Police seized my silky and saws...!

[Landrover130!]

Indeed, but surely there would be arrests!!!!

 

Thats the point, there weren't any

 

Depends on the situation. Possession of an offensive weapon is an arrestable offence. However, if this was a double crewed police car, and they arrest the guy, that means that car is now out of the game for however long it takes the officers to process the prisoner, thats convey to the station, present to custody, book in, interview, charge if applicable, and if charged a crime file to give to the CPS when said detainee is up before the Magistrate the next morning, bearing in mind this is 930pm. This can take on average between 4 and 6 hours.

 

Now take in to account, it is 930pm and the shift has lost that car and two officers for that amount of time leaving them short. When I was in (came out in 2003) we should have 10 on a shift, but usually had between 4 and 6. Lose 2 and you are seriously depleting the reserves if something serious comes in. If another crew gets an arrest then... I think the right choice was made in this case.

 

Don't get me wrong, I know that some police are heavy handed, some are jobsworths, some also make mistakes (some of which do get covered up rightly or wrongly) but isn't that the same as everyone else? I know tree surgeons I wouldn't give a steak knife to, let alone a chainsaw! My point is, unless you have been there and done it, I find it frustrating that some think of the police as a bunch of wasters who like throwing their weight around because the law is behind them. It's difficult to comment unless all the facts are there. I can see both sides having worked both sides, but some of the comments on here are more than a little short sighted and i find that dissapointing. Still everyone is entitled to an opinion which is why these forums are good for thrashing things out lol.

[Mick Stockbridge]

You can't blame people for not liking the police anymore LR130. Three of my very close relatives have been coppers and each of them left because they didn't like the way things were being run:sneaky2:

[Mark James]

Well they could have used there discretion then shouldn't they.

That's what I see lacking with modern policing, if they have to worry so much about putting themselves and the car out of service why do it in the first place.

And as for you saying about public perception of the police, well they don't help there cause when the trivial things seem to get the full weight of the law threw at them.

I agree there job won't be easy at times but there well paid and well protected.

 

 

Sent from my aye phone using Tapatalk

[Mark James]

The above post was in response to LR130

 

 

Sent from my aye phone using Tapatalk

[Mesterh]

Cor, loads of anti police on here, funny how they are the first ones that people call if they have any bother......

 

Who else are we supposed to call!

 

Ghostbusters or the A-Team?.

 

Come on, being a copper is like being a nurse,doctor, fire service etc etc, it's a vocational job. Anyone there just for the money shouldn't be.

 

No doubt the police do have a very tough job but they don't exactly help themselves alot of the time to win public favour which they really, really do need if they are to carry out thier job efficiently.

 

I bet a simple explanation of why they did what they did and not a "it woulda been worse for you and your brother if I was there" idiotic attitude would have probably been a much better way to go.

[tomtrees]

Erm,

The Plod in court testifying under an alais, does it really matter what name he used as long as he simply told the truth?

I do appreciate there are "technecalities" but simplistically?

How many other witness have given evidence under false names that we are unaware of, such as those given new identies by the authorities, so what is the difference?

 

If the first thing you testify is an alais name you ant a very credible witness in fact why bother with a court hearing at all. If you are going to start with a police fabrication of the truth why bother with the notion of justice or truth at all.

When you consider we have already got cops shooting innocent people on the tub its a frightening situation really.

[muldonach]

Cor, loads of anti police on here, funny how they are the first ones that people call if they have any bother...

 

Somebody may well be insured and have all the relevant paperwork to drive a vehicle, however they may still be found guilty of taking a conveyance without the owners consent if they have no permission to use it. Just thought I would clear that one up.

 

Lets recap. It wasn't, the lads car but his brothers. He had in this vehicle a known felon. He also had in this vehicle items that could be used to injure, whether the intention is there or not, and he could not say why he was carrying said items at 930pm, and had no reason to have them with him. I have thought a lot about this ove rthe weekend and I may well have done the same if I were in the PC's boots. Lets not forget the known scrote in the passenger seat. What is he known for? Drugs? Violence? If someone had broken into the vehicle and taken said items and used them to injure someone, who would be to blame? The owner? The person using the vehicle at the time? The police for not taking the items?

 

Loads to look at here, but because someone is inconvenienced (yes I do feel sorry for you mate) the police are branded as heavy handed and useless.

 

Sorry - not anti police at all in fact I have both friends and relations in the force and have been glad of assistance on a couple of occasions. Mainly to do with RTA's where no third party was involved "if it was away by the morning we don't need to do any paperwork" (for the avoidance of doubt the officers concerned were neither friends nor relations). I have also had the experience of being browbeaten by policemen trying to get me to admit to things I did not do.

 

With as you put it "a known scrote" in the car I would have expected that TWOC would occur to the officers concerned and they would have eliminated that possibility before they let the vehicle go, so it was always pretty clear.

 

If someone breaks into a vehicle and removes the contents to cause injury they have committed not one crime but two and the fault lies with the perpetrator, and yes I do know that there are specific rules for firearms.

 

I have little doubt that most policemen try at least to act with common sense and discretion, and acknowledge that they often acting under orders from above which allow them little discretion, but the officers concerned in this case, and their sargeant have in my opinion been a bit OTT.

 

Cheers

mac

[samthescam]

Just to clear something up. Silkys would have been in scabbards, but the chainsaws won't... I don't see the point of them.

 

I also agree if my stuff had been stolen I'd have wanted it to be recovered! However let's put this in context, this was a vehicle with sign writing on of my company name. It had my mobile on the side of it, and they never bothered to call. They also managed to leave other offensive weapons... Like clearance saws with metal heads on (massive strimmers which you can use to cut through shrubs and smaller trees, and also felcos which are pretty sharp and dangerous).

 

Now I know a lot has been pointed out about a "known scrot"' however I don't really think that it's acceptable to take someone's work tools because you are not a fan of the person in the passenger seat. Now if said person was talking down the street with an 88 I could see the problem... However the fact that they were driving to get cigs sort off makes a mockery of the police IMO. I also want to point out I have called the police on many occasions and would do so again if I needed too, so am probably having my cake and eating it.

[Mark James]

The fact that they never rung you to check is the key problem I think.

 

It just shows that the officer in question is lacking common sense.

[treequip]

The fact that they never rung you to check is the key problem I think.

 

It just shows that the officer in question is lacking common sense.

 

Or,,,,,,

 

Known scrote and or his mate got lippy with plod and were given a lesson for their trouble.......

 

I am all for plod hounding known scrotes, if they are busy ducking plod they aren't scroting around.

 

If you become collateral damage that's the price you pay for associating with a known scrote