Shot Policewoman suspect

quote:

Originally posted by Tarquin Maynard-Portly:
On second thoughts, you mention the axing to death of a black youth with a bit of a kicking doled out by some blokes who could very easily have just shot the buggers who had just lobbed hand grenades at them. Just about every other Army in the world would have done.

This slack attitude, your casual equation of one with the other really has got up my nose tonight. Its just a student debating society soundbite devoid of reality posted just for effect.

Its not me focusing on death, its me spotting a very inaccurate post.

File under "rumbled."

The reality is that this incident could easily have been very, very much closer to home for me. I could have expressed more anger due to the proximity of this issue in more ways than one. I don't do soundbites I am just calm about things.

quote:

Originally posted by andy c:
Back on topic:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/nottinghamshire/4731052.stm

Also, I don't think any speed camera's were involved!

andy c!

Good to hear that the officer is recovering and the suspect has made his first court appearance. I hope that he is dealt with appropriately.

Isn't it time for the Goverment to have a serious debate on the legalisation of all drugs.........?

quote:

I see two soldiers, doing what soldiers a paid to do.

Thank you for that Basil. I'll bear that in mind next time I'm being shot at or set on fire whilst on duty somewhere abroad...or perhaps you might like to join me?

No? Oh, what a surprise.

Jo

PS And if the worst were to happen to me at some stage in the future, perhaps you might like to pop round and explain to my wife and children that it was just what I'm paid for?

Having spent 30 years in the Army with the ideals of preserving freedom and the right to free speech for my fellow countrymen, when I read such posts as that by Basil, I think I might have wasted my time.

quote:

Originally posted by andy c:
The other interesting point is that we get more threads about persecution of motorists et al, rather than violent crime/drugs issues/burglaries/anti-social behaviour etc - perhaps he government have got it wrong trying to tackle the latter issues, and they should direct the police to deal with the former ones!

andy c!

Spot on.

quote:

Originally posted by Mick Parry:
Chaps

This problem will not go away until you get really tough with the offenders and I mean tough.

If a drug dealer is caught with a gun, then he should be locked up for life with no release, in other words he dies in prison irrespective of his age. That will soon send out a very sure message.

If he uses the gun to resist arrest, then the police should be allowed to kill him without any form of inquest afterwards. I have no concern about the human rights of these people but I do have concern about their victims.

Regards

Mick

Spot on. What we need is a government that is not afraid to get tough. That means directing the police to do the will of the people. And just as importantly ridding our legal system of the weasel mided liberal do gooding judges.

quote:

Having spent 30 years in the Army with the ideals of preserving freedom and the right to free speech for my fellow countrymen, when I read such posts as that by Basil, I think I might have wasted my time.

So you don't agree with free speech?

Or is it only free speech you happen to agree with you’re ok with?

Some seem to be calling for more judges to follow the examples set by the 1st Baron Jeffreys but you never know when the likes of the Guardian reading John Deed will be of use. I think we have the right mix sitting and as long as the Law Lords have the courage when needed to rule aginst whatever flavour of politicians are in power we have should be OK. GIGO - get the correct laws drafted correctly and then let the judges judge.

quote:

But I still think the arrest would not have been so quick had it been joe public, yet again the stops are pulled when its one of their own.

In your opinion...

quote:

Originally posted by harry farthing:
Isn't it time for the Goverment to have a serious debate on the legalisation of all drugs.........?

And then they can have a serious debate on legalising paedophilia, murder, rape and bank robbing. Any more clever ideas?

What would it cost to supply knife and bullet-proof clothing to all officers not behind a desk?

A company in South America produces such protective wear for the rich and infamous which is so light it is completely undetectable. Popular with the mafia and dictators...

Buying bulk would save a lot of man-hours searching for and prosecuting the low-lifes who consider the police as disposable. (as does the governement, apparently)

quote:

Originally posted by Nime:
Haven't you just proved that a vastly expensive defense vehicle is easily vulnerable to any kid with a petrol bomb?

In a war footing they're not as vulnerable to that sort of attack as someone with a petrol bomb would struggle to get close enough to do anything with it. The vehicles and tactics weren't designed for long term police action.

quote:

And then they can have a serious debate on legalising paedophilia, murder, rape and bank robbing. Any more clever ideas?

Erik
The criminalisation of drugs ensures that an illegal industry of distribution and recruitment of new customers exsts. This industry is not bound by any rules of conduct or behaviour.

If drugs were legalised and distribution of drugs was controlled, the illegal marketing and
recruitment of future customers (addicts) would be minimised as well as the attendant crime that is caused by the drug industry.

The current legislation has failed, it has not reduced the amount of drug taking, it encourages the growth of a very active marketing and distribution industry because the profits are perceived as being very high. Take out the profit potential and the active distribution will diminish.

The crimes you mention are long held crimes against people and property. Drug taking be it tobacco, betal nut, alcohol etc are long practiced human behaviour inflicted by the drug taker on themselves. The laws against drugs are social laws to protect people from them selves and the laws have failed.

quote:

Originally posted by Basil:

quote:

Having spent 30 years in the Army with the ideals of preserving freedom and the right to free speech for my fellow countrymen, when I read such posts as that by Basil, I think I might have wasted my time.

So you don't agree with free speech?

Or is it only free speech you happen to agree with you’re ok with?

I believe in free speech. It's clearly very useful as otherwise it wouldn't be possible for individuals to demonstrate just how stupid and insensitive they are - as has happened on this thread.

quote:

Originally posted by Derek Wright:
The current legislation has failed, it has not reduced the amount of drug taking, it encourages the growth of a very active marketing and distribution industry because the profits are perceived as being very high. Take out the profit potential and the active distribution will diminish.

This is an argument for legalising soft drugs such as cannabis in order that the only suppliers aren't criminals who're also pushing more profitable hard drugs towards their customers.

There is no case for legalising the supply of drugs as dangerous as heroin etc. though. What needs to happen there is that the punishment for getting caught supplying is punative enough to act as a proper deterrent (e.g. conviction for supply of heroin = life imprisonment).

quote:

What would it cost to supply knife and bullet-proof clothing to all officers not behind a desk?

Nime, you have hit the nail on the head, here. Don't forget you are dealing with the public sector, where cost is everything.

andy c!

Steve - one has to balance the determination a heroin pusher would use to defend themselves against being caught when a life sentance is at stake - taking out the apprehender with an illegal firearm will not make the life punishment any worse.

Dangerous drugs should be supplied in a controlled manner to addicts as part of a process of bringing the consumption under the law and eventually the addict into rehab (should they so wish) The addict should be handled in such a way that they do not generate more misery than the misery they create for themselves and their family.

If you legalise drugs, would there still be a cost involved i.e. prescription or other charge?
Would that not still encourage market forces? Are we going to offer these drugs for 'free'?

andy c!

Andy - yes there would be still costs involved - but they should be plannable costs and not catastrophic costs involving victims of drug caused crime.

The reduction in police and legal costs would be quite significant.

If the lesser drugs were distributed appropriately there might be a taxable revenue potential as well

I think you plan has merit, but I feel the issue here is that users don't take the drugs due to medical reasons: they take drugs as they like the side effects. This is coupled with the tolerance of drugs abuse issue, whereby users need to take more to experience the same effects, & makes the issues surrounding legalazation more cloudy.

This then leads onto other legislation breaches surrounding when users are involved in e.g. driving, child care, operation of machinery whilst at work etc etc...

I don't view drugs misue as a crime issue only - its also a social issue.

andy c!

Andy

There is sufficient legislation to handle driving, child care etc under the influence of any drug or negligence. What we do not have is a legislation that will reduce the distribution and marketing of drugs. The legislation we have provides a huge opportunity for high potential profit.

Agree it is a social issue

quote:

Originally posted by andy c:

quote:

But I still think the arrest would not have been so quick had it been joe public, yet again the stops are pulled when its one of their own.

In your opinion...

And I happen to think it is a much held opinion in the country.
Witness the police escort down the motorway of the last gunman to shoot a bobby.
A person on the street is killed by a firearm and the usual day or so of enquiries go on, freephone number published for anyone with information to call, and that is it.
Sorry to sound so pesimistic, but as I say, if joe public is gunned down the police are stretched to supply more than a couple of bobbies to the case.
Does'nt strike me as all things equal?
Regards.

quote:

Originally posted by MichaelC:

quote:

Originally posted by andy c:
The other interesting point is that we get more threads about persecution of motorists et al, rather than violent crime/drugs issues/burglaries/anti-social behaviour etc - perhaps he government have got it wrong trying to tackle the latter issues, and they should direct the police to deal with the former ones!

andy c!

Spot on.

So is it more important to have bobbies sat on motorways with toy guns that are half the time not callibrated correctly than have more bobbies in the areas of anti social behaviour, burglaries etc?
I would say dealing with issues such as people not feeling safe to go about their way, or fear of their property being broken into should be given higher priority than speeding motorists.
Get them all out the cars and back on their feet, and do away with the cso's who imo are another waste of tax payers money, for a start they do not have the full power of a serving full time officer, it is just another example of penny pinching.
The council taxes we pay are being wasted, we are not seeing value for money in terms of the police presence we get here, yet every year the police part of the council tax increases.
There is a reason why the government are not discussing legalisation of drugs, its because if the truth be known a percentage of them are on the stuff, but they can afford the higher grade stuff, they're not likely to end up in a casualty department.
Legalise them and you take out the middle man.
The government could get revenue from it aswell, which will go someway to recouping the lost revenue through the smoking ban in public places.

quote:

Originally posted by andy c:
I think you plan has merit, but I feel the issue here is that users don't take the drugs due to medical reasons: they take drugs as they like the side effects. This is coupled with the tolerance of drugs abuse issue, whereby users need to take more to experience the same effects, & makes the issues surrounding legalazation more cloudy.

This then leads onto other legislation breaches surrounding when users are involved in e.g. driving, child care, operation of machinery whilst at work etc etc...

I don't view drugs misue as a crime issue only - its also a social issue.

andy c!

I've said this before:

currently-illegal drugs would have no greater social or legal implications, if legalised and sold at a reasonable (and taxed) price through licensed premises, than alchohol does now.

The crime associated with drugs is due, for the most part, to their high cost. A low income addict needs to resort to petty crime to pay for his habit; the dealer needs to resort to violence to defend his patch; the major suppliers have to engage in gang warfare to protect their distribution lines.

Remove the vast profit element due to drugs being illegal (and therefore expensive) and all those problems pretty much disappear.

Thank you Nigel - another supporter only 55 million more supporters needed to get the law changed