British Police Cherry Pick Arrests - if it gets them Money if Not - They Don't - Want Proof, Ask t

a reply to: MysterX

So, that's 2 less officers to handle the violence that was to take place? That kind of proves the point. You think those officers made the right choice?

originally posted by: Shiloh7
a reply to: EvillerBob

Its actually a very serious thread because we are seeing our police disregard certain types of crime and target crimes that make money that goes back to them. They also remove property which they then sell and profit from. Not something that a police force should be doing if they are threre to progtect the public who pay their taxes to have a fair law and order force in this country.

Were the police and the government interested in the welfare of the drunks or people who languish in our jails, they would have good rehabilitation and education programmes being runb throughout the british jail service. They don't. Its only if you are a child criminal or sensational criminal that you seem to get the chance at any decent education. A friend whose a prison visitor told us that some of our jails for women have things like hair dressing salons - except they are empty as the government won't fund training so when women get out of jail, they have a skill and won't re-offend. One reason is that it makes the police arrest numbers look good because many of those arrested are re-offenders. Without being givenb a chance to lift themselves out of crime by being trained whilst in jail, they don't have a chance. That is something I would like my taxes to go to.

In the UK the government sure wants people to own their own homes because if they commit a crime there is a tangible asset from which to claim against.

But the point raised is should our police cherry pick what they wish to prosecute or abide by the law they are supposed to uphold?

My son is also a nurse as are many of his friends and one thing they all agree on is the abuse they get from drunks and friends. If a head doctor wants change in this area, surely we should be listening to himn and wondering why the police don't do their job.

There are two separate elements there. What brings people into the system, and what happens to them once they are in the system. I agree entirely that the support (and funding) just isn't there for the width and breadth of programs that might have a positive impact on reoffending, but that is nothing to do with the police and it wasn't the point of the original post.

POCA is increasingly being used, but it's not a matter of people being arrested for the police to "take stuff". POCA is about the proceeds of crime, not people's personal property that is unconnected with the crime. If you've made a few thousand pounds from selling drugs, is it right for you be allowed to keep that money if you are convicted? What about making a few million from fraud? Should that be allowed to sit as a nice little nest-egg for when you come out of prison? It's a valid question to ask why that money isn't going back to the victims, but it's rarely simple to identify the "victims" - or, as the majority of POCA seizures relate to drugs, the "users".

That's the purpose of POCA and that is how it is being used. The police aren't holding drunks up by their ankles and shaking them until all the loose change falls out of their pockets, which seems to be the suggestion from some people.

Some forces will even publish lists of recent POCA seizures. I've used Derby Constabulary as an example link below:

www.derbyshire.police.uk... roceeds-of-Crime-Act-POCA.aspx

Also remember it's up to the courts to make the final decision, not the police. If you think that the magistrates are wrong in how they are use the system - well, sign up. Magistrates are members of the local community, so join the bench and make a difference.

There is also the question of officer discretion, and that is a very good question that raises valid points.

The first problem is that a lot of the law comes down to the intention of the law. In fact a lot of our law comes from the courts. The reason is that Parliament often drafts legislation so widely that it covers a lot of situations, and it is left to the courts to work out whether Parliament really intended to cover the situation before them, or to give some definition to terms that are sometimes too vague to be useful. We don't even have a statutory definition for assault or battery, it all comes from the courts.

Well, fine, that's the courts, but how does this filter down to the police? I would consider the primary role of the police - especially the ones out in uniform on a Saturday night - to be keeping the peace. Sometimes that will involve exercising a bit of discretion over what the actual intent of the law involves. Two drunks getting into a shouting match might well fall under Public Order offences, or Drunk and Disorderly, but was the intent of Parliament to punish every single instance of someone getting a bit mouthy?

I'd suggest the primary intent was to give the police some statutory power to fall back on if the matter could not be resolved peacefully, or the behaviour was beyond a level that made it appropriate for an officer to exercise any discretion. Sometimes, keeping the peace might be best served by telling the two to head off in different directions, go home and sleep it off. I would rather see an officer handle the situation that way, than immediately jump in with the cuffs. If it doesn't work... well, the drunks had their chance, next step involves a trip to the police station.

On a final more practical note - there simply aren't the resources available to handle the volume. Every arrest takes one or two officers off the street for hours. They can do a good job of making it look like they are flooding an area, but a lot of policing relies on "smoke and mirrors". One of the reasons why the police can often come across as aggressive is because their training involves stamping their authority on a situation. Sometimes the only thing protecting them from getting a beating from that group of 30 drunk lads is a tin stick, a can of glorified hairspray, and the hope that no one calls their bluff because the nearest help is 10 minutes away tied up with another group of drunks.

I'm very pro-police, as you might have noticed, though I'm hardly a fan of their senior management. I have worked with the police for years in various capacities and I have a lot of respect from what they are trying to do with very limited resources.

a reply to: Shiloh7

Police arrest people for being drunk all the time, trust me i've been in those cells many a time after to much to drink. And pretty much everyone else in the cells would be there for something drink related. You get taken to court, let out on bail right away, then fine/community service months later vast majority of the time. I've had this happen to me at least 10 times, i've had to stay in solitary confinement for 5 days for being drunk and disorderly one night, they treat you like sh*t you don't know the time you can tell they probably spat in your crappy ready meal they have to give you for dinner whilst you sit on a plastic mat staring at blank walls... For days. The unethical thing about it is, you wouldn't of even gone to court yet guilty till proven innocent.

When I went to court I was given a solicitor, and overall in fines in my life I've probably gave the court around £3,500. For what I did, they probably made a fair bit from it so again I disagree.

Saying that I was in a really bad way most of the time and they where probably right in locking me up at least for 1 night till I sobered up. But they take serious advantage of you and its not right we're suppose to respect the police not fear them.

I don't drink now though, maybe a birthday or on new year but very rarely do I ever drink now just mainly due to the fact that I get to drunk and usually end up in the cells. So i've learned now to be responsible when drinking.

So I disagree with you saying they are ignoring drunkards. But I would be interested as to what you think they are doing instead? Because thats all I see them do really, at least round here, deal with drunks and the mentally ill. The heroin dealer along the street has buisness as usual, I'm still reading about assaults, theft, dangerous driving locally. When my house was broken into and most of my belongings and money stolen, they did nothing, not even ask neighbours if they seen anyone told me to do that.

I don't think that drunkeness is just a waste of NHS time, I think it wastes the police times aswell. Out of curiosity what kind of area do you live in? Maybe results in us having different views the police may work very differently in your area. Personally I'm a working class scotsman living in a working class scottish area.

Have you actually ever had contact with the police whilst drunk? Ever been in a cell? Ever been in jail (which by the way when I was there had plenty of educational courses)? Because really it sounds to me like you are hearing all this from papers, friends and family and not actually experiencing any of this first hand. I'm not advocating going to jail, I'm just noticing alot of the things your saying are inaccurate and presumptious. Maybe things are very different where you are from in the UK. Your perception of things is very different from mine, though I think we can both agree the criminal justice system needs a reboot.