Drones

[_dobbo_]

TankRizzo said:

So let me get this straight Derek. You think if your windows are broken with gunshots, and you happen to live in a rural area, that's not a police matter even worthy of investigation.

That's not quite what Derek said though - what he said was, what do you want them to do? What would you do?

Edit to add - I'm not saying this is a desirable response - but I fail to see what could be realistically achieved in such a scenario.

[TankRizzo]

_dobbo_ said:

That's not quite what Derek said though - what he said was, what do you want them to do? What would you do?

Edit to add - I'm not saying this is a desirable response - but I fail to see what could be realistically achieved in such a scenario.

Um, it's a firearms incident - I would at least want someone to attend and investigate. I had the police called for less with an air rifle when I was young and stupid, and being dangerous.

I'm pretty sure if I shot up my neighbour's windows with a rifle in my town, the police would attend - why should it be different because there are a few fields around your house?

[SiH]

TankRizzo said:

_dobbo_ said:

That's not quite what Derek said though - what he said was, what do you want them to do? What would you do?

Edit to add - I'm not saying this is a desirable response - but I fail to see what could be realistically achieved in such a scenario.

Um, it's a firearms incident - I would at least want someone to attend and investigate. I had the police called for less with an air rifle when I was young and stupid, and being dangerous.

I'm pretty sure if I shot up my neighbour's windows with a rifle in my town, the police would attend - why should it be different because there are a few fields around your house?

Could there be an element of political interference in this case, and with Julian64's too? I suspect that if the head of the Constabulary want to show that they're meeting their targets and other KPIs then they won't want to record crimes that they have little chance of solving and also won't want to record crimes that they aren't looking to reduce. In other words if a Constabulary has been tasked with reducing street crime then they won't necessarily be putting much resource into burglaries and so won't want to get involved unless they have to. It's unlikely to be the fault of the bobby on the street but more likely to be driven by management dictat.

[julian64]

Derek Smith said:

You make a dig about police eating doughnuts but there is little doubt that the current PC is the hardest working this country has ever enjoyed.

The funding has been slashed. It is all very well suggesting that fat should bet cut but in the last 15 years of my service, that's up until 2005, reductions year on year were the norm. So with many fewer staff something has to give and new processes have been brought in to cope.

Get used to it as, despite what was said about no more reductions in police funding, police funding is still being reduced. It will get worse. Many forces do not send anyone to a call where a police officer is not essential. This has been forced on them. There are many incidents where the police are required to attend despite them not being required. This from government policy. So a property crime, no one hurt = tough luck.

There is no one.

As for gunshots in the country, I've got to say I agree with the call taker. What did you want them to do?

if you compare the number of police officers in this country to those in, for instance, France or Germany, you will realise what we have is a bargain.

Part of the problem, of course, is the attitude of those who suggest they will ignore laws because the police are unable to respond due to the massive cuts.

I don't want a bargain. The thread is about drones not police service funding. If it was about police service funding I would certainly not be suggesting further cuts, quite the opposite.

And I am used to the current inability of the force to police my patch of the world. Its not something I have to get used to, its been the norm for the last twenty years to my recollection.

And as to the gun, perhaps when I ran out there to see the shotgun holder running off in the opposite direction I should've given chase? Perhaps, and its only a suggestion based on the gun laws in this country a bib could come down a remonstrate with him about the safety of his actions?

Perhaps even speeding is a victim less crime where no one is hurt but that doesn't stop me seeing bibs regular all over the place with speed guns.

Sorry Derek, nothing you say has any bearing on my reality. The police are underfunded, and stretched, but their priority system is screwed.

Meanwhile you have a thread here about drone strikes. Care to let the thread know what the chances of any legislation being enforced by the same inadequate police force will be?

[_dobbo_]

TankRizzo said:

Um, it's a firearms incident - I would at least want someone to attend and investigate.

Again, I think that is the point. Investigate what, and how? Given the resources, what would that investigation look like?

[Derek Smith]

julian64 said:

The thread is about drones not police service funding.

You should not have brought it up then. I was merely responding.

However, if the law is changed to licensing, there will be little police enforcement.

[johnfm]

Derek Smith said:

julian64 said:

The thread is about drones not police service funding.

You should not have brought it up then. I was merely responding.

However, if the law is changed to licensing, there will be little police enforcement.

Julian's point was pretty clear - hardly going to dissuade drone use merely by tightening the law if the police will not enforce it due to other priorities (i.e. fining motorists).

[myvision]

So this drone was 1700 foot above Richmond when the ncident occurred.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3545582/Dr...

[Derek Smith]

johnfm said:

Julian's point was pretty clear - hardly going to dissuade drone use merely by tightening the law if the police will not enforce it due to other priorities (i.e. fining motorists).

Last point from me, I was explaining why they cannot. More than just pretty clear.

[julian64]

Derek Smith said:

johnfm said:

Julian's point was pretty clear - hardly going to dissuade drone use merely by tightening the law if the police will not enforce it due to other priorities (i.e. fining motorists).

Last point from me, I was explaining why they cannot. More than just pretty clear.

I was with you on the 'couldn't', but you started to argue 'shouldn't' at which point between 'your' couldn't and shouldn't there would be very little else for the police to do apart from eating doughnuts while watching motorists.

[OzzyR1]

myvision said:

So this drone was 1700 foot above Richmond when the ncident occurred.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3545582/Dr...

Seems that they are saying it might not have been a drone after all - perhaps just a piece of "floating debris" ??

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36159117

[V8A*ndy]

OzzyR1 said:

myvision said:

So this drone was 1700 foot above Richmond when the ncident occurred.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3545582/Dr...

Seems that they are saying it might not have been a drone after all - perhaps just a piece of "floating debris" ??

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36159117

A white plastic bag apparently.

[andrewrob]

V8A*ndy said:

OzzyR1 said:

myvision said:

So this drone was 1700 foot above Richmond when the ncident occurred.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3545582/Dr...

Seems that they are saying it might not have been a drone after all - perhaps just a piece of "floating debris" ??

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36159117

A white plastic bag apparently.

Ban plastic bags, its the only solution

[V8A*ndy]

andrewrob said:

V8A*ndy said:

OzzyR1 said:

myvision said:

So this drone was 1700 foot above Richmond when the ncident occurred.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3545582/Dr...

Seems that they are saying it might not have been a drone after all - perhaps just a piece of "floating debris" ??

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36159117

A white plastic bag apparently.

Ban plastic bags, its the only solution

So much for the 5p charge....

Worth noting that the authorities have apparently stated at no time did they ever say it was a drone and the press got a tad carried away with their reporting.

[andrewrob]

V8A*ndy said:

andrewrob said:

V8A*ndy said:

OzzyR1 said:

myvision said:

So this drone was 1700 foot above Richmond when the ncident occurred.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3545582/Dr...

Seems that they are saying it might not have been a drone after all - perhaps just a piece of "floating debris" ??

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36159117

A white plastic bag apparently.

Ban plastic bags, its the only solution

So much for the 5p charge....

Worth noting that the authorities have apparently stated at no time did they ever say it was a drone and the press got a tad carried away with their reporting.

I thought the co pilot had said it? Or am I getting mixed up with another one

They are using this guide still though

[V8A*ndy]

[Disastrous]

Would his be allowed to happen in an Independent UK? Carrier bags and drones colluding to bring down our aircraft?

Of course not! Brexit is the only logical solution at this point...

/PH

[TooMany2cvs]

Disastrous said:

Would his be allowed to happen in an Independent UK? Carrier bags and drones colluding to bring down our aircraft?

Of course not! Brexit is the only logical solution at this point...

/PH

<chuckle>

[WJNB]

Dr Doofenshmirtz said:

You actually can't see a lot to be honest

"
.....then what's the point? Surely there are other more worthwhile things to do with ones time? Time that will never come back, time just wasted filling time.
Don't understand, sorry.

[WJNB]

The near miss of drone & plane at Heathrow more than confirms the pessimism of my original post. Bury not thy head in the sand on this subject. I'll drone on no further, honest.