A message to PH from your PH BiB
Discussion
AJS- said:
As somoene who mostly seems to be on the bashing side of BiB arguments on here, it's really nothing personal. It's almost always the rules and the people who make them that are the problem, rather than the police.
What is frustrating though, is whenever anyone posts something criticising a bit of particularly bad policing, a particularly literal interpretation of the law or a new piece of oppressive and intrusive legislation then a few BiB's on here will leap in with the dull tortologies and truisms familiar to anyone who ever got a speeding ticket. "We don't make the rules" "the law is the law" and perhams worst of all "if you don't break the law you don't have to worry."
Firstly lots of people post on here when they've done something, often pretty silly, and been caught. They want to vent their spleen, get some sympathy or sometimes just clarify the law they have broken. To post these dull and obvious responses again is seen as smug if not down right antagonising.
Secondly, there's a huge section of public opinion, myself included, who think that Britain is turning into a really nasty, illiberal and very intolerant society. The police are on the front line of this and even though I'm sure many privately disagree with this direction they are bound to be criticised with great passion by those who have been on the receiving end and by those who actually care about issues of principle as regards civil liberty and freedom.
Finally there's the aspect that while all of us are asked to sacrifice freedoms for the sake of fighting crime, terrorism and so forth, it seems that when the police actually catch people committing the genuine crimes that nearly everyone agrees are wrong, the courts and the legal system behind them end up handing out punishments which seem trivial in comparisson to the punishments we as law abiding citizens receive for trivial offences. I'm sure most policemen would like to see tougher sentancing as much as I would, but you can't detach the police from the legal system behind them.
To my mind Britain is now at a kind of tipping point where the state is more of a cost than a benefit to the people who live there.
I'm not, and never have been a policeman, and never really given any serious thought to joining. However if I somehow did find myself now as a policeman and in a position where I was asked to man a speed trap or arrest someone for smoking in a pub or hunting with hounds, I would actually rather leave the police force and do something else.
So, if you are a policeman who genuinely cares about not just catching criminals but actually upholding the laws and principles that underpin a free society then don't be too surprised that people occasionally get angry with the police in general.
If however you are the sort of policeman who joined for the thrill of authority, and you expect nothing but praise from people who thank you for being punished and who believe that one vote in 40 million, once every five years, makes every rule unimpeachable and rigid enforcement of it something for which we should be grateful, then I'm sure you'll be able to take it on the chin until all of our IP addresses are registered and we get fixed penalties every time we commit the hate crime of criticising the police. After all, the future of Britain is yours.
It would seem that some things are never going to changeWhat is frustrating though, is whenever anyone posts something criticising a bit of particularly bad policing, a particularly literal interpretation of the law or a new piece of oppressive and intrusive legislation then a few BiB's on here will leap in with the dull tortologies and truisms familiar to anyone who ever got a speeding ticket. "We don't make the rules" "the law is the law" and perhams worst of all "if you don't break the law you don't have to worry."
Firstly lots of people post on here when they've done something, often pretty silly, and been caught. They want to vent their spleen, get some sympathy or sometimes just clarify the law they have broken. To post these dull and obvious responses again is seen as smug if not down right antagonising.
Secondly, there's a huge section of public opinion, myself included, who think that Britain is turning into a really nasty, illiberal and very intolerant society. The police are on the front line of this and even though I'm sure many privately disagree with this direction they are bound to be criticised with great passion by those who have been on the receiving end and by those who actually care about issues of principle as regards civil liberty and freedom.
Finally there's the aspect that while all of us are asked to sacrifice freedoms for the sake of fighting crime, terrorism and so forth, it seems that when the police actually catch people committing the genuine crimes that nearly everyone agrees are wrong, the courts and the legal system behind them end up handing out punishments which seem trivial in comparisson to the punishments we as law abiding citizens receive for trivial offences. I'm sure most policemen would like to see tougher sentancing as much as I would, but you can't detach the police from the legal system behind them.
To my mind Britain is now at a kind of tipping point where the state is more of a cost than a benefit to the people who live there.
I'm not, and never have been a policeman, and never really given any serious thought to joining. However if I somehow did find myself now as a policeman and in a position where I was asked to man a speed trap or arrest someone for smoking in a pub or hunting with hounds, I would actually rather leave the police force and do something else.
So, if you are a policeman who genuinely cares about not just catching criminals but actually upholding the laws and principles that underpin a free society then don't be too surprised that people occasionally get angry with the police in general.
If however you are the sort of policeman who joined for the thrill of authority, and you expect nothing but praise from people who thank you for being punished and who believe that one vote in 40 million, once every five years, makes every rule unimpeachable and rigid enforcement of it something for which we should be grateful, then I'm sure you'll be able to take it on the chin until all of our IP addresses are registered and we get fixed penalties every time we commit the hate crime of criticising the police. After all, the future of Britain is yours.
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
Forget having a social conscience, it'll get you arrested
I take issue with the OP's advice "If you have a particular complaint against a particular officer who has dealt with you, then complain through the correct channels – their direct supervisor, the Force’s complaints department or the Independent Police Complaints Commission." These may be the 'correct channels' as far as the police are concerned but history shows it is not so for the public. I have no faith in the Force's complaints procedures nor the IPCC (not much evidence of Independence there). How many deaths in custody have resulted in convictions of police officers? How can firing seven bullets into a innocent man's head at point blank range not be "Unlawful killing" and how can the officers who did it not be charged with murder?
davidball said:
I take issue with the OP's advice "If you have a particular complaint against a particular officer who has dealt with you, then complain through the correct channels – their direct supervisor, the Force’s complaints department or the Independent Police Complaints Commission." These may be the 'correct channels' as far as the police are concerned but history shows it is not so for the public. I have no faith in the Force's complaints procedures nor the IPCC (not much evidence of Independence there). How many deaths in custody have resulted in convictions of police officers? How can firing seven bullets into a innocent man's head at point blank range not be "Unlawful killing" and how can the officers who did it not be charged with murder?
Easily. If a police officer takes the decision to kill someone - for a lawful reason, like you thought he had a gun/nuclear device/voted Labour/whatever, then the safest way to ensure death, as opposed to thinking he's dead and then him popping up and shooting back/detonating the bomb/voting in a byelection/whatever is TO SHOOT HIM REPEATEDLY IN THE HEAD.People got all hot under the collar about the number of shots. Bolleaux - if I had to shoot to kill, I would keep pressing the trigger until the gun clicked. Why do you think special forces go round the room and shoot prone combatants in the head - so there are no surprises in 10 seconds time.
The important bit is whether the decision to shoot was correct/lawful/whatever or not. How you killed him seems pretty irrelevant. It's just a bit detail for the tabloids to stir up faux-indignation with. "SEVEN bullets in OK Corral mass murder mayhem shootout by GUNCRAZY police" sells more papers than "Gunman shot".
You have not addressed any of the issues I raised and your language appears to try to justify grave miscarriages of Justice. Menezes was NOT a gunman. He was an unarmed man going about his lawful business who was shot to death by police officers who appear to have panicked because their cotrollers had lost track of the situation. The whole operation was a cockup from start to finish and the Police did eveything they could to squirm out of taking responsibility for it. The inquest was a disgrace and I doubt we will ever know what political pressure was brought to bear to prevent a finding of unlawful killing.
davidball said:
You have not addressed any of the issues I raised and your language appears to try to justify grave miscarriages of Justice. Menezes was NOT a gunman. He was an unarmed man going about his lawful business who was shot to death by police officers who appear to have panicked because their cotrollers had lost track of the situation. The whole operation was a cockup from start to finish and the Police did eveything they could to squirm out of taking responsibility for it. The inquest was a disgrace and I doubt we will ever know what political pressure was brought to bear to prevent a finding of unlawful killing.
If you want people to tell you in intimate detail how you are wrong on this specific subject. Why not start a thread on it.If you want to deliberately try and troll a thread/bate some of the bib. You might want to start a thread for that as well.
So far about the only justifiable reason to post on this thread is that you don't believe the official channels of complaint work. And frankly if that's true there's not much anybody can do about that here. And it's probably a thread on it's own.
I took issue with the OP over the phrase “the correct channels” for complaining and stated my view on it. I asked some questions about deaths in custody and why executing an innocent man was not an unlawful killing. There have been no answers.
If you think that asking awkward questions justifies your response “If you want to deliberately try and troll a thread/bate some of the bib” I wonder why you are so defensive.
If you think that asking awkward questions justifies your response “If you want to deliberately try and troll a thread/bate some of the bib” I wonder why you are so defensive.
I think the best way is through a civil prosecution of the individual officer.
Thank you for the info about the Menezes case. I will run a search on it to see if the thread produced any answers to such questions as:
Why was the unlawful killing finding prohibited by the coroner?
Why were the findings of Stockwell 1 initially kept secret?
Why was no officer charged?
Are those officers still allowed to carry guns?
Thank you for the info about the Menezes case. I will run a search on it to see if the thread produced any answers to such questions as:
Why was the unlawful killing finding prohibited by the coroner?
Why were the findings of Stockwell 1 initially kept secret?
Why was no officer charged?
Are those officers still allowed to carry guns?
davidball said:
I think the best way is through a civil prosecution of the individual officer.
Thank you for the info about the Menezes case. I will run a search on it to see if the thread produced any answers to such questions as:
Why was the unlawful killing finding prohibited by the coroner?
Why were the findings of Stockwell 1 initially kept secret?
Why was no officer charged?
Are those officers still allowed to carry guns?
Good luck with that.Thank you for the info about the Menezes case. I will run a search on it to see if the thread produced any answers to such questions as:
Why was the unlawful killing finding prohibited by the coroner?
Why were the findings of Stockwell 1 initially kept secret?
Why was no officer charged?
Are those officers still allowed to carry guns?
In relation to the civil case business, who is going to do the evidence gathering, interviews etc?
davidball said:
Why was the unlawful killing finding prohibited by the coroner?
Why were the findings of Stockwell 1 initially kept secret?
Why was no officer charged?
Are those officers still allowed to carry guns?
The most important question, that you, forgot to ask is:Why were the findings of Stockwell 1 initially kept secret?
Why was no officer charged?
Are those officers still allowed to carry guns?
Did the Officers, who were under the honestly held belief they were approaching a suicide bomber (immediately after other suicide bombings) receive any bravery awards for running TOWARDS danger. Without thoughts for their own safety, they put themselves at risk in order to save others.
But I suppose it's easier to be a brave keyboard warrior, who faces no more danger than spilling his hot latte (or other trendy beverage).
Elroy Blue said:
The most important question, that you, forgot to ask is:
Did the Officers, who were under the honestly held belief they were approaching a suicide bomber (immediately after other suicide bombings) receive any bravery awards for running TOWARDS danger. Without thoughts for their own safety, they put themselves at risk in order to save others.
But I suppose it's easier to be a brave keyboard warrior, who faces no more danger than spilling his hot latte (or other trendy beverage).
Given the outcome, would you honestly say they should receive such an award?Did the Officers, who were under the honestly held belief they were approaching a suicide bomber (immediately after other suicide bombings) receive any bravery awards for running TOWARDS danger. Without thoughts for their own safety, they put themselves at risk in order to save others.
But I suppose it's easier to be a brave keyboard warrior, who faces no more danger than spilling his hot latte (or other trendy beverage).
If I ever clump a trespasser over the head and kill him, thinking he might be a threat, I hope you're the officer that comes around to present me with my bravery award.
Elroy Blue said:
The most important question, that you, forgot to ask is:
Did the Officers, who were under the honestly held belief they were approaching a suicide bomber (immediately after other suicide bombings) receive any bravery awards for running TOWARDS danger. Without thoughts for their own safety, they put themselves at risk in order to save others.
But I suppose it's easier to be a brave keyboard warrior, who faces no more danger than spilling his hot latte (or other trendy beverage).
The question I did not ask was:Did the Officers, who were under the honestly held belief they were approaching a suicide bomber (immediately after other suicide bombings) receive any bravery awards for running TOWARDS danger. Without thoughts for their own safety, they put themselves at risk in order to save others.
But I suppose it's easier to be a brave keyboard warrior, who faces no more danger than spilling his hot latte (or other trendy beverage).
What was the real terrorist doing while the wrong man was being followed?
Your apologetic attempt to justify an execution by firing squad without the inconvenience of a trial is as pitiful as the incompetent attempt at the cover-up that followed.
AJS- said:
Given the outcome, would you honestly say they should receive such an award?
If I ever clump a trespasser over the head and kill him, thinking he might be a threat, I hope you're the officer that comes around to present me with my bravery award.
So you think that a trespasser is the same as approaching a suicide bomber? Straight after other suicide bombings. Strange comparison. If I ever clump a trespasser over the head and kill him, thinking he might be a threat, I hope you're the officer that comes around to present me with my bravery award.
There were failings in command and control that day. The men on the ground were nothing short of outstandingly brave and those that sit behind keyboards being outraged, while enjoying their freedom to type what rubbish they like have nothing but my utter contempt.
Elroy Blue said:
So you think that a trespasser is the same as approaching a suicide bomber? Straight after other suicide bombings. Strange comparison.
There were failings in command and control that day. The men on the ground were nothing short of outstandingly brave and those that sit behind keyboards being outraged, while enjoying their freedom to type what rubbish they like have nothing but my utter contempt.
But he wasn't a suicide bomber, he was an electrician. And he was shot dead due to those failings on that day. Why the hell shouldn't people be outraged by that?There were failings in command and control that day. The men on the ground were nothing short of outstandingly brave and those that sit behind keyboards being outraged, while enjoying their freedom to type what rubbish they like have nothing but my utter contempt.
Brave in my book would have been approaching him in the open before he got to the tube station and searching him under the guise of a routine check for drugs or knives etc. This would have quickly and easily solved the problem, with far less danger to the public than tackling a suicide bomber on a train, and without ending up killing someone innocent.
Failure of command and control!
It was a monumental cock-up that led to the death of an innocent man compounded by the most shameful attempt at a whitewash. Both deserve utter contempt as do those who seek to justify it.
Quite apart from the tragedy itself it dimished the reputation of British justice
It was a monumental cock-up that led to the death of an innocent man compounded by the most shameful attempt at a whitewash. Both deserve utter contempt as do those who seek to justify it.
Quite apart from the tragedy itself it dimished the reputation of British justice
Edited by davidball on Wednesday 22 August 08:15
[quote=Jenx (V6GTO)]One thing I'd like to say, to Dibble and and his colleagues, is "Thank you for being there...for performing an often dangerous service that benefit everyone[/b]" (and PH would be a much poorer place without you)
Martin.
[/quote]
+1
I still have a LOT of respect for the boys and girls in BLUE. I have found that if you treat them with respect you get it back - it's really that simples. They have a VERY HARD and DANGEROUS job and I for one am glad that we have the police force that we do warts and all.
Just think of the alternative with out them!
Keep up the good work guys.
Martin.
[/quote]
+1
I still have a LOT of respect for the boys and girls in BLUE. I have found that if you treat them with respect you get it back - it's really that simples. They have a VERY HARD and DANGEROUS job and I for one am glad that we have the police force that we do warts and all.
Just think of the alternative with out them!
Keep up the good work guys.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff