speeding -> go to court. Maybe not any more (BBC news)
Discussion
"Britain's top police officer, Sir Ian Blair, last year put forward radical proposals for a new breed of policeman with on-the-spot powers to confiscate driving licences and issue anti-social behaviour orders"
hmm, sure there is a comic strip that resembles this ideology.
Sir Ian Blair, defender of our liberty indeed.
hmm, sure there is a comic strip that resembles this ideology.
Sir Ian Blair, defender of our liberty indeed.
KB_S1 said:
"Britain's top police officer, Sir Ian Blair, last year put forward radical proposals for a new breed of policeman with on-the-spot powers to confiscate driving licences and issue anti-social behaviour orders"
hmm, sure there is a comic strip that resembles this ideology.
Sir Ian Blair, defender of our liberty indeed.
Well - after number of gaffes this one's made.. und if you recall - posted my doubts when he was announced as "successor". I doubt if he will be in office for that much longer..
bbc said:
Lord Falconer said he wanted to see crime dealt with more "quickly and directly" read cheaply. He said the offences would remain criminal charges but would not be dealt with in court.
In other words, the cameras are doing such a bang up job that the courst can barely keep up. So, let's sort out a cheap fast track system to keep the money coming in, boys.
victormeldrew said:
"Britain's top police officer, Sir Ian Blair, last year put forward radical proposals for a new breed of policeman with on-the-spot powers to confiscate driving licences and issue anti-social behaviour orders"
... and authority to shoot to kill.
Be afraid, be very afraid.
It will happen.......untill the revolution!!!!
victormeldrew said:
"Britain's top police officer, Sir Ian Blair, last year put forward radical proposals for a new breed of policeman with on-the-spot powers to confiscate driving licences and issue anti-social behaviour orders"
... and authority to shoot to kill.
Be afraid, be very afraid.
Where necessary you can shoot to kill, it isn't new legislation.
>> Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 30th March 22:31
vonhosen said:
"Britain's top police officer, Sir Ian Blair, last year put forward radical proposals for a new breed of policeman with on-the-spot powers to confiscate driving licences and issue anti-social behaviour orders"
... and authority to shoot to kill.
Be afraid, be very afraid.
Where necessary you can shoot to kill, it isn't new legislation.
>> Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 30th March 22:31
But you still have to use the right intelligence.. und by each account of that story .. no one appeared to use any.
What ist wrong ... that he reportedly knew about it .. but still misled the public over this tragedy. We had all sort of stories - most sourced by police - not media frenzy. You cannot "flavour up" a TV interview with person talking in front of camera.
He was economical with the truth .. und then there was the serious gaffe over the Soham girls ...und whole truck load of others.. Guy trounces the other wooden top in White House
WildCat said:
"Britain's top police officer, Sir Ian Blair, last year put forward radical proposals for a new breed of policeman with on-the-spot powers to confiscate driving licences and issue anti-social behaviour orders"
... and authority to shoot to kill.
Be afraid, be very afraid.
Where necessary you can shoot to kill, it isn't new legislation.
>> Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 30th March 22:31
But you still have to use the right intelligence.. und by each account of that story .. no one appeared to use any.
What ist wrong ... that he reportedly knew about it .. but still misled the public over this tragedy. We had all sort of stories - most sourced by police - not media frenzy. You cannot "flavour up" a TV interview with person talking in front of camera.
He was economical with the truth .. und then there was the serious gaffe over the Soham girls ...und whole truck load of others.. Guy trounces the other wooden top in White House
Anyone put in the position where they have to decide whether to shoot or not, is protected by law, where their actions are reasonable, accountable & proportional to the threat they perceived at that time. If the information they were acting upon was flawed, that is not their fault & doesn't make their decision at the time wrong (given the information they had.) Yes others may be accountable for their failings in the handling of the information, but not the person who acted upon it with an honestly held belief & in good faith.
As for how much was known & by who, we will have to wait & see the result of the investigation by the IPCC. Anything prior to that is complete speculation.
>> Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 30th March 22:57
KB_S1 said:
"Britain's top police officer, Sir Ian Blair, last year put forward radical proposals for a new breed of policeman with on-the-spot powers to confiscate driving licences and issue anti-social behaviour orders"
hmm, sure there is a comic strip that resembles this ideology.
You would be thinking of Judge Dredd. Hmm, I wonder what the next idea will be?
kennyGti said:
"Britain's top police officer, Sir Ian Blair, last year put forward radical proposals for a new breed of policeman with on-the-spot powers to confiscate driving licences and issue anti-social behaviour orders"
hmm, sure there is a comic strip that resembles this ideology.
You would be thinking of Judge Dredd. Hmm, I wonder what the next idea will be?
or Robocop ??
[quote=vonhosen]
Anyone put in the position where they have to decide whether to shoot or not, is protected by law, where their actions are reasonable, accountable & proportional to the threat they perceived at that time. If the information they were acting upon was flawed, that is not their fault & doesn't make their decision at the time wrong (given the information they had.) Yes others may be accountable for their failings in the handling of the information, but not the person who acted upon it with an honestly held belief & in good faith.
As for how much was known & by who, we will have to wait & see the result of the investigation by the IPCC. Anything prior to that is complete speculation.
[quote]
Anyone ? Really ?
Anyone put in the position where they have to decide whether to shoot or not, is protected by law, where their actions are reasonable, accountable & proportional to the threat they perceived at that time. If the information they were acting upon was flawed, that is not their fault & doesn't make their decision at the time wrong (given the information they had.) Yes others may be accountable for their failings in the handling of the information, but not the person who acted upon it with an honestly held belief & in good faith.
As for how much was known & by who, we will have to wait & see the result of the investigation by the IPCC. Anything prior to that is complete speculation.
[quote]
Anyone ? Really ?
It's obvious what they're up to. As if to reinforce their "guilty unless you can prove you're innocent mentality", they want to simplify things and unclog the courts. Even less democracy? Of course. Just get them out at the next election beforethey can make things worse (like ID cards etc).
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff