Police too busy!
Discussion
walm said:
bmw535i said:
I know Dibble, but why can't other officers on here admit the failings of some of their colleagues?
You should read Derek's book if you think they all believe they are great.https://www.amazon.co.uk/Both-sides-force-adequate...
bmw535i said:
walm said:
You should read Derek's book if you think they all believe they are great.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Both-sides-force-adequate...
I'd like to think the police have made some improvements since the 70's?https://www.amazon.co.uk/Both-sides-force-adequate...
You should still read it.
The real question is how well are the police doing compared to how well anyone else given the same task and resources would do?
It amazes me how well the police are doing in spite of the difficulties and in spite of the fact that each individual officer has to spend so much time dealing with the dregs of humanity, that's bound to have an effect.
So the police didn't come quickly enough to deal with your burglary? Get over it, and protect your property properly next time. Remember, you don't need to make your stuff thief proof, you only need to make it harder to steal than your neighbour's stuff.
I reckon BMW 535 and Pushfit are the love children of Rovinghawk and carinaman.
It amazes me how well the police are doing in spite of the difficulties and in spite of the fact that each individual officer has to spend so much time dealing with the dregs of humanity, that's bound to have an effect.
So the police didn't come quickly enough to deal with your burglary? Get over it, and protect your property properly next time. Remember, you don't need to make your stuff thief proof, you only need to make it harder to steal than your neighbour's stuff.
I reckon BMW 535 and Pushfit are the love children of Rovinghawk and carinaman.
RobinOakapple said:
So the police didn't come quickly enough to deal with your burglary? Get over it, and protect your property properly next time. Remember, you don't need to make your stuff thief proof, you only need to make it harder to steal than your neighbour's stuff.
You've clearly never been burgled. Or had to involve the police for any crimes against you.The making it harder to steal reasoning is a childish approach it doesn't reduce theft it just pushes it to someone else to become a victim. The point you have missed is this is about policing to get results not about saying you don't give a s
t and smugly sitting behind a barbed wire fence. RobinOakapple said:
So the police didn't come quickly enough to deal with your burglary? Get over it, and protect your property properly next time.
Ha ha brilliant. Silly me, of course it's the victims fault!
Does this stance work with other crime too?Assault perhaps...
Officer, a man in that pub has hit me in the face.........well sir, you should have been at home, get over it.
You've both completely misunderstood (big surprise).
If the police had limitless resources then I expect your property would never have been at risk.
But they don't have limitless resources. In fact, their current resources don't come anywhere close to meeting current needs.
My advice stands. Keep your stuff safe.
If the police had limitless resources then I expect your property would never have been at risk.
But they don't have limitless resources. In fact, their current resources don't come anywhere close to meeting current needs.
My advice stands. Keep your stuff safe.
bmw535i said:
There will always be criminals, it's up to the police to investigate them and make a case where possible. The victim isn't at fault - stop being so foolish.
He's not being foolish he's being very sensible. You continually make the mistake of thinking the police have enough resources to do everything. They don't.
Property crimes have a lower priority as things stand, and that's how it should be.
bmw535i said:
They probably do, but it's still not the victims fault.
He didn't say it was. He said thisRobinOakapple said:
So the police didn't come quickly enough to deal with your burglary? Get over it, and protect your property properly next time.
It's certainly a strong line to take, but it doesn't say it's the victim's fault, you are reading in to it more than is there.If I walked out of a shop without paying, used the n word or was 5mph over the speed limit they'd be on me like a ton of bricks. But entering someones home and taking ten grands worth of possessions or cash and theres no chance of any comeback round here even if your car plate is seen, or selling cars on ebay that dont exist that could be done for months with no chance of being investigated. I'm sure its not their fault its policies but wheres the sense, wheres the judgement gone? Just fads now like 'lets put 300+ officers on prosecuting journalists'. Errr why?
bmw535i said:
They probably do, but it's still not the victims fault.
They never said it was the victim's fault - you've made that up as you find it easier to argue against than what was actually said. For one who keeps (incorrectly) claiming their views are being misrepresented it's a poor show.
Cat
I'd be very surprised if Cat were not a first class investigator. Scalpel like sharpness when cutting through the rubbish followed by concise presentation.
They don't put themselves there, do they?
It's not just about the offence, it's about lines reasonable of enquiry and probability of detection, too. Person A sending criminal-level abuse to person B on Facebook has a line of enquiry that policies, procedure, rules and the law require to be followed-up. A shed burglary, for example, with no reasonable lines of enquiry is a different matter.
Judging actions by offence-seriousness alone is superficial and doesn't reflect reality.
V6Pushfit said:
If I walked out of a shop without paying, used the n word or was 5mph over the speed limit they'd be on me like a ton of bricks. But entering someones home and taking ten grands worth of possessions or cash and theres no chance of any comeback round here even if your car plate is seen, or selling cars on ebay that dont exist that could be done for months with no chance of being investigated. I'm sure its not their fault its policies but wheres the sense, wheres the judgement gone? Just fads now like 'lets put 300+ officers on prosecuting journalists'. Errr why?
The prison population for burglary has been pretty consistent over the years, despite fewer burglaries over the last 20 years. They don't put themselves there, do they?
It's not just about the offence, it's about lines reasonable of enquiry and probability of detection, too. Person A sending criminal-level abuse to person B on Facebook has a line of enquiry that policies, procedure, rules and the law require to be followed-up. A shed burglary, for example, with no reasonable lines of enquiry is a different matter.
Judging actions by offence-seriousness alone is superficial and doesn't reflect reality.
La Liga said:
he prison population for burglary has been pretty consistent over the years, despite fewer burglaries over the last 20 years.
They don't put themselves there, do they?
It's not just about the offence, it's about lines reasonable of enquiry and probability of detection, too. Person A sending criminal-level abuse to person B on Facebook has a line of enquiry that policies, procedure, rules and the law require to be followed-up. A shed burglary, for example, with no reasonable lines of enquiry is a different matter.
Judging actions by offence-seriousness alone is superficial and doesn't reflect reality.
Because burglary isnt investigated it wont be recorded. My mate had a huge sum of money taken while he and a lodger were held at sledgehammer point and it didn't get recorded. They don't put themselves there, do they?
It's not just about the offence, it's about lines reasonable of enquiry and probability of detection, too. Person A sending criminal-level abuse to person B on Facebook has a line of enquiry that policies, procedure, rules and the law require to be followed-up. A shed burglary, for example, with no reasonable lines of enquiry is a different matter.
Judging actions by offence-seriousness alone is superficial and doesn't reflect reality.
In regard to your assertion that I have been wrong in saying lawless and then referring to crimes I would be done for, has it not occurred to you people can go out of their area to speed etc but can only be burgled at home? You really need to think before replying.
V6Pushfit said:
Because burglary isnt investigated it wont be recorded. My mate had a huge sum of money taken while he and a lodger were held at sledgehammer point and it didn't get recorded.
If it's not investigated, how come the prison population of burglars has remained steady? Do the burglars put themselves there? Crime isn't just measured by recorded crime, non-recorded data corroborates the reductions in burglary.
V6Pushfit said:
In regard to your assertion that I have been wrong in saying lawless and then referring to crimes I would be done for, has it not occurred to you people can go out of their area to speed etc but can only be burgled at home? You really need to think before replying.
1) If you're giving recommendations on thinking before replying, then perhaps start by thinking whom it was who posted what you're replying to (hint: it wasn't me). 2) Pretending there's some sort of 'lawless boundary' somewhere in Oxfordshire is profoundly stupid.
3) Using the word 'lawless' is even more stupid. Especially after someone has posted the definition.
What specific area are you referring to, let's look at the crime data to see how 'lawless' it is?
singlecoil said:
It's certainly a strong line to take, but it doesn't say it's the victim's fault, you are reading in to it more than is there.
Putting it mildly. It seems the police officers on here are quite in agreement with it though.It is quite clear that the poster is saying the burglary is the fault of the homeowner for not securing his property. If not, what else does he mean?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff