Off Topic Politics Thread

Apparently the fella broke a female officer’s nose, so there’s certainly a part of me that understands putting a couple of extra digs in.

 

I'm sure that breaking the female officer's nose was behind it but there is no excuse for this kind of reaction from a police officer. I have some sympathy for the police, they have difficult jobs and for the large part it involves dealing with the low life of our society. They will be provoked on a regular basis but they just cannot afford to lose their temper in this way. Kicking and stamping on someone's head is the action of a street thug not a policeman. He deserves to lose his job over this.

Unfortunately, this is not new. The policeman involved in the incident that resulted in the death of Dalian Atkinson was convicted of manslaughter. He kicked Atkinson so hard that an imprint of his bootlaces were visible on his head.

There has been a decline in the standard of policing for many years now and it's not just about resources. The Met has an awful record of criminal behaviour within the force. The general feeling is that it's a waste of time calling them. Their priorities are questionable to say the least where incidents that cause them the least bother seem to be addressed rather than more urgent ones. See the "Lesbian Nana" case.
I hope the new government will attempt to rectify what has become a serious problem in this country.

 

Do the police choose their priorities or do you think that they're set by the PCCs/pressure groups/politicians? It 100% is about resources, if everything is a priority then nothing is a priority.

The public expect that if they've been burgled then the police will turn up immediately, however what is more of a risk, that burglary which is done and over or the person threatening suicide? Or the missing teenager? (who's had 5 missing episodes this week) Or completing risk assessments on behalf of other agencies? Which one when it goes wrong are the police going to get the most criticism for? The idea that attendance is based on which jobs are the least bother is laughably untrue. Most joined up to fight crime, society has determined however that they want police in a safeguarding role. The officers aren't thrilled about it either

 

And the decline in standards quote is quite frankly bollocks. Officers are criticised these days for the actions of bent cops before they were even born. Hillsborough, Ogreave, Stephen Lawrence.... are we really suggesting that these standards are what they should aspire to? Due to the actions of the policing of the 80s British police are scrutinised in ways that no other police forces in the world are.

Unfortunately the fact of the matter is that violence is violent. More often than not, arresting violent offenders will always look shocking. Use of force in the real world isn't pretty. Life isn't a martial arts movie where precise low impact strikes and grappling easily takes down an assailant. Luckily most people have no idea how hard it is to restrain and contain a violent individual. Don't believe me? Get yourself to your local judo/bjj club. There's the added bonus of you get to try it with no one trying to seriously hurt you in return

 

Kicking someone in the head is a no brainer...

 

Historically a lot of it is political. The police were originally set up by Robert Peel to be a civilian force that would patrol the streets and prevent crime from happening in the first place. Since the 1960s the police have gradually stopped doing that (because they've been told to) and now they basically respond to crime after it happens rather than trying to prevent it. I couldn't tell you the last time I saw a police officer walking down my street.

Politicians still talk about "bobbies on the beat" but we haven't had bobbies on the beat for a very long time and that lack of presence means more people are inclined to commit crime because they're less likely to be noticed or caught. People talk about more strict sentences stopping crime but the possibility of a serious sentence for committing a crime has less effect than knowing you're more likely to get caught if you commit a crime. That on street presence also has an impact on anti-social behaviour in general.

There's a range of other factors. Police used to live in the communities they were responsible for so they knew a lot about what was going on in the area and the habits of local people. They're now specifically prevented from working in the area where they live. The lowering of height and fitness standards means they're less physically imposing and need more 'weapons', which inevitably creates a distance from the public. I've heard police refer to the public as "civilians", which I find incredibly annoying. One of Peel's original principles was that "the police are the public and the public are the police" - the British police are meant to be civilians themselves. I think they've also been saddled with a lot more paperwork and onerous procedures and admin, which is partly their own fault because I'm fairly sure that happened as a result of the various historic police scandals you've mentioned.

 

How would a "Bobby on the beat" prevent domestics? How would they prevent people from going missing? How would they safeguard vulnerable adults suffering mental ill health? That's what 75% of modern uniform policing is about. Ultimately for a town of 250k there's more people working at just one of the McDonald's there than there are on police response teams. How quickly do you think a beat Bobby can walk from Shirley to St Mary’s if there's an emergency? If you have 12 officers for the entire shift, covering that entire area, they have to be in cars.

I'm glad you mentioned the paperwork, most of it isn't as a result of poor police work/practice it's as a result of the British public being completely unable to accept that bad things happen, and immediately look to blame someone. The powers that be believe that paperwork "proves" they tried to do something to prevent future scandals. Hours upon hours upon hours is taken up with paperwork even for non crime incidents as a shield against future criticism

The height and fitness standards were dropped because the public wanted a more diverse work force. If you want more female officers if you want more non white officers then those elements are removed from recruitment. The "weapons" you mention, which I'm assuming you mean pava/taser is because again the optics of burley white male officers smashing people with wooden truncheons wasn't popular.

Everything the police is now is as a result of previous criticisms. This is the police force society wants

 

Actually we did have beat police in London, 14 years ago. They were called PCSOs, and one of the first thing Cameron's government did as part of their austerity policy, was put a freeze on recruitment.

 

Still no one has commented on this yet! The scrapping of a scheme to redevelop the Leisure World Site that was earmarked for the building of 650 homes, two hotels, serviced hotel apartments, a cinema and a casino built off West Quay Road. What happened? Developer go bust? Did the company that run the port provide a big brown envelope to see the scheme ditched in favour of a development suitable for the port? Anyone on here with any information?

 

I am jst going to throw a query out. Does anyone here work in the yatching industry, in particular the construction and engineering side? Just curious to know how you might view the industry post Brexit, as a few weeks ago I was chatting with a guy here who used to get spare parts from the UK. Not any more due to the fathead's Brexit deal. I just hope the industry can recover before another raft of skills is lost to the UK economy.

 

Let me be clear, I have no sympathy for criminals, particularly those using violence. It is not the guy lying on the ground getting kicked that I am concerned about, if he was involved in the earlier fight and then punched the police officer I have little sympathy for him either. Also, I am well aware that police need to use proportionate force to restrain violent people for their own safety and the public's. They have my total support for that.

But kicking and stamping a person's head while they are lying face down incapacitated is more than not looking pretty. It wasn't restraining and containing a violent criminal. It was an assault and I'm surprised at you trying to excuse it.

I know from past posts that you have connections to the force and I would expect you (rightly) to speak on their behalf but in this case you are defending the indefensible.


Not before they were born but from last year. If this is not a decline in standards then it's hardly an improvement they can be proud of.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...151 officers under,or domestic abuse, or both.

More than 1,100 police officers across England and Wales are under investigation for sexual or domestic abuse, prompting fresh calls for vetting and misconduct procedures to be radically overhauled.

The highest number of officers under investigation is from the largest force, the Metropolitan police, with 657 individuals accused of sexual or domestic abuse, or both.

At the start of the year, amid outrage after Met PC David Carrick pleaded guilty to 49 offences including dozens of rapes and sexual offences, the force said it was investigating 1,000 sexual and domestic abuse claims involving about 800 officers.

The true total of officers in England and Wales under investigation for such offences will be far higher, because only 28 out of 43 forces responded to FoI requests.

Greater Manchester police, the third biggest police force, was among those that did not respond. Durham, Essex, Northumbria and Northamptonshire all refused to cooperate with the requests from the Lib Dems for information.

 

Not excusing anything at all. My original post was for a desire in a change of policy to allow the police BWV to be released straight away. Across twitter there are several competing narratives at play and I believe a fast, open and full disclosure of everything which happened there is crucial. Sadly with the law the way it is at the moment it's impossible.

Now if the anti-police account with hundreds of thousands of likes, that an Asian family were subject to racist abuse from another member of the public, the police then rock up and racially target these unfortunate young Asian men who in turn were force into protecting their elderly mother. Then obeying armed police commands, being fully compliant and still getting kicked in the face and stamped on, then the public need to see it and GMP and the courts need to sack and prosecute the officers. That officer would need prosecuting for assault.

If the alternative is true and these men have resisted arrest, assaulted multiple officers and broken the nose of a female officer before attempting to grab one of the armed officers weapons then the use of force seen on the video might, just might be lawful. The officer is still totally ****ed either way because he's already been found guilty on twitter and that's more than enough for the chiefs and politicians.

Either way at this time we simply cannot know and by the time the inevitable court cases come round it's old old news. Damage is already done

 

And the net effect of the police not being on the beat, not policing their local area, not being tall enough and paperwork overload? Crime is roughly a quarter of what it was in 1995. Yet if you read the press, you'd assume the opposite.

Source: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...ns/crimeinenglandandwales/yearendingmarch2024

Well worth a read for people who care about facts rather than Daily Mail headlines.

Vin

 

Firstly, like all politically sensitive statistics, crime figures are manipulated. The police use a variety of techniques to do this. This was widely reported on about 10 years ago. Here's an old BBC article that talks about this: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25002927 and there's a longer report (written by a former Chief Inspector) here: https://www.civitas.org.uk/content/files/ATangledWeb.pdf I think things have improved since then but there are still problems.

More importantly, those are reported crime figures so they don't mean much in terms of what's really happening. A lot of crimes aren't reported because people are becoming more and more aware that the police don't do anything when you report crimes. I have personal experience of this. I had a bag stolen in a bar a few years ago. The bar had CCTV cameras and offered to give the police their footage that clearly showed the thief's face when he went up to the bar as well as him stealing my bag and walking out of the bar. The police did nothing for weeks, and only went to collect the footage after the bar had very kindly badgered them, but they then closed the case a day or two later. If something similar happened today I wouldn't waste my time reporting it unless I needed a crime reference number for insurance purposes. Some surveys have suggested that only 4 in 10 crimes are actually reported.

 

It doesn’t matter where I am in Southampton, if you wander about in the day you will see certain people mooching about, peering in gardens or cycling off on a completely different bike to the one you saw them on last time. And in the morning there is always another car with its window covered in a bin bag.

There is definitely a lot of low level crime we have all given up reporting.

 

I definitely wouldn't bother ringing the police if my house was burgled. Would be a complete waste of time as they don't even attend many burglaries now.

 

You should if you want the insurance to pay out! Otherwise, yeah. Not worth it.

 

What insurance?

I think most insurance is largely a scam for most people tbh. Only ever bought car and travel and would never have bothered with former if not mandatory.

Helps that there's nothing really of value in my house that isn't replaceable and I don't value material possessions at all. The only things I'd be upset about losing is a stack of shoe boxes with sentimental stuff in and insurance couldn't replace that anyway (and I doubt it'd even get taken).

 

I've got house insurance on my second home, the premium is paid for by the tenant which comes in very handy. The income from the rent and the tax relief on just about any expenditure means my pension investment is looking pretty good.