Has David Starkey gone mad?
Discussion
FiF said:
longblackcoat said:
FiF said:
Just one further thought, presumably Chris Harris will now be prosecuted for tittering with his motoring journalist mates over some of the highly illegal speed road trips and exploits they got up to during the back in the day times at Autocar and Evo?
Agree with Stewie, crazy day times.
Not sure where Harris incited racial hatred, but I’m sure you know what you’re talking about. Agree with Stewie, crazy day times.
But then you knew that but just wanted to be an argumentative deflecting prat. Jog on, you're better than that.
The point of law here is incitement; Harris et al were not inciting anyone to do anything. There are literally no parallels here - journos admitting to the offence of speeding in Germany simply is not the same as (potentially) encouraging someone to use racially inflammatory language.
If you see this as equivalence, fair enough, but it’s something I can’t help you with.
Well I can criticise the police. What on earth do they want to "investigate"? The video is there. The publisher and the interviewee are well known.
The same police who can't investigate child rape or stop a mob from tearing down a statue can suddenly tell journalists how they ought to conduct interviews?
All they will actually investigate is what sort of response they get on Twitter and in the press, then tell us all how anti racist they are.
The same police who can't investigate child rape or stop a mob from tearing down a statue can suddenly tell journalists how they ought to conduct interviews?
All they will actually investigate is what sort of response they get on Twitter and in the press, then tell us all how anti racist they are.
JuanCarlosFandango said:
Well I can criticise the police. What on earth do they want to "investigate"? The video is there. The publisher and the interviewee are well known.
The same police who can't investigate child rape or stop a mob from tearing down a statue can suddenly tell journalists how they ought to conduct interviews?
All they will actually investigate is what sort of response they get on Twitter and in the press, then tell us all how anti racist they are.
They are calling the bloke in for an interview. Hardly the most time consuming of tasks. Perhaps they assume he won’t turn up.The same police who can't investigate child rape or stop a mob from tearing down a statue can suddenly tell journalists how they ought to conduct interviews?
All they will actually investigate is what sort of response they get on Twitter and in the press, then tell us all how anti racist they are.
If you think the police can just sleeve jobs without problems, boy are you way, way off beam. Those were the ‘good old days’ that people refer to when talking of policing in this country.
What do you mean by the interviewee and the publisher being well known? Hardly relevant.
If you feel that the police don't investigate child rape, then I'd appreciate seeing the evidence.
I mean they don't have to search for unknown suspects or trawl through hours of podcasts to see if he is consistently stirring up racial hatred or inciting people to go around attacking minorities. David Starkey used that phrase (for some reason) and Grimes published it in a podcast. What is there to investigate?
The first of dozens of similar stories
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7901731/P...
The first of dozens of similar stories
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7901731/P...
JuanCarlosFandango said:
Well I can criticise the police. What on earth do they want to "investigate"? The video is there. The publisher and the interviewee are well known.
Either I’m explaining this badly or you’re not thinking at all. The potential offence is that of incitement, and for that to be proven you’d need to demonstrate that there was intent. So you need to speak to the person - why did they do what they did, why didn’t they challenge, why hasn’t the video been taken down etc. It’s absolutely not cut and dried.
I have every confidence that this will go nowhere, but a complaint has been made and the police are duty bound to follow up.
longblackcoat said:
Either I’m explaining this badly or you’re not thinking at all.
The potential offence is that of incitement, and for that to be proven you’d need to demonstrate that there was intent. So you need to speak to the person - why did they do what they did, why didn’t they challenge, why hasn’t the video been taken down etc. It’s absolutely not cut and dried.
I have every confidence that this will go nowhere, but a complaint has been made and the police are duty bound to follow up.
What the police are "duty bound to follow up" is pretty much up to the police. They used to be duty bound to investigate burglaries, car break ins etc., They unilaterally have decided they are not duty bound to do that any more and issuing a crime reference number will suffice.The potential offence is that of incitement, and for that to be proven you’d need to demonstrate that there was intent. So you need to speak to the person - why did they do what they did, why didn’t they challenge, why hasn’t the video been taken down etc. It’s absolutely not cut and dried.
I have every confidence that this will go nowhere, but a complaint has been made and the police are duty bound to follow up.
longblackcoat said:
Either I’m explaining this badly or you’re not thinking at all.
The potential offence is that of incitement, and for that to be proven you’d need to demonstrate that there was intent. So you need to speak to the person - why did they do what they did, why didn’t they challenge, why hasn’t the video been taken down etc. It’s absolutely not cut and dried.
I have every confidence that this will go nowhere, but a complaint has been made and the police are duty bound to follow up.
I understand your explanation but still not sure what exactly they will be investigating. The potential offence is that of incitement, and for that to be proven you’d need to demonstrate that there was intent. So you need to speak to the person - why did they do what they did, why didn’t they challenge, why hasn’t the video been taken down etc. It’s absolutely not cut and dried.
I have every confidence that this will go nowhere, but a complaint has been made and the police are duty bound to follow up.
He is a journalist who publishes his work. He did an interview and published it. He didn't challenge it because he didn't think it would improve the interview and he didn't take it down because that would defeat the point of posting it or indeed having the interview to begin with.
The police don't investigate everything to the fullest of their ability. They simply couldn't. They chose to investigate this.
As you say, nothing will probably come of it anyway, leaving me with the impression that they chose to blow this up to publicly show their anti racist credentials. Which is stupid.
bobbo89 said:
As Grimes is simply being called in for an interview what would the Police do if he were to simply tell them to get f
ked? What power do they have to do then?
We've had discussions on here before about the risks of accepting these invitations for a friendly chat. I'd like to think that you can't be 'called in for interview'. All the Police can do in that respect is ask you and if you decline the ball is back in their court. I guess then that you run the risk of them arresting you. Every situation will be different.ked? What power do they have to do then? bobbo89 said:
As Grimes is simply being called in for an interview what would the Police do if he were to simply tell them to get f d? What power do they have to do then?
I'd imagine the police are hoping for just that response. They will then complete the investigation and send the file to the CPS for a decision. Job done.As for powers, the CPS can decide to charge/report for an offence and Grimes will be called to attend court. If he feels he is too important for that, the court will then put him right by ordering, by warrant, the police to arrest the chap and bring him before the court.
i4got said:
What the police are "duty bound to follow up" is pretty much up to the police. They used to be duty bound to investigate burglaries, car break ins etc., They unilaterally have decided they are not duty bound to do that any more and issuing a crime reference number will suffice.
A nonsensical point of view of course.The police response to crimes, all crimes, is reviewed by HMIC annually, mainly on a papersift, but sometimes by visits. If they do not respond to a complaint of crime, they will be asked to justify their conduct. It can become quite fraught.
The police do prioritise their responses of course. No one but an idiot would think that there was any other option. Even in my day, pre the attacks on the service by Cameron and May, the demands for response were increasing year on year. The stats are there for anyone to find and are such that only a government, and the terminally blind, could argue against it. Crime has not gone up at the same rate, but non-police functions have as other services have their budgets slashed. The police are the long-stops.
Thefts of and from cars have dropped remarkably over recent years. Burglaries, on the other hand, may or may not have increased.
Most serving and retired officers on PH seem to be of the opinion that there should be a review of the police functions. There has been no fundamental change to the service since 1984. If only it could be said there has been no change to society.
The police service nowadays does a lot more with considerably less. It has been stopped evolving to cope. The civilianisation of non-warrant functions was well underway in the 90s. It was generally much more efficient, especially given the requirements for reporting and data which should be the preserve of those without a power of arrest. Unfortunately, the slashing of budgets included a requirement to ensure that few officers were removed from post, so as to give the illusion of little change. However, even those of limited sense can work out that civilians were chopped and police officers had to fill those posts.
The police are hopelessly out of their depth, the twitter mob want them to be a new branch of the Stasi and their ‘training’ sessions would put David Brent to shame.
