"Judge Dread" BLiar
Discussion
No, not the "Teflon Tony" version this time, the "Cozening Commissioner" instead.
His latest proposal is that "... some police officers - paid more and with more powers - [could] impose an interim anti-social behaviour order, or suspend a driving licence ... rather than waiting for intervention by the courts."
He acknowledged that giving police powers currently exercised only by the courts would be controversial but could be seen as legitimate if they were used by properly trained constables.
"There is something here about making justice more immediately apparent, not only to the offender but also to the society that the offender is irritating."
Two things to consider here before you championing such an idea ... firstly, this is from the man whose "shoot to kill" policy has so far scored one innocent man dead; and secondly is that bit about "properly trained" - how long before these powers are given to PCSOs?
Streaky
His latest proposal is that "... some police officers - paid more and with more powers - [could] impose an interim anti-social behaviour order, or suspend a driving licence ... rather than waiting for intervention by the courts."
He acknowledged that giving police powers currently exercised only by the courts would be controversial but could be seen as legitimate if they were used by properly trained constables.
"There is something here about making justice more immediately apparent, not only to the offender but also to the society that the offender is irritating."
Two things to consider here before you championing such an idea ... firstly, this is from the man whose "shoot to kill" policy has so far scored one innocent man dead; and secondly is that bit about "properly trained" - how long before these powers are given to PCSOs?
Streaky
No one individual should be able to act as judge and jury, that's why we have the courts. There will always be cases where even with the best intentions 
will make a mistake.
Perhaps if they put some of the scrotes away instead of trying to 'understand' them the court system wouldn't be creaking under the strain.
will make a mistake. Perhaps if they put some of the scrotes away instead of trying to 'understand' them the court system wouldn't be creaking under the strain.
We already have instant justice anyway, there are still cases where 'innocent' people are dragged off the streets by police and tortured in cells. It doesn't happen often (last case I know of was a couple of weeks ago), but this would make things worse, with more cases of police 'making up' offenses that don't actually rxist and giving their own brand of 'instant justice'.
At least in 2000AD Judge Dredd's case, any Judge found out to have acted maliciously faces 20 years hard labour without parole - maybe the same should be tagged on to this idea...
At least in 2000AD Judge Dredd's case, any Judge found out to have acted maliciously faces 20 years hard labour without parole - maybe the same should be tagged on to this idea...
ist POLICE STATE! 
As long as the ideology of innocent until proven guilty still exists, I will support any move which protects non-criminals from criminals.
For example, someone who is stopped for a traffic offence which they deny should in no way be affected, otherwise we would run the risk of instantly punishing someone who is innocent.
However, if a young scrote is caught, interviewed in the correct way by police that he has vandalised or terorised someones house, and admits that he has done it, temporary restraining or ASBOs would be valuable to the victims and the general public.
For example, someone who is stopped for a traffic offence which they deny should in no way be affected, otherwise we would run the risk of instantly punishing someone who is innocent.
However, if a young scrote is caught, interviewed in the correct way by police that he has vandalised or terorised someones house, and admits that he has done it, temporary restraining or ASBOs would be valuable to the victims and the general public.
It's laziness on the part of the service (not the individual BiB). They don't want to make any effort, they want cheap and simple solutions which don't impinge on their idiocy.
It's like the blanket curfew. Rather than arrange the policing properly, a simple and cheap solution - no under 16's / 18's whatever allowed out at night.
Hell, ASBOs are a complete shambles as it is. Is anyone seriously suggesting that someone could be locked up for a "crime" that can be invented on the fly ? Because that's what ASBOs-made-easy will do.
It's like the blanket curfew. Rather than arrange the policing properly, a simple and cheap solution - no under 16's / 18's whatever allowed out at night.
Hell, ASBOs are a complete shambles as it is. Is anyone seriously suggesting that someone could be locked up for a "crime" that can be invented on the fly ? Because that's what ASBOs-made-easy will do.
justinp1 said:
As long as the ideology of innocent until proven guilty still exists, I will support any move which protects non-criminals from criminals.
For example, someone who is stopped for a traffic offence which they deny should in no way be affected, otherwise we would run the risk of instantly punishing someone who is innocent.
However, if a young scrote is caught, interviewed in the correct way by police that he has vandalised or terorised someones house, and admits that he has done it, temporary restraining or ASBOs would be valuable to the victims and the general public.
I see your point, but aren't admissions sometimes given wrongly? Without access to a lawyer and time to consider the consequences, someone spending days in a cell might admit to anything.
Peter Ward said:
As long as the ideology of innocent until proven guilty still exists, I will support any move which protects non-criminals from criminals.
For example, someone who is stopped for a traffic offence which they deny should in no way be affected, otherwise we would run the risk of instantly punishing someone who is innocent.
However, if a young scrote is caught, interviewed in the correct way by police that he has vandalised or terorised someones house, and admits that he has done it, temporary restraining or ASBOs would be valuable to the victims and the general public.
I see your point, but aren't admissions sometimes given wrongly? Without access to a lawyer and time to consider the consequences, someone spending days in a cell might admit to anything.
Point taken, there would need to be safeguards. In must be said however that you can only be detained for a certain period of time and although technically possible I dont know if the Judge Dredd police officers would use illegal methods of interrogation in order to allow them to issue an ASBO or similar.
I think the most likely scenario would be the young scrote would be arrested and left a couple of hours until his parents arrived and was spoken to with the presence of a solicitor.
It simply won't happen.
The potential liabilities for redress against a police service where an approved representative acted outside the law, as determined later by, say, a judge in chambers, would be too high to contemplate.
Say, for example, a curfew was summarily imposed on a person who worked in the evenings and that person lost their job and, possibly their home. If that person appealed to a higher court and won, the damages would be very large.
Sentances must be imposed by a court and be appealable by anyone convicted. This is the British way and with a gov't full of lawyers it's unlikely to change.
The potential liabilities for redress against a police service where an approved representative acted outside the law, as determined later by, say, a judge in chambers, would be too high to contemplate.
Say, for example, a curfew was summarily imposed on a person who worked in the evenings and that person lost their job and, possibly their home. If that person appealed to a higher court and won, the damages would be very large.
Sentances must be imposed by a court and be appealable by anyone convicted. This is the British way and with a gov't full of lawyers it's unlikely to change.
Jaglover said:
Do you have Chav problem
Can you image the Chavs faces when Dredd comes to call
Of course totally unacceptable, blah, blah
There's plenty of anti-chav laws ; it's just getting them used ! (There seems to be no problem enforcing the speeding laws).
Doubtless chavs will be reclassified as a seperate race soon.
autismuk said:
There's plenty of anti-chav laws ; it's just getting them used !
Ahh, but that means that the government can't claim credit for it. Better to introduce some new legislation with a funky title so that statistics can be further manipulated to show how effective they are.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff