Police State Starts officially Jan1st 2006

[outrider]

No wonder Blunkett bought shares in a DNA company, license to print money. He keeps breaking all the rules why don't they arrest him, put him in The Tower and then apply red hot irons to his privates.

[autismuk]

Is it my imagination or did all those Bliarist demands for rapid justice not apply to Mr Blunkett ?

[viggen114]

add this in to then

law in action radio 4 said:

CPS charging BBC Radio 4's Law in Action was broadcast on Friday, 11 November, 2005 at 1600 GMT. In police stations up and down the land, a quiet revolution's been taking place. For the first time ever, crown prosecutors are working alongside the police inside stations - and have taken over the historic role of charging criminal suspects - previously a key part of policing. According to official figures the initial results are remarkable. We sent our reporter Sam McAlister out to gather some evidence and the Director of Public Prosecutions, Ken Macdonald QC, explains his reasons for the change.

CPSDirect..........
radio programme
its in the first 10 minutes

Why not go the whole hog and outsource the Police Service to bounty hunters

[bluepolarbear]

telecat said:

DNA isn't a panacea. It basically can only EXCLUDE a suspect. The data isn't actually good enough to convict without some fast work by the Prosecution. It should be used very carefully and not in a shotgun fashion. It is also very easy to transfer or corrupt DNA evidence which means it needs to be used much more carefully than it is at present. >> Edited by telecat on Friday 11th November 11:48

The other issue is it isn't just the DNA squence that is kept by the police, they keep the actual sample as well. This allows them to use any other tests which may be invented in the future. Even the guy who invented DNA fingerprinting has critised the current arrangements.

[streaky]

autismuk said:

As far as I can see Cop Bliar's argument to Dopey Bliar for 90 days seemed to entirely be based on a situation which was entirely imaginary !

90 days ... 45 minutes ... time means nothing to BLiar! (Unless he ends up doing it ... if the invasion of Iraq is ever shown in The Hague to have been illegal) - Streaky

[BigBob]

BFF

I hear EXACTLY where you are coming from on this one.

Glad I'm not the only one that finds it slightly ironic that nearly every other thread in this forum bemoans the use of scameras because they have no discretion and harks back to the days when BiB were able to make a 'judgement' call on whether or not you were speeding/driving safely.

All of a sudden these BiB with the wisdom of Solomon seem to have been replaced by drones that have had a full frontal labotomy in this thread????????

[james_j]

viggen114 said:

add this in to then law in action radio 4 said: CPS charging BBC Radio 4's Law in Action was broadcast on Friday, 11 November, 2005 at 1600 GMT. In police stations up and down the land, a quiet revolution's been taking place. For the first time ever, crown prosecutors are working alongside the police inside stations - and have taken over the historic role of charging criminal suspects - previously a key part of policing. According to official figures the initial results are remarkable. We sent our reporter Sam McAlister out to gather some evidence and the Director of Public Prosecutions, Ken Macdonald QC, explains his reasons for the change. CPSDirect.......... radio programme its in the first 10 minutes Why not go the whole hog and outsource the Police Service to bounty hunters

Yes, like that steroided-up, oiled big hair from the US shown on Sky now and then. MMMM, law and order...

[havoc]

BigBob said:

All of a sudden these BiB with the wisdom of Solomon seem to have been replaced by drones that have had a full frontal labotomy in this thread????????

Not quite what people are saying, and hardly comparable. Detaining someone is an abrogation of the human rights of someone who has not been charged, therefore there must be a VERY good reason for it, and given how serious it is, there should be a time limit to prevent abuse of such a powerful instrument. 14 days was already the longest in Western Europe, 28 days I believe makes us the longest in the western world!!! 90 would have been truly Orwellian.

Speeding offences...are comparably minor...and while that would sound like a good argument for automation, the sheer variability in what SHOULD be considered punishable (dependent upon conditions, time of day, traffic volume, general behaviour of driver...) which are all completely beyond an automated system gives rise to all the old complaints which I'm sure you can search for 100 times over on here.

Coppers can use discretion. But coppers can also be subject to vices and political pressure for results...a terrorist case would be far more subject to pressure to "just get someone in, look like we've caught someone" or opportunity for success and advancement than a simple road traffic violation.

[JoolzB]

BigBob said:

Glad I'm not the only one that finds it slightly ironic that nearly every other thread in this forum bemoans the use of scameras because they have no discretion and harks back to the days when BiB were able to make a 'judgement' call on whether or not you were speeding/driving safely.

I can't really see the comparison there either and I'm not convinced more TrafPol on the roads would solve any problems, unless the emphasis changed to addressing dangerous driving rather than speeding.

Apart from that I agree with the points that havoc has made.

[BigBob]

My point was simply; On most other threads posters are saying that they much prefered the days when the BiB had discretionary powers whether to stop and/or charge you with a motoring offence and in these cases seem more than willing to accept their judgement.

Now all of a sudden, that judgement which is een as highly worthy in one thread becomes the subject of major doubt in another thread.

I KNOW we are talking of 2 different things but surely you either trust the police or you don't - can't have it both ways.

[viggen114]

Speaking for myself

I trust the bobby on the beat/in the car

I do not trust those who manage them, nor those who direct the management of them

[Parrot of doom]

original post said:

It is hardly any wonder that the prison population is heading towards 80,000 (it was 60,000 when Labour came to power) while the crime rate is actually going down.

Is it only me that sees any sense in this statement? More people in prison - crime down. Isn't that whats supposed to happen?

[viggen114]

Parrot of doom said:

original post said: It is hardly any wonder that the prison population is heading towards 80,000 (it was 60,000 when Labour came to power) while the crime rate is actually going down. Is it only me that sees any sense in this statement? More people in prison - crime down. Isn't that whats supposed to happen?

That old phrase 'lies, damm lies and statistics'. We may have more criminals convicted and kept away from the public, but for which crimes, old ladies not paying their council tax. What actually constitutes the 'crime rate' and how is it collated. Do they not count speeding tickets as a crime because that is reported as reaching record levels.

[streaky]

BigBob said:

My point was simply; On most other threads posters are saying that they much prefered the days when the BiB had discretionary powers whether to stop and/or charge you with a motoring offence and in these cases seem more than willing to accept their judgement. Now all of a sudden, that judgement which is een as highly worthy in one thread becomes the subject of major doubt in another thread. I KNOW we are talking of 2 different things but surely you either trust the police or you don't - can't have it both ways.

As you acknowledge, they are two different things ... so you (we) can look at them two different ways. I no longer trust "the police", but I trust individual BiB. HOWEVER (and it is a big "however" ), the "judgement call" is rapidly becoming a thing of the past, even for the individual BiB I know well and trust a great deal. Their orders are increasingly specific in regard to "making the numbers". Many - especially the younger ones - know that to advance their careers they have to play the policial game. Many - especiallly the younger ones - increasingly feel that the powers given them - by a Parliament that is (or at least was) in thrall to BLiar - enable, nay, entitle, them to do almost anything they wish. Over 50,000 people "detained" thus far under the Terrorism Act 2000 speaks to that. TrafPol - those few who still exist - might well use their judgement more than other branches. Although, note the chap charged with endangering an aircraft by shining a 45watt torch at a noisy helicopter that was hovering over his house after midnight. He was endeavouring to read the registration number to report it. He had no way of knowing that it was a police helicopter, nor that it was engaged in SAR. He plead guilty to avoid a possible prison sentence and received a police caution instead.

Consider too the cases of people arrested because they had the misfortune to upset their neighbours who happened to be police officers. One recently, a lady who straightened a post on her land and was arrested for causing criminal damage to her police-officer neighbour's property - namely a hairline crack in a concrete edging block; another, a 17-year old arrested whilst playing with a radio-controlled car in a lane alongside a DCI's house.

Streaky

Edited only because the quotes + close parenthesis is generating a smiley again ... despite Ted allegedly fixing it - S

>> Edited by streaky on Sunday 13th November 15:22

[victormeldrew]

BigBob said:

My point was simply; On most other threads posters are saying that they much prefered the days when the BiB had discretionary powers whether to stop and/or charge you with a motoring offence and in these cases seem more than willing to accept their judgement. Now all of a sudden, that judgement which is een as highly worthy in one thread becomes the subject of major doubt in another thread. I KNOW we are talking of 2 different things but surely you either trust the police or you don't - can't have it both ways.

But the debate here surely is that having exercise that discretion and decided to take action, this bill allows for arrest and detention, without evedence. I don't object to a PC making a discretionary decision about my driving (even though I know in the past several have made very bad ones, like the one who insisted he'd pulled me in a 40 limit when it was clearly posted as NSL), but I sure as hell object to being DNA tested, fingerprinted and photo'd, then thrown in a cell, because a PC didn't like the rate at which my TVR accelerated away from the traffic lights. A ticket, then lets discuss in court, fine; Judge Dreedd style "I Am The LAW", no thank you.

Let's put it another way. I trust my five year old to eat with a knife and fork. I don't give him the carving knife and ask him to carve the Sunday roast.

[Big Fat F'er]

BigBob said:

BFF I hear EXACTLY where you are coming from on this one. Glad I'm not the only one that finds it slightly ironic that nearly every other thread in this forum bemoans the use of scameras because they have no discretion and harks back to the days when BiB were able to make a 'judgement' call on whether or not you were speeding/driving safely. All of a sudden these BiB with the wisdom of Solomon seem to have been replaced by drones that have had a full frontal labotomy in this thread????????

Cheers BB. My points (which at least you seem to have understood, if no one else) related to the original post. It's difficult to find a bigger piece of journalist rubbish doing the rounds. The clear idea is to scare the crap out of everybody, and it seems to have worked.

You are dead right about the irony. When someone is done for speeding, they want a BiB, not a machine, 'cos they can 'trust' them. Suddenly they are all running around scared 'cos these same BiB are gonna arrest them for dropping litter.

The article makes numerous statements and presents them as facts, ensuring those that read it are scared to death about what is going to happen. But if you read through it there is little if any evidence to substantiate it. What amazes me is that most people (including PH'ers) have probably had very little experience of being arrested, etc. They all nod about how terrible Asbos are, but how many have had one placed on them unfairly. Or even know of someone.

The article discusses taking evidence, fingerprints, etc., before being found guilty in a court of law. Everybody seems to be nodding and saying how terrible, but that already happens now! Where's everybody been?

We get XXplod et al saying that he is normal like everyone else, but apprently everyone else knows better. They must think he's got nothing better to do than sit around and pick on 'em. Nasty Mr. policeman picking on poor innocent person.

I've been on the wrong side of the law over the years, as have various "associates". I'm now an upstanding member of the community!!! I would honestly say that in 99.999% percent of cases, the BiB were bang to rights. We did something seriously wrong, and we got done. For the minor stuuf, the BiB excercised commonsense. From what I can see, nothing's changed.

Everybody seems to go on about the government using scare tactics with the terror laws, but can't seem to see the same thing when it's done by a so called responsible journal. Folk are running scared, but can't seem to think it through.

Here's a little challenge. Get involved with the BiB. Go out with them on a weekday, and a Saturday night, and the early hours. Then come on here and highlight how many times they picked on all these innocent folk.

[Hollywood Wheels]

BFF..........been staying out of this one on purpose 'coz i don't want to lose friends here! Thank you very much though, you have a refreshingly 'realistic' approach to life which is sadly missing from many posts here....

[autismuk]

JoolzB said:

BigBob said: Glad I'm not the only one that finds it slightly ironic that nearly every other thread in this forum bemoans the use of scameras because they have no discretion and harks back to the days when BiB were able to make a 'judgement' call on whether or not you were speeding/driving safely. I can't really see the comparison there either and I'm not convinced more TrafPol on the roads would solve any problems, unless the emphasis changed to addressing dangerous driving rather than speeding. Apart from that I agree with the points that havoc has made.

.... I suspect that without outside pressure the BiB would not really be interested in someone doing 77 in a 70 or 45 in a 40 (finger wagging maybe). They want the drunk, dangerous, and incompetent off the road.

[autismuk]

Big Fat F'er said:

Cheers BB. My points (which at least you seem to have understood, if no one else) related to the original post. It's difficult to find a bigger piece of journalist rubbish doing the rounds. The clear idea is to scare the crap out of everybody, and it seems to have worked. You are dead right about the irony. When someone is done for speeding, they want a BiB, not a machine, 'cos they can 'trust' them. Suddenly they are all running around scared 'cos these same BiB are gonna arrest them for dropping litter.

This is not actually mutually inconsistent ; it comes from the managerialism/targetism Blairite world.

It is relatively easy to fix ; smack down the few BiB who abuse their powers.

[Hollywood Wheels]

autismuk said:

I suspect that without outside pressure the BiB would not really be interested in someone doing 77 in a 70 or 45 in a 40 (finger wagging maybe). They want the drunk, dangerous, and incompetent off the road.