've nicked or helped me deal with get sentenced - because usually it's a decent sentence they can feel good about if everything has gone according to plan.

I think it's sad to see serving officers saying that victims don't count when it comes to court. The entire court process can be geared towards the victims - if you know where and how to apply leverage. It IS shocking to heard mitigation being put forwards, and it does often amount to a pack of lies with no way of disproving them which result in a halving of sentence. Thats why it's so important to ensure the court has full sentencing powers available in the first place by charging the correct (or aggravated form) or offences, giving them the full facts, and dealing with "proper" criminals properly.

I try not to worry about sentencing. How ever much of a good job I do, it's down to the Courts to set the sentence. What I can do is make sure the job is done right by me so it actually gets to Court in the first place.

Like Weird Neville I'm an investigator. My biggest luxury at work isn't my own desk, a computer or any of those trappings, it's time (most of the time). Time to read and review the evidence, time to plan investigative strategy, time to prepare for interviews. The only difficulty I sometimes encounter is the PACE clock, especially if there are multiple offenders or it's a complex job.

The poor sods out there day after day in all weathers have the hardest and mst important job in policing, IMHO. They often have to make split second decisions which could potentially mean a murderer walks free at court later on. They have to remember their various powers, think about forensics, worry about cross contamination and are very often faced with physical danger while doing so. It's an easy chip to say uniform officers aren't doing their job (and I'm guilty of it myself on occasion). But if I'm able to find the evidential gaps, you can bet a barrister or judge will be able to as well, and they're certainly not interested in how tired the officer was/how constantly busy it had been all night/the fact that 999 times out of a thousand (if not more) the officers were trying their very best with limited resources and faulty kit.

But I've been on traffic too. There was a period of about 15 months where I arrested around 180 people. From memory, only about 5 of them didn't get charged with anything. There were drink drivers and disqualified drivers, but also burglars and the like either wanted on warrant or coming back from jobs with stolen gear. I arrested drug suppliers,marked robbers and people who'd committed serious assaults.

As EB rightly points out, murders or other offences where the Major Investigation Team get involved in are "easy" (at least for me). Someone else makes all the policy decisions and I just get told what to do, within very tightly defined parameters. Go away and do it, come back with any "product" (CCTV, statement, exhibit) and on to the next task. Rinse and repeat. Fatal RTCs generally don't get the same level of support, but the officers are still dealing with a death. Traffic oficers deal on average in the UK annually with about ten times the amount of dead people compared to Homicide Teams.


And as for today? I'm on a 1300-2100 shift and I'm currently juggling an attempted abduction, an attempted robbery, actions for an armed robbery of a bank, a weird "suspicious circumstances" possibly involving an undiscovered body, more drugs valuation statements, and aggravated burglary and a wounding, a cannabis supply and whatever else has landed overnight. Everyone else in the office has a similar workload, but I'm the only one at the moment without a sexual assault or fraud on my docket. In the office we currently have an actual strength of 6 DCs from a strength of ten. Two are long term seconded, one's short term attached to a murder and one lucky sod is on leave. And because it's the weekend, only half of the office are in (we work a two week rota with alternating weekends).

So, back to sentencing. Jobs I've had at court this year include 18 years for attempted murder and two and a half years for an offence with an imitation firearm. I've had one "not guilty" verdict after a retrial and someone sentenced last week for fraud. I did think the sentence was too short, but it was in line with the guidelines. That said, the offender will feel like every day in prison is a month, so it's all relative. Other colleagues in the office have had similar successes. Several years (5-7) for various burglaries, robberies and assaults, and one guy also jailed last week for 14 months for flashing twice (wking, actually) at schoolgirls. He also has to sign the sex offenders' register for the next ten years. And he'd never been in trouble before at all. I've also given drug valuation/interpretation statements for higher level suppliers, all of whom have had decent sentences (years rather than months) handed down.

And they'll (almost) always "come again".

And when they don't, perhpas the jbo's done.

Good post.

The earlier complaint regarding poor file preparation and investigation is one that was current when I joined and was still there when I left 30 years later. I reckon part of the problem is perception. Investigations that are done well slip through without problem and do not really register. Along comes one that is dreadful and it sticks in the memory.

The old argument about who does what, CID or uniform, is more or less that same. There are different demands on both specialities which, seemingly, the other doesn't appreciate. There was a time when divisions struggled to recruit CID because of the workload allied to lack of overtime.

I came out after my time with the strong belief that the responsibilities of the police needed complete overhaul. Winsor/SheehyII, a wonderful opportunity to sort things out, was wasted and if anything is a retrograde step. If the police have number cut by 20% then they need to have their responsibilities reduced as well instead of increased as this and all the others previously have ensured is the norm.

Regarding the OP's post, and the Dibble one I quoted, I used to be able to ignore what went on in court as nothing to do with me. I did my job and they were required to do theirs. But it gradually got to me over the years. No one seems to care about the victims. They are the forgotten ones.

Without wishing to sound flippant, "Karma" and simply doing the right thing. You are in a small way helping society to continue to function by doing the right thing. And while it would probably be cheaper (on a purely financial basis) in the long run, would you want the constant stress and worry about getting stopped, points, fines, eventually banned, then subsequent arrests for disqualified driving and having cars seized and all the inconvenience?

Me too.