Police Scotland - Officers routinely carrying guns.
Discussion
jimbop1 said:
Mk3Spitfire said:
It's the image. It makes people feel unsafe, and gives the impression that we are turning into an American-esque country. Which we're not. Yet.
bks! If anything it would make people feel safe. The only people I can see not liking it are those hippy, tosser types you see on you tube sticking a camera in a police mans face and telling them it's a free country.As it happens I do own a camera and enjoy taking photos, but police officers are not on my list of chosen subjects.
carpetsoiler said:
1) if I got stabbed whilst on duty, then unfortunately that's a risk I accept with the job.
2) no, because as previously mentioned, you don't just randomly search people because they could have a weapon on them. You need grounds that are relevant, necessary, proportionate and lawful. It is unacceptable to infringe someone's human rights on a whim of your own. Seriously, what's so difficult about this to understand?
3) glad you'd find it so amusing. I wouldn't, but then again, neither would I find it terribly funny if you were stabbed. I guess we now know who's the nicer person out of the two of us.
Saying it would be funny was me wording it very badly.. It wouldn't.2) no, because as previously mentioned, you don't just randomly search people because they could have a weapon on them. You need grounds that are relevant, necessary, proportionate and lawful. It is unacceptable to infringe someone's human rights on a whim of your own. Seriously, what's so difficult about this to understand?
3) glad you'd find it so amusing. I wouldn't, but then again, neither would I find it terribly funny if you were stabbed. I guess we now know who's the nicer person out of the two of us.
I just don't like all this don't stop them because they are young and black.. It's racist. It's not, it's just common sense in most parts. A police officer should be aloud to search anyone, even if they have the tiniest incline that they have a weapon.
jimbop1 said:
carpetsoiler said:
1) if I got stabbed whilst on duty, then unfortunately that's a risk I accept with the job.
2) no, because as previously mentioned, you don't just randomly search people because they could have a weapon on them. You need grounds that are relevant, necessary, proportionate and lawful. It is unacceptable to infringe someone's human rights on a whim of your own. Seriously, what's so difficult about this to understand?
3) glad you'd find it so amusing. I wouldn't, but then again, neither would I find it terribly funny if you were stabbed. I guess we now know who's the nicer person out of the two of us.
Saying it would be funny was me wording it very badly.. It wouldn't.2) no, because as previously mentioned, you don't just randomly search people because they could have a weapon on them. You need grounds that are relevant, necessary, proportionate and lawful. It is unacceptable to infringe someone's human rights on a whim of your own. Seriously, what's so difficult about this to understand?
3) glad you'd find it so amusing. I wouldn't, but then again, neither would I find it terribly funny if you were stabbed. I guess we now know who's the nicer person out of the two of us.
I just don't like all this don't stop them because they are young and black.. It's racist. It's not, it's just common sense in most parts. A police officer should be aloud to search anyone, even if they have the tiniest incline that they have a weapon.
Bigends said:
jimbop1 said:
carpetsoiler said:
1) if I got stabbed whilst on duty, then unfortunately that's a risk I accept with the job.
2) no, because as previously mentioned, you don't just randomly search people because they could have a weapon on them. You need grounds that are relevant, necessary, proportionate and lawful. It is unacceptable to infringe someone's human rights on a whim of your own. Seriously, what's so difficult about this to understand?
3) glad you'd find it so amusing. I wouldn't, but then again, neither would I find it terribly funny if you were stabbed. I guess we now know who's the nicer person out of the two of us.
Saying it would be funny was me wording it very badly.. It wouldn't.2) no, because as previously mentioned, you don't just randomly search people because they could have a weapon on them. You need grounds that are relevant, necessary, proportionate and lawful. It is unacceptable to infringe someone's human rights on a whim of your own. Seriously, what's so difficult about this to understand?
3) glad you'd find it so amusing. I wouldn't, but then again, neither would I find it terribly funny if you were stabbed. I guess we now know who's the nicer person out of the two of us.
I just don't like all this don't stop them because they are young and black.. It's racist. It's not, it's just common sense in most parts. A police officer should be aloud to search anyone, even if they have the tiniest incline that they have a weapon.
Why do you need just good information? Why can't a police officer go off their instinct? Oh wait.. It's now racist. I said male before.. Does that make me sexist?
jimbop1 said:
Why do you need just good information? Why can't a police officer go off their instinct? Oh wait.. It's now racist. I said male before.. Does that make me sexist?
Reasonable grounds are required for a search.Searching somebody is quite an invasion of privacy.
I'm quite happy with the way the law stands now.
Red 4 said:
jimbop1 said:
Why do you need just good information? Why can't a police officer go off their instinct? Oh wait.. It's now racist. I said male before.. Does that make me sexist?
Reasonable grounds are required for a search.Searching somebody is quite an invasion of privacy.
I'm quite happy with the way the law stands now.
jimbop1 said:
Red 4 said:
jimbop1 said:
To believe or suspect?
The law requires reasonable grounds for suspicion.It's actually quite a high threshold to make a search lawful.
Red 4 said:
jimbop1 said:
Red 4 said:
jimbop1 said:
To believe or suspect?
The law requires reasonable grounds for suspicion.It's actually quite a high threshold to make a search lawful.
No offence taken.
Both, but misuse has lead to riots and serious mistrust of the police. They must be getting a reasonable balance since the last CSEW showed knife-crime and gun crime to be again reduced: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/apr/24/cri...
From recent HMIC data integrity inspections in relation to crime recording. Its clear most forces have been under-recording for years - previous figures can be taken with a pinch of salt or certainly shouldnt be relied on
http://www.hmic.gov.uk/news/news-feed/crime-record...
http://www.hmic.gov.uk/news/news-feed/crime-record...
Edited by Bigends on Monday 11th August 17:12
La Liga said:
The CSEW isn't police data.
I know, but it'll be interesting to see if figures tally a bit closer now that Police recording is more accurate. Many simple knife and other weapon possession offences wont show up in CSEW data if nobody was on the other end of a knife being used in crimeLa Liga said:
I'd say any recent reductions are fighting against greater overall recording which makes the more impressive. They shouldn't have done it, but I think it's great the under-reporting was sticking two fingers up at the Government's / HMIC simpleton performance structure.
Yep, though we wont really know until next year when when we should have had a complete year of correct recording to look at.
Yep, though we wont really know until next year when when we should have had a complete year of correct recording to look at.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff