pcso battered by 13 yobs for skunk plants the AA grumpy column

the grumps · Post by **the grumps** » Sun Nov 20, 2011 9:53 am

hello and welcome to another thrilling installment of the AA grumpy column.

just when you thought broken britain couldnt get any worse thieving druggy scum have sunk to a new low

A MOB battered a brave community support cop guarding a drug factory then stormed inside to nab powerful skunk.

The PCSO, 25, was punched and kicked by up to 13 youths after they realised he had been left alone by hapless bosses. They then broke into the warehouse, which had been secured earlier by his fellow officers, and stole the cannabis plants.

Witnesses said the officer warned bystanders to hide in a nearby cafe before crawling there minutes later covered in blood. He was treated in hospital on Thursday for face injuries. The female cafe owner said: "They left that poor guy by himself and word got round about what he was guarding It was too easy for them."

Ex-Scotland Yard Flying Squad chief John O'Connor blasted the decision to leave a sole officer at the industrial estate in Enfield, North London. He said: "It is appalling. That poor PCSO should never have been left alone to guard a cannabis factory."

The Met Police confirmed the attack but said it would not change its controversial single patrol policy, introduced last year to make cops more approachable to the public.

Two lads, both 17, were arrested. One was charged with burglary and ABH.

AAG

across the pond our foreign readers must be shaking their heads in dispair at this story in canada and the states to name but two

this would have been met with some serious no nonsence canadian or american policing so what does our feeble police force subject to money saving cuts do ?

it sends a pcso known as a plastic policeman with about as much power as a traffic warden to guard a warehouse full of thousands of pounds of skunk plants and then the whole lot disappears under the noses of the mets finest and the pcso gets beaten up for his trouble.

why wasnt this lot taken during the raid why was they left behind in the first place?

and where the serious crime squad or the flying squad? sat at their comfortable desks filling in tick box paperwork drinking tea

yet in an operational overkill at london 2012 olympics half the met fbi cia sas and raf marksmen will be protecting the olympics from terrorism plus there will be helicopters flying constanly overhead too yet they have managed to find the budget to do all this on the instructions of their political paymasters

the good old british bobby eh come back pc dixon we need you .....

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Nov 20, 2011 10:04 am

Here's the link.... we don't want Spot getting all worked up do we ?

Mob Attack PCSO Guarding Cannabis Factory | Surrey Constabulary Blog

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sun Nov 20, 2011 10:24 am

*Clears throat*

I am amazingly leaning towards the loony poster's point of view, sorry I mean the Grumpy poster's point of view.

Here's some insight into the problem the police are facing.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun Nov 20, 2011 11:06 am

Maybe they had used up their overtime. So grumpy are you going to take to the streets in protest at all the cuts?

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Sun Nov 20, 2011 11:16 am

A cannabis factory? Is this medical marijuana? I've never heard of something like this before.

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Sun Nov 20, 2011 11:19 am

Well, at least all your cops aren't asleep at the wheel:

Police raid 'cannabis factory' to discover it's a home for guinea pigs 'Simon' and 'Kenny' | Mail Online

hahaha

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sun Nov 20, 2011 11:24 am

SnoozeAgain;1376264 wrote: A cannabis factory? Is this medical marijuana? I've never heard of something like this before.
You should get out more, the term is used for any larger than 'normal' collection of cannabis plants.

They can be in domestic properties or as in this case an industrial unit.

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Sun Nov 20, 2011 11:33 am

Oooh. Different terminology, the 'factory' part sort of made it sound legitimate. We call them 'grow houses' over here.

Post by **spot** » Sun Nov 20, 2011 12:20 pm

The skunk might as well have been a suitcase containing £250,000 in used notes as far as the rest of the story's concerned, though it's the skunk that excited the OP by the look of it.

How about it Andy? Would you deck a PCSO for an untraceable quarter million?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Nov 20, 2011 12:35 pm

At this stage, I must point out to the Non British that the Skunk Andy Is talking about, Is not one of these.

Attached files

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Sun Nov 20, 2011 12:50 pm

Yeah, I figured that much out on my own. You don't even have skunks there, do you?

Post by **spot** » Sun Nov 20, 2011 12:53 pm

Lots of them. They own and work for tabloid newspapers.

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Sun Nov 20, 2011 12:56 pm

I hope they'd at least had their scent glands removed.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Nov 20, 2011 1:06 pm

SnoozeAgain;1376284 wrote: Yeah, I figured that much out on my own. You don't even have skunks there, do you? Funny enough... Yes we do !!!!

They have been breeding In the wild In England for some time and more and more are being sighted as time goes by.

Skunks breeding in England – A natural history of Britain -

Although they are outnumbered by the Wallaby's breeding here also.

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Sun Nov 20, 2011 1:34 pm

Uh oh, I hope it doesn't end up like the rabbits in Australia.

the grumps · Post by **the grumps** » Sun Nov 20, 2011 1:55 pm

ha ha thanks for that and not all of us work for the tabloids nor would deck a pcso for a load of skunk plants i do have a sense of decency.

but seriously whats broken britain coming to these days when druggy eyed scumbags or anyone else has no respect for the the british bobby the countrys slowly decending into anarchy

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Nov 20, 2011 2:04 pm

spot;1376279 wrote:

How about it Andy? Would you deck a PCSO for an untraceable quarter million?

Would You ?

Post by **spot** » Sun Nov 20, 2011 2:22 pm

the grumps;1376301 wrote: ha ha thanks for that and not all of us work for the tabloids nor would deck a pcso for a load of skunk plants i do have a sense of decency.I don't doubt you for a moment as far as the skunk's concerned but that's not what I asked. What I asked you was "Would you deck a PCSO for an untraceable quarter million?". I think it's a fair question.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Nov 20, 2011 2:29 pm

spot;1376309 wrote: I don't doubt you for a moment as far as the skunk's concerned but that's not what I asked. What I asked you was "Would you deck a PCSO for an untraceable quarter million?". I think it's a fair question.
And I asked.... Would You ?... Deck a PCSO for an untraceable quarter million ?

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sun Nov 20, 2011 2:34 pm

oscar;1376313 wrote: And I asked.... Would You ?... Deck a PCSO for an untraceable quarter million ?

Thought this thread was about the poor plastic policeman being left out on limb, not about Mr Grumps price level.

Post by **spot** » Sun Nov 20, 2011 2:59 pm

oscar;1376313 wrote: And I asked.... Would You ?... Deck a PCSO for an untraceable quarter million ?My word you pounce with no patience. I did see the question, I've been on an interminable phone call from then until now. Of course I wouldn't. I've been knocked out, I know exactly what it's like, what on earth makes you think I'd consider it worth money to put someone else through that kind of experience. There are categories of importance, decking someone is at a different level to acquiring a suitcase full of untraceable cash.

Post by **spot** » Sun Nov 20, 2011 3:08 pm

the grumps;1376301 wrote: but seriously whats broken britain coming to these days when druggy eyed scumbags or anyone else has no respect for the the british bobby the countrys slowly decending into anarchyOn a point of information, I have "no respect for the the british bobby" and I fail to see the least reason why I should have. My primary reaction to them is one of disgust, followed by embarrassment.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Nov 20, 2011 3:15 pm

spot;1376320 wrote: My word you pounce with no patience. I did see the question, I've been on an interminable phone call from then until now. Of course I wouldn't. I've been knocked out, I know exactly what it's like, what on earth makes you think I'd consider it worth money to put someone else through that kind of experience. There are categories of importance, decking someone is at a different level to acquiring a suitcase full of untraceable cash.

Then why ask such a provocative question of Andy yet act Indignant when the same Is asked of you ?

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sun Nov 20, 2011 3:19 pm

spot;1376324 wrote: On a point of information, I have "no respect for the the british bobby" and I fail to see the least reason why I should have. My primary reaction to them is one of disgust, followed by embarrassment.

What about respect for the British Law and those mandated to help uphold it on our behalf ?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Nov 20, 2011 3:23 pm

Bruv;1376330 wrote: What about respect for the British Law and those mandated to help uphold it on our behalf ? Spot seems to have a problem with all coppers. I have a problem with the few that think they are Columbo and couldn't organise a piss up In a brewery let alone an Investigation depending on competence along with those who systematically lie under oath to save their own scum bag self, bringing decent coppers who are a credit to the force down In the gutter with them.

Post by **spot** » Sun Nov 20, 2011 3:59 pm

oscar;1376329 wrote: Then why ask such a provocative question of Andy yet act Indignant when the same Is asked of you ?

The indignation, as you put it, was at being asked a second time with a hurry-up when I was in no position to have answered the first. I'm trying to get Andy to recognize that the skunk aspect is what's got him frothing even though it's immaterial to the action being discussed.

Post by **spot** » Sun Nov 20, 2011 4:09 pm

Bruv;1376330 wrote: What about respect for the British Law and those mandated to help uphold it on our behalf ?

May I take it you mean English criminal law? My argument is that most of the people criminalized by it should not have been criminalized, that it's selectively and ineptly and inefficiently applied by those mandated, and that they disgust and embarrass me on those three grounds. Reforming the criminal law to decriminalize most of people currently labelled criminals is a good step forward. Replacing the police is a second. Refusing to re-employ any current officer into the replacement system is an essential cleansing to wipe out present institutional assumptions.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sun Nov 20, 2011 5:45 pm

You may take it in any pedantic way you wish, I don't really care about the wording British or English Law..... Criminal or otherwise (Please don't base any future deviation on that statement)

The bottom line is a 25 year old got a kicking going about his job.

If he was a burglar or a house breaker he would get some protection under any decent law system.

Address the criminal assault of a police officer please, and not your hopes and dreams for a Utopian future world.

Post by **spot** » Sun Nov 20, 2011 5:56 pm

He got shafted by his work colleagues, didn't he. No surprise there. Get one PCSO hospitalized and the division's operational budget might get ring-fenced from more rigorous tightening. I'm only surprised they didn't have a cam set up to video the assault. I'm assuming they can't have or it'd be all over the news channels.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sun Nov 20, 2011 6:02 pm

spot;1376357 wrote: He got shafted by his work colleagues, didn't he. No surprise there. Get one PCSO hospitalized and the division's operational budget might get ring-fenced from more rigorous tightening. I'm only surprised they didn't have a cam set up to video the assault. I'm assuming they can't have or it'd be all over the news channels.

Sorry Spotty old boy .......I have to put you in the same category as the great Grumpy himself......nutter with issues. As they say End of.

Post by **spot** » Sun Nov 20, 2011 7:47 pm

You think not? Leaving one volunteer community officer to hold back any mob that wanted to take several pounds weight of cannabis home each for a party? And the departmental budget cuts there as a ready excuse for not being able to do more? I bet there's plenty see it my way.

More to the point, what other reason do you suppose the squad had for abandoning the volunteer? It's not as though the paid police think the community volunteers are anything other than thrill-seeking amateur scabs in the first place.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon Nov 21, 2011 2:20 am

spot;1376342 wrote: May I take it you mean English criminal law? My argument is that most of the people criminalized by it should not have been criminalized, that it's selectively and ineptly and inefficiently applied by those mandated, and that they disgust and embarrass me on those three grounds. Reforming the criminal law to decriminalize most of people currently labelled criminals is a good step forward. Replacing the police is a second. Refusing to re-employ any current officer into the replacement system is an essential cleansing to wipe out present institutional assumptions.

Your arguments are a load of bollocks and you are not able to suggest a viable alternative except a happy clappy world where all people are reasonable and no one wants to take more than they need or rule over others that exists only in wishful thinking. Refusing to accept that some people are actually criminally inclined and society has to make that judgement is an interesting viewpoint but about as useful as a dead budgie in a **** factory.

Why don't you investigate what actually happened and why he was left before you assume he was shafted by his workmates - maybe they were called away to deal with a violent incident and they left him there out of harms way.

I find grumpy's voyage of discovery fascinating - I can't wait to see what he says when they take away all the free travel for pensioners and shut the libraries and schools and his meals on wheels he might begin to realise the daily mail doesn't tell the whole story but just presses the buttons that excite it's readers. It's not the immigrants, travellers and thieving scroats living in feral packs on housing estates that have got us in to this mess.

Post by **spot** » Mon Nov 21, 2011 4:07 am

gmc;1376374 wrote: Your arguments are a load of bollocks and you are not able to suggest a viable alternative except a happy clappy world where all people are reasonable and no one wants to take more than they need or rule over others that exists only in wishful thinking. Refusing to accept that some people are actually criminally inclined and society has to make that judgement is an interesting viewpoint but about as useful as a dead budgie in a **** factory. You're ignoring a lot of what I claim when you go off like that. It's not happy clappy at all, it's eminently practical and practicable.

Decriminalizing the supply and use of all drugs, for example, makes a huge number of people legal citizens where previously they'd been criminalized as drug barons and street pushers. Profits would be taxable, newsagents would have more products to sell to adults, society learns to avoid temptation instead of relying on nanny, everyone's a winner.

Decriminalizing fraud is another major step forward. If anyone feels he's a victim of fraud he has recourse to the civil courts for redress but it's not a criminal matter any longer after my reforms. It's why I checked with Bruv that he was talking about English criminal law, not Scots and not Civil. "British Law" covers a lot of territory.

I could go on.

Andy was slating Maggie's heirs before the election. They were called New Labour. Now we've had an election he's still at it except they're now called the Conservative Party. what puzzles me is that he's called both Do-Gooder Wishy-Washy Liberal. I think labels confuse him.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon Nov 21, 2011 6:30 am

spot;1376383 wrote: You're ignoring a lot of what I claim when you go off like that. It's not happy clappy at all, it's eminently practical and practicable.

Decriminalizing the supply and use of all drugs, for example, makes a huge number of people legal citizens where previously they'd been criminalized as drug barons and street pushers. Profits would be taxable, newsagents would have more products to sell to adults, society learns to avoid temptation instead of relying on nanny, everyone's a winner.

Decriminalizing fraud is another major step forward. If anyone feels he's a victim of fraud he has recourse to the civil courts for redress but it's not a criminal matter any longer after my reforms. It's why I checked with Bruv that he was talking about English criminal law, not Scots and not Civil. "British Law" covers a lot of territory.

I could go on.

Andy was slating Maggie's heirs before the election. They were called New Labour. Now we've had an election he's still at it except they're now called the Conservative Party. what puzzles me is that he's called both Do-Gooder Wishy-Washy Liberal. I think labels confuse him.

t's eminently practical and practicable.

You brought this up in another thread, we're really not going to agree. On a one by one basis you might have a case to put but at the heart of it is a completely unrealistic view of the way in which people work and suggest a lack of knowledge as to how we arrived at our present state of democracy and legal system. It's very far from being perfect but invariably those who think they have an off the shelf answer are terribly wrong and when they get a chance to impose it invariably goes badly wrong be it a secular approach or a religious one sooner or later someone says cobblers to this and you are back to imposing your will using the force of the law you need to make to deal with them and the police you need to enforce that law. You don't like some aspects of the way things are done most people feel the same.The best way is constant evolution as our attitudes change. Clap hands let's all be nice to each other and treat everybody as adults just doesn't work sooner any society will blow itself apart. or later it will explode. The best way has proven to be constant evolution as attitudes develop and keep religion and political extremes out of it if at all possible. keep the police unarmed so they can't be used to suppress the people or get in the habit of shooting people without a good reason and the army small enough that they can never take over or be used on the streets against the people. For every incompetent or corrupt group of policemen there are even more doing their best that is the reality of any organisation.

I'm sorry I know you think you are propounding some great vision and please keep doing so but spotty world is not me and being British when Ii say it's a load of bollocks I'm sure you will appreciate that is not a personal attack I just think you are coming out with a load of nonsense. It's annoying because I can't decide if you really believe it or are bent on some weird let's wind op the plebs routine. You don't read the daily mail do you? Actually I read it myself on line occasionally but don't tell oscar.

i

Post by **spot** » Mon Nov 21, 2011 7:47 am

I'm entirely evolutionary. A hundred years ago there was licensing and excise laws for alcohol, and no prohibition whatever for any drug from one end of the country to another. If I wanted a pint of laudanum I bought a pint of laudanum and if I wanted it for recreational purposes then that was my own business. A hundred years before that there were no fraud laws either.

I'm proposing we revert changes as a result of seeing their consequences. If we stuck with your position on changes to criminalization we'd still be locking up gays. I remember with what glee and delight plod went about implementing those vicious laws too.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Nov 21, 2011 10:14 am

spot;1376390 wrote: I'm entirely evolutionary. A hundred years ago there was licensing and excise laws for alcohol, and no prohibition whatever for any drug from one end of the country to another. If I wanted a pint of laudanum I bought a pint of laudanum and if I wanted it for recreational purposes then that was my own business. A hundred years before that there were no fraud laws either.

I'm proposing we revert changes as a result of seeing their consequences. If we stuck with your position on changes to criminalization we'd still be locking up gays. I remember with what glee and delight plod went about implementing those vicious laws too.

So Spot, who In your brave new world would replace the police?

Post by **spot** » Mon Nov 21, 2011 10:26 am

oscar;1376396 wrote: So Spot, who In your brave new world would replace the police?

Perhaps raising that in a more appropriate thread would leave this one to continue discussing the plight of volunteer PCSOs hung out to dry by the paid professionals.

http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/curre ... ost1367990 has a reasonable answer as regards the total replacement of the existing policing and prosecution organizations.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Nov 21, 2011 11:01 am

spot;1376400 wrote: Perhaps raising that in a more appropriate thread would leave this one to continue discussing the plight of volunteer PCSOs hung out to dry by the paid professionals.

http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/curre ... ost1367990 has a reasonable answer as regards the total replacement of the existing policing and prosecution organizations.

You have already taken this thread off course. The topic here Is police...why not just answer the question Instead of expecting members to trawl through old threads? Then maybe we can progress?

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon Nov 21, 2011 12:19 pm

spot;1376390 wrote: I'm entirely evolutionary. A hundred years ago there was licensing and excise laws for alcohol, and no prohibition whatever for any drug from one end of the country to another. If I wanted a pint of laudanum I bought a pint of laudanum and if I wanted it for recreational purposes then that was my own business. A hundred years before that there were no fraud laws either.

I'm proposing we revert changes as a result of seeing their consequences. If we stuck with your position on changes to criminalization we'd still be locking up gays. I remember with what glee and delight plod went about implementing those vicious laws too.

If we stuck with your position on changes to criminalization we'd still be locking up gays. I remember with what glee and delight plod went about implementing those vicious laws too.

Er no. What do you think my position on criminality is? This is what I actually said, didn't realise i had been so repetitive though, maybe i should read what i write a bit more carefully myself.

The best way is constant evolution as our attitudes change. Clap hands let's all be nice to each other and treat everybody as adults just doesn't work sooner any society will blow itself apart. or later it will explode. The best way has proven to be constant evolution as attitudes develop and keep religion and political extremes out of it if at all possible.

Once upon a time homosexuality was criminal then the wider society decided they didn't agree that was wrong and the law changed in the teeth of outspoken opposition from the religious establishment who even now argue they should have special dispensation to preach all gays are evil. The rest of society has moved on. We evolved. We have also evolved beyond the belief that the bread and wine at communion became, literally, the body and blood of Christ and it was criminal to suggest otherwise was a criminal offence. Now it's not but I have just upset several million Christians who want to believe it is and wish it still was. The notion that you can get everybody to come to some amicable system where all agree there is no such thing as a criminal and work to together to help those poor unfortunate misunderstood people is ludicrous. Even more ludicrous is the belief that there wouldn't be some group that wants to take charge because they are well just "right". To be blunt you sound like one of them if only you could. All our laws at their heart have developed as a means to curb the power of the powerful and protect the weak. It's not a perfect system but on the whole it works.

posted by spot

Perhaps raising that in a more appropriate thread would leave this one to continue discussing the plight of volunteer PCSOs hung out to dry by the paid professionals.

Police accountability has a reasonable answer as regards the total replacement of the existing policing and prosecution organizations.

It was but it petered out.

Post by **spot** » Mon Nov 21, 2011 2:39 pm

gmc;1376417 wrote: It was but it petered out.All threads do. The linked post is an exact answer to the question, regardless. I have no desire to replicate its contents.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Nov 21, 2011 2:43 pm

spot;1376439 wrote: All threads do. The linked post is an exact answer to the question, regardless. I have no desire to replicate its contents. Trying to get an answer out of you Is like watching Sinitta attempt a Bush Tucker trial.

Let's try this:

So you replace the police with the army.... who makes the decisions?

Post by **spot** » Mon Nov 21, 2011 2:52 pm

oscar;1376440 wrote: Trying to get an answer out of you Is like watching Sinitta attempt a Bush Tucker trial.

Let's try this:

So you replace the police with the army.... who makes the decisions?What point is there in replying to anything so random and irrelevant?

Here, I'll copy the linked post to counter your pollution - what "army"?You seem to be suggesting the police are beyond reform or improvement.

I want reform, I want improvement.

I'd go for privatizing them wholesale, permitting competition between commercial police companies, enabling the public to take on the functions currently reserved to the police at the moment, scrap the entire notion of uniforms, increase the extent of surveillance and access to the raw data it produces.

I'd put a bounty on all crime to encourage its detection and investigation and prosecution, and I'd allow any person of good character in this country to set up in business to do any or all three of those phases of policing. And the biggest bounty would be for detecting and investigating and prosecuting police corruption and malfeasance.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Nov 21, 2011 3:06 pm

spot;1376442 wrote: What point is there in replying to anything so random and irrelevant?

Here, I'll copy the linked post to counter your pollution - what "army"?You seem to be suggesting the police are beyond reform or improvement.

I want reform, I want improvement.

I'd go for privatizing them wholesale, permitting competition between commercial police companies, enabling the public to take on the functions currently reserved to the police at the moment, scrap the entire notion of uniforms, increase the extent of surveillance and access to the raw data it produces.

I'd put a bounty on all crime to encourage its detection and investigation and prosecution, and I'd allow any person of good character in this country to set up in business to do any or all three of those phases of policing. And the biggest bounty would be for detecting and investigating and prosecuting police corruption and malfeasance.

What ever system you replace the current policing with, there has to be superiors who give the orders. If you don't have superiors then you have a bunch of loonatics running around doing what they like. The moment you have any superiors, you have the possibility of Ineptness and corruption.

When you talk about members of the public taking on functions of the police, are you seriously suggesting that an untrained member of the public should be expected to tackle a gun wielding maniac high on crack ? If your not then you are saying that these members of the public would have to be trained. There after you end up with a police force without the uniform.

Post by **spot** » Mon Nov 21, 2011 3:32 pm

Perhaps you fail to understand the nature of commercial competition.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Nov 21, 2011 3:46 pm

spot;1376452 wrote: Perhaps you fail to understand the nature of commercial competition. Not at all.

What ever commercial competition you replace the police with, It is still open to Ineptness, corruption and criminal practice because It Is merely one corporation replacing another and one human replacing another.

Post by **spot** » Mon Nov 21, 2011 3:49 pm

oscar;1376456 wrote: Not at all.

What ever commercial competition you replace the police with, It is still open to Ineptness, corruption and criminal practice because It Is merely one corporation replacing another and one human replacing another.
At which point a more efficient competitor takes their business. Perhaps you fail to understand the nature of commercial competition.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Mon Nov 21, 2011 3:51 pm

Man oh man spot! You'd make us all our neighbour's snitchers. A nation of curtain twitchers.

Deviation from the norm would be a crime. Individuality would vanish and we'd make the Stepford Wives look like anarchists!

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Nov 21, 2011 3:58 pm

spot;1376457 wrote: At which point a more efficient competitor takes their business. Perhaps you fail to understand the nature of commercial competition. And maybe you fail to understand human nature.

Any job that employs humans Is open to corruption and In your brave new world, probably more corruption due to bounty's being paid.

Post by **spot** » Mon Nov 21, 2011 3:58 pm

Clodhopper;1376458 wrote: Man oh man spot! You'd make us all our neighbour's snitchers. A nation of curtain twitchers.

Deviation from the norm would be a crime. Individuality would vanish and we'd make the Stepford Wives look like anarchists!
Umm.... yes, yes, no, no and I'm unfamiliar with them. The Stepford Wives, not the anarchists.

What I claim is that the detection and investigation processes are inept at the moment, that increased routine background surveillance would allow practically immediate and full detection and investigation, and that crime rates would plummet in response allowing even tighter focus on what little is left. It's all dependent on recording so as to backtrack, identify, arrest and charge. Without the recording it's back to current arbitrary policing.

It's the selectivity of who ends up charged that I want to stamp out too. If it's a crime then it has to go to court with no choice on the part of anyone in policing, nor their current DPP masters.

Post by **spot** » Mon Nov 21, 2011 4:02 pm

oscar;1376461 wrote: Any job that employs humans Is open to corruption and In your brave new world, probably more corruption due to bounty's being paid.
Would that be a crime? Welcome to the joys of competitive policing. To one corrupt outfit it's a way of life, to their competitor it's profit nailing the bastards and getting them into court. If most prosecution ends up being the bringing to book of corrupt policemen I'll feel my idea's worked wonderfully. As I said, "the biggest bounty would be for detecting and investigating and prosecuting police corruption and malfeasance".