I bet when people sign up they are keen to be public servants and uphold the law not to investigate ‘hate crimes’ to please a new generation of very misguided top brass.
I bet when people sign up they are keen to be public servants and uphold the law not to investigate ‘hate crimes’ to please a new generation of very misguided top brass.
Clearly reported crimes are not sleeved, i.e. go unrecorded even if only temporarily, unlike back in the day.
However it's a fact that the prioritisation of further action is in part determined by who reports the offence, ie a report from someone who is known to be or may ultimately turn out to be a complaining vexatious troublemaker is more likely to receive attention to show action.
However it's a fact that the prioritisation of further action is in part determined by who reports the offence, ie a report from someone who is known to be or may ultimately turn out to be a complaining vexatious troublemaker is more likely to receive attention to show action.
Derek Smith said:
A nonsensical point of view of course.
The police response to crimes, all crimes, is reviewed by HMIC annually, mainly on a papersift, but sometimes by visits. If they do not respond to a complaint of crime, they will be asked to justify their conduct. It can become quite fraught.
The police do prioritise their responses of course. No one but an idiot would think that there was any other option. Even in my day, pre the attacks on the service by Cameron and May, the demands for response were increasing year on year. The stats are there for anyone to find and are such that only a government, and the terminally blind, could argue against it. Crime has not gone up at the same rate, but non-police functions have as other services have their budgets slashed. The police are the long-stops.
Thefts of and from cars have dropped remarkably over recent years. Burglaries, on the other hand, may or may not have increased.
Most serving and retired officers on PH seem to be of the opinion that there should be a review of the police functions. There has been no fundamental change to the service since 1984. If only it could be said there has been no change to society.
The police service nowadays does a lot more with considerably less. It has been stopped evolving to cope. The civilianisation of non-warrant functions was well underway in the 90s. It was generally much more efficient, especially given the requirements for reporting and data which should be the preserve of those without a power of arrest. Unfortunately, the slashing of budgets included a requirement to ensure that few officers were removed from post, so as to give the illusion of little change. However, even those of limited sense can work out that civilians were chopped and police officers had to fill those posts.
You're saying what should happen. I am saying what actually happens. In my area the police will not attend for a break-in. You will receive a crime number only. Are you denying that that happens? The police response to crimes, all crimes, is reviewed by HMIC annually, mainly on a papersift, but sometimes by visits. If they do not respond to a complaint of crime, they will be asked to justify their conduct. It can become quite fraught.
The police do prioritise their responses of course. No one but an idiot would think that there was any other option. Even in my day, pre the attacks on the service by Cameron and May, the demands for response were increasing year on year. The stats are there for anyone to find and are such that only a government, and the terminally blind, could argue against it. Crime has not gone up at the same rate, but non-police functions have as other services have their budgets slashed. The police are the long-stops.
Thefts of and from cars have dropped remarkably over recent years. Burglaries, on the other hand, may or may not have increased.
Most serving and retired officers on PH seem to be of the opinion that there should be a review of the police functions. There has been no fundamental change to the service since 1984. If only it could be said there has been no change to society.
The police service nowadays does a lot more with considerably less. It has been stopped evolving to cope. The civilianisation of non-warrant functions was well underway in the 90s. It was generally much more efficient, especially given the requirements for reporting and data which should be the preserve of those without a power of arrest. Unfortunately, the slashing of budgets included a requirement to ensure that few officers were removed from post, so as to give the illusion of little change. However, even those of limited sense can work out that civilians were chopped and police officers had to fill those posts.
Darren Grimes (Triggernometry) interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1o9Krp5ZMU&ab...
i4got said:
You're saying what should happen. I am saying what actually happens. In my area the police will not attend for a break-in. You will receive a crime number only. Are you denying that that happens?
I obviously have no idea whether it happens or not. In your area at least.I can say what happens in my force area. Prioritisation is an essential of course. It’s been the system for at least 40 years. The difference is that resource levels vary and so must response to individual crimes. HMIC will look for overall response to crime. If there are low levels of car crime, then scarce resources must be allocated elsewhere. Some crimes must be resourced of course, and I won’t insult your intelligence by listing them.
Each force will have to explain why they follow certain procedures with certain offences.
The service went year after year with increased demand and decreased response availability. I was in my force’s control room for a couple of years, and lack of available response staff was the norm even then. That’s the middle 90s. A division might well hand over a list of calls to the night shift as there hadn’t been the staff to cover on lates. Since then, human resources got lower and lower as the years went by.
I won’t insult your intelligence by stating that the massive increases in officers promised by government were nothing of the sort.
We – I was a serving officer until 2005 – were told each year that we were cutting ‘fat’. Even in 2000, the complaint was that there was little fat left, and little lean, but the then government didn’t agree and more cuts came along.
Then Cameron and May. Those cuts were disastrous. Then we were told that the cuts had been stopped. The following year my force, and I would assume many others, had further cuts to funding. In fact for us it was a bigger cut than any single year of the 20% ones.
Now we have the promise of 20,000 officers. Great. My force, however, will not be able to pay for their share.
I was issued with a full witness order about 6 years ago, for a case involving a series of armed robberies. I phoned a detective constable named in what I’d call a regional crime squad, to be told that she was the OIC. In the days before Cameron and May, it would have been a DS at least, with a DI with oversight. Those days are long gone. It was just her and part of a typist (admin support, but a typist). They were returning serious crimes with a named offender and substantial evidence to support, to forces because they did not have the resources to cover. They would be filed with no further action because division hasn’t the resources either. So you can see why no one turned out to your burglary. The HMIC is happy with this. I bet police officers are not.
HMIC knows this. It’s been pointed out to the inspectorate annually at least, so the government knows also, but does nothing. If you want someone to come out to your burglary, that’d be someone taken off of investigation those crimes that will not be followed up. Can’t have it all ways.
It probable that there will be further cuts to policing post lockdown. Local authorities, with their income cut, will have to be careful with their spending.
It’s a harsh thing, this reality. I’m really sorry about your burglary; I think it should be classed as an offence against the person, but that would mean someone would have to attend, and that person does not exist.
There’s one thing you can do; hope against hope that there is no repetition of the riots of 2011 ‘cause there is no one to deal. My force had an agreed, with the Home Office, minimum levels of coverage locally and the rest to go for mutual aid. Most forces reckoned that the limit was set far too low. My force only infrequently meets that bare minimum nowadays.
Derek Smith said:
I obviously have no idea whether it happens or not. In your area at least.
I can say what happens in my force area. Prioritisation is an essential of course. It’s been the system for at least 40 years. The difference is that resource levels vary and so must response to individual crimes. HMIC will look for overall response to crime. If there are low levels of car crime, then scarce resources must be allocated elsewhere. Some crimes must be resourced of course, and I won’t insult your intelligence by listing them.
Each force will have to explain why they follow certain procedures with certain offences.
The service went year after year with increased demand and decreased response availability. I was in my force’s control room for a couple of years, and lack of available response staff was the norm even then. That’s the middle 90s. A division might well hand over a list of calls to the night shift as there hadn’t been the staff to cover on lates. Since then, human resources got lower and lower as the years went by.
I won’t insult your intelligence by stating that the massive increases in officers promised by government were nothing of the sort.
We – I was a serving officer until 2005 – were told each year that we were cutting ‘fat’. Even in 2000, the complaint was that there was little fat left, and little lean, but the then government didn’t agree and more cuts came along.
Then Cameron and May. Those cuts were disastrous. Then we were told that the cuts had been stopped. The following year my force, and I would assume many others, had further cuts to funding. In fact for us it was a bigger cut than any single year of the 20% ones.
Now we have the promise of 20,000 officers. Great. My force, however, will not be able to pay for their share.
I was issued with a full witness order about 6 years ago, for a case involving a series of armed robberies. I phoned a detective constable named in what I’d call a regional crime squad, to be told that she was the OIC. In the days before Cameron and May, it would have been a DS at least, with a DI with oversight. Those days are long gone. It was just her and part of a typist (admin support, but a typist). They were returning serious crimes with a named offender and substantial evidence to support, to forces because they did not have the resources to cover. They would be filed with no further action because division hasn’t the resources either. So you can see why no one turned out to your burglary. The HMIC is happy with this. I bet police officers are not.
HMIC knows this. It’s been pointed out to the inspectorate annually at least, so the government knows also, but does nothing. If you want someone to come out to your burglary, that’d be someone taken off of investigation those crimes that will not be followed up. Can’t have it all ways.
It probable that there will be further cuts to policing post lockdown. Local authorities, with their income cut, will have to be careful with their spending.
It’s a harsh thing, this reality. I’m really sorry about your burglary; I think it should be classed as an offence against the person, but that would mean someone would have to attend, and that person does not exist.
There’s one thing you can do; hope against hope that there is no repetition of the riots of 2011 ‘cause there is no one to deal. My force had an agreed, with the Home Office, minimum levels of coverage locally and the rest to go for mutual aid. Most forces reckoned that the limit was set far too low. My force only infrequently meets that bare minimum nowadays.
And yet they still have the resources to "investigate" a podcast, request an interview and then cancel it while another senior officer investigates whether the investigation is proportionate.I can say what happens in my force area. Prioritisation is an essential of course. It’s been the system for at least 40 years. The difference is that resource levels vary and so must response to individual crimes. HMIC will look for overall response to crime. If there are low levels of car crime, then scarce resources must be allocated elsewhere. Some crimes must be resourced of course, and I won’t insult your intelligence by listing them.
Each force will have to explain why they follow certain procedures with certain offences.
The service went year after year with increased demand and decreased response availability. I was in my force’s control room for a couple of years, and lack of available response staff was the norm even then. That’s the middle 90s. A division might well hand over a list of calls to the night shift as there hadn’t been the staff to cover on lates. Since then, human resources got lower and lower as the years went by.
I won’t insult your intelligence by stating that the massive increases in officers promised by government were nothing of the sort.
We – I was a serving officer until 2005 – were told each year that we were cutting ‘fat’. Even in 2000, the complaint was that there was little fat left, and little lean, but the then government didn’t agree and more cuts came along.
Then Cameron and May. Those cuts were disastrous. Then we were told that the cuts had been stopped. The following year my force, and I would assume many others, had further cuts to funding. In fact for us it was a bigger cut than any single year of the 20% ones.
Now we have the promise of 20,000 officers. Great. My force, however, will not be able to pay for their share.
I was issued with a full witness order about 6 years ago, for a case involving a series of armed robberies. I phoned a detective constable named in what I’d call a regional crime squad, to be told that she was the OIC. In the days before Cameron and May, it would have been a DS at least, with a DI with oversight. Those days are long gone. It was just her and part of a typist (admin support, but a typist). They were returning serious crimes with a named offender and substantial evidence to support, to forces because they did not have the resources to cover. They would be filed with no further action because division hasn’t the resources either. So you can see why no one turned out to your burglary. The HMIC is happy with this. I bet police officers are not.
HMIC knows this. It’s been pointed out to the inspectorate annually at least, so the government knows also, but does nothing. If you want someone to come out to your burglary, that’d be someone taken off of investigation those crimes that will not be followed up. Can’t have it all ways.
It probable that there will be further cuts to policing post lockdown. Local authorities, with their income cut, will have to be careful with their spending.
It’s a harsh thing, this reality. I’m really sorry about your burglary; I think it should be classed as an offence against the person, but that would mean someone would have to attend, and that person does not exist.
There’s one thing you can do; hope against hope that there is no repetition of the riots of 2011 ‘cause there is no one to deal. My force had an agreed, with the Home Office, minimum levels of coverage locally and the rest to go for mutual aid. Most forces reckoned that the limit was set far too low. My force only infrequently meets that bare minimum nowadays.
Somewhere along the line someone has decided that the content of Darren Grimes podcast is more important than a burglary.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff