Forum back online. Please post!
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
Comparisons with Nazi Germany may sound over the top but when you start to allow the Police to punish people without them having the chance to defend themselves in court it is the start of a slippery slope toward a fascist state.
The Police do not make the right decision everytime, much like Judges.No one is perfect.In my opinion, police should not have the right to make these decisions, as councils should not either, they have been given too much power over the average citizen.....Even to the point that councils can seize an empty property after six months, with no right of appeal.The UK has become fascist, it is a fact.We will all be chipped soon, the next 10 - 20 years, they will use crime as an excuse, they are already monitoring our vehicles, it will be us next.We are slowly but surely being led by the nose to constant monitoring, they are clever in their psychological conditioning as they do it.People are mostly weak and ignorant to this, they see these measures as salvation to the anti-social climate and crime ridden society and take on board the "what have you got to hide" mentality.I have my indivduality to hide, my inner self etc......My creative self, my innovative self, I just want to be me and hide away when needs be and be a social chamelion when needs be, I don`t want to be demographed, pigeon holed, labelled, homogonised, pastuerised, standardised for the sake of the Govt. and large Corps.I want to be free.
I have read and considered the comments concerning the chain of command i.e. the decision goes to the sargent then the inspector etc and to be honest I think that is no protection at all. A sargent will be inclined to back up the PC, an inspector to back up his sargent etc and so the process is NOT impartial and is based on on guilty until someone in the chain is in a very good mood.
On the basis of that surely the judge could do the same
Backing up "your own" is just human nature, please dont try to tell us that it dosnt happen. It might even be rare BUT once (to the detriment of an individual) is too many times.
QuoteOn the basis of that surely the judge could do the sameIndeed you could BUT there are legal safeguards such as having a barrister there acting on your behalf, a jury, legal clarks to advise, appeals procedure etc etc. Not to mention the CPS at the fist instance.Backing up "your own" is just human nature, please dont try to tell us that it dosnt happen. It might even be rare BUT once (to the detriment of an individual) is too many times.
Bob696 wrote: Backing up "your own" is just human nature, please dont try to tell us that it dosnt happen. It might even be rare BUT once (to the detriment of an individual) is too many times.
**Bows low and reaches for the Wenslydale****Blinks at you hoping you'll recognise a doggie request for "two sugars this time.... please!** :lol: :lol:
the difference here is as I said earlier you need evidence not just someones word to back up.
If it's wrong for thje police to back each other up "even once" to the detriment of another... doesn't that bring us back to the core of the argument... the youth, riding an uninsurable bike in a public place when legislation has been through the mill to put in place a "fixed penalty", bike crushing. Surely it is wrong for him, even once, to ride an uninsurable bike in a public place, to the detriment of others?
Quotethe difference here is as I said earlier you need evidence not just someones word to back up. But who judges the evidence? "12 good men and true"? Or the local PC and his chain of command. Which would you prefer to be tried, judged and sentenced by?QuoteIf it's wrong for thje police to back each other up "even once" to the detriment of another... doesn't that bring us back to the core of the argument... the youth, riding an uninsurable bike in a public place when legislation has been through the mill to put in place a "fixed penalty", bike crushing. Surely it is wrong for him, even once, to ride an uninsurable bike in a public place, to the detriment of others? Two wrongs do not make it right I am afraid. I have no problems with condemning the youth IF he is guilty. But in this case who has prooved that he is guilty? Who has provided the evidence, judged it and imposed the punishment? The answer appears to be the police force to all three. Anybody who remembers the Serious Crime Squad of the west midlands police from the 70/80s will recognise just how dangerous this is.I have personal experience of police covering each others backs ... its not nice to be on the recieving end. Long story but I can retell it if needed. No complicated legislation and I wasnt accused of anything.The trouble is that people expect police to be whiter than white and has been said before they are only human which is why they should not be judge jury and exicutioner.
why trust someone who has been evaluated, recruited, trained, mentored and who knows the law and their place in it
BOB696 I believe your arguments about representatio in court are flawed. You have a right to those opinions and I'll fight for you to have them... however... it don't make you right.
This does not remove the right to "a fair trial" it simplifies the process. In each case evidence has to be provided by expert witnesses (the police).
Liberty's Shami Chakrabarti told the paper: "Surely the many officers who are proud of our consent-based policing tradition will resent the idea of being legislator, judge and jury on the cheap?"
Police simply enforce the law they don't have a choice - they can't pick and choose what law to uphold
But who judges the evidence? "12 good men and true"? Or the local PC and his chain of command. Which would you prefer to be tried, judged and sentenced by?
but it was once said that 12 people without the nous to get out of jury duty are no peers of mine Smile
Quote from: "Skibum346"This does not remove the right to "a fair trial" it simplifies the process. In each case evidence has to be provided by expert witnesses (the police).I will just answer that with a quote found on sky news todayQuoteLiberty's Shami Chakrabarti told the paper: "Surely the many officers who are proud of our consent-based policing tradition will resent the idea of being legislator, judge and jury on the cheap?"America has a wonderfull system of plea bargining. If you plead guilty you get a much reduced sentence. Many innocent people plead guilty as they cant afford a solictor .... sounds like you want the same system.
Mr. Terminus - I take it from your stance in all this that you are a serving Police officer? Well, you DO have a choice - if you feel that a law is unjust and you do not wish to enforce it you can resign. Or of course you can continue to uphold unjust laws to preserve you own personal livelihood at the expense of the freedom of others.
That's how the Nazis got away with it - "Oh well it doesn't affect me I'm not a Jew..."
Incredible.... they are all still missing the point... the offficer on scene's role is to provide the evidence that an offence has been committed. If that's being judge and jury.
"A generation that ignores history has no past and no future"
Quotebut it was once said that 12 people without the nous to get out of jury duty are no peers of mine Smile or perhaps they just have more sense of civic duty and a respect for justice.
First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the communists and I did not speak out - because I was not a communist. Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me - and by then there was no one left to speak out for me. Pastor Martin Niemöller
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
A generation that compares the nazi invasion of Poland to the crushing of a motorbike used illegally - is a trifle over reactiveTerminus
