Police Invade Estate--The Answer?
Discussion
splitter / judas said:
FishFace said:
Liberty said:
Civil rights group Liberty yesterday attacked the tactic, claiming it was "heavy-handed and a questionable use of resources".
!!! Yeah, stopping crime on a rough estate MUST be a questionable use of resources... I hate Liberty.
Well said
The other thing I noticed, these scum with a string of crime behind them, how are they free? Why are they not locked up, in a very small dark cell making mail bags?
This kind of thing is long overdue.
Earlier this week I went to a 'police-community consultative forum', the usual bo**ocks, in which residents of a shite suburb on the Greater London/Surrey borders had a chance to offload their complaints to the cops.
One group of kids had been throwing bricks and stones at a couple of houses, with young children inside. The owner of one of these properties had called 999 - twice. It took them an hour to respond, and all they did is send a solitary PCSO.
Despite this, eventually three of the gang were taken into custody. Of these, one appears to have been let off, one cautioned. And the third? Apparently the police 'can't identify' that individual, despite having apprehended her, put her in a marked police car and taken her to the station.
I should add that one of the householders has made available to the police good quality CCTV footage of the incident, which caused several thousand pounds of damage.
Every time the police fail to act when kids have clearly broken the law, they get that little bit bolder. 'Turn a blind eye' policing and 'second chance' judiciary educate them into believing the law isn't really there to be obeyed and there won't be consequences to their actions.
Underage drinking, soft drugs and antisocial behaviour, if unchecked, lead to gang-based intimidation and mindless low-level criminal damage, which in turn can lead to turf-based gang violence, drug dealing, burglary and taking without owners' consent. The harder the police hit them at the beginning of that spectrum of behaviour, the less likely they are to progress further along it. Zero tolderance and being in their faces is the way to stop a problem that is sweeping Britain's suburbs.
Another instance of police underachievement from the same night... seems our local plods have finally issued their first ASBO. To quote the officer responsible:
'He was a one-child crime wave. He drank, did soft drugs, behaved antisocially, threatened residents, damaged cars. Then we caught him doing a burglary. So we issued him with an ASBO'.
Witless waste of taxpayers' money. The ASBO should have been issued when his behaviour was, er, anti-social, not when he committed the criminal offence of burglary. If they'd ASBO'd him early on, maybe charged him with possession or criminal damage, would he have progressed to burglary?
To rub salt into the wound, the Chief Constable of the police force in question has recently been quoted in the press as saying he wants to move resources away from anti-social behaviour and low-level youth crime to tackle more serious law-breaking. It shocks me that he can't see that he's going to need a lot more resources in total if he doesn't focus on the 'minor' stuff. And I hope this recent exercise in Kent demonstrates that a zero-tolerance, high visibility approach does work...
Earlier this week I went to a 'police-community consultative forum', the usual bo**ocks, in which residents of a shite suburb on the Greater London/Surrey borders had a chance to offload their complaints to the cops.
One group of kids had been throwing bricks and stones at a couple of houses, with young children inside. The owner of one of these properties had called 999 - twice. It took them an hour to respond, and all they did is send a solitary PCSO.
Despite this, eventually three of the gang were taken into custody. Of these, one appears to have been let off, one cautioned. And the third? Apparently the police 'can't identify' that individual, despite having apprehended her, put her in a marked police car and taken her to the station.
I should add that one of the householders has made available to the police good quality CCTV footage of the incident, which caused several thousand pounds of damage.
Every time the police fail to act when kids have clearly broken the law, they get that little bit bolder. 'Turn a blind eye' policing and 'second chance' judiciary educate them into believing the law isn't really there to be obeyed and there won't be consequences to their actions.
Underage drinking, soft drugs and antisocial behaviour, if unchecked, lead to gang-based intimidation and mindless low-level criminal damage, which in turn can lead to turf-based gang violence, drug dealing, burglary and taking without owners' consent. The harder the police hit them at the beginning of that spectrum of behaviour, the less likely they are to progress further along it. Zero tolderance and being in their faces is the way to stop a problem that is sweeping Britain's suburbs.
Another instance of police underachievement from the same night... seems our local plods have finally issued their first ASBO. To quote the officer responsible:
'He was a one-child crime wave. He drank, did soft drugs, behaved antisocially, threatened residents, damaged cars. Then we caught him doing a burglary. So we issued him with an ASBO'.
Witless waste of taxpayers' money. The ASBO should have been issued when his behaviour was, er, anti-social, not when he committed the criminal offence of burglary. If they'd ASBO'd him early on, maybe charged him with possession or criminal damage, would he have progressed to burglary?
To rub salt into the wound, the Chief Constable of the police force in question has recently been quoted in the press as saying he wants to move resources away from anti-social behaviour and low-level youth crime to tackle more serious law-breaking. It shocks me that he can't see that he's going to need a lot more resources in total if he doesn't focus on the 'minor' stuff. And I hope this recent exercise in Kent demonstrates that a zero-tolerance, high visibility approach does work...
Sheriff JWPepper said:
Tangent I know, but does anyone have time for Liberty?
No. It seems every time people look for the 'liberal' quote they will go to Liberty. I find their leader Chewbacca (or whatever her name is) especially annoying. She's the sort of person I'd be grossly immature towards and do things out of spite to annoy her. "Oh, 28 day dention annoys you? Extend it to 3 months!"
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff