Macky
Gruntled Member
And that makes me very uncomfortable. It really is not what I'd expect from a professional, impartial police force.
Random News Article Thread
- Thread starter Melton Fox
- Start date
And that makes me very uncomfortable. It really is not what I'd expect from a professional, impartial police force.
bocadillo
Water Gypsy
Macky
Gruntled Member
I'd suggest they do the job they're paid to do.
Last edited:
bocadillo
Water Gypsy
That's not an answer to my question.
They clearly have done the job they are paid to do (although preventing the crime in the first place would have been preferable); they're now simply letting us know about it.
spionfox
Well-Known Member
Once somebody has been found guilty why should anybody remain impartial about them?
Macky
Gruntled Member
My answer is that they shouldn't be using any banner. Besides, your question wasn't an answer to mine.
That is very debatable.
Which I don't believe is their remit to do, especially not in the manner that they are.
Macky
Gruntled Member
Because it's a foundation of a democracy. You're perfectly free to be as impartial as you personally wish, but I think it's very dangerous ground for a police force to tread.
spionfox
Well-Known Member
Leesoh
Active Member
I'm guessing, and this does not necessarily reflect my own views, that having been accused of not doing anything worthwhile, the Police are keen for their critics to see that they are capable of successfully helping to bring criminals to court.
I am also guessing that the Police will see this naming and shaming as a deterrent.
There are no rules or laws that prevent anybody from reporting these convictions (yes, reporting restrictions can be imposed, they just haven't with these cases on the Force's website). But I do find the tone a little condescending, in my own opinion.
I am also guessing that the Police will see this naming and shaming as a deterrent.
There are no rules or laws that prevent anybody from reporting these convictions (yes, reporting restrictions can be imposed, they just haven't with these cases on the Force's website). But I do find the tone a little condescending, in my own opinion.
bocadillo
Water Gypsy
It was a response to the first question you asked. It seemed to me that you were saying that you didn't think such information should be published under that banner. It clearly wasn't what you were saying and I apologise for not understanding that.
Are you suggesting that the detection of crime and the bringing to justice of offenders is not part of the job they are paid to do?
What makes you believe it is not within their remit? They've been doing it for a long time now and I'm sure somebody would have pointed it out before now if they were not supposed to spend their money on this kind of statement. What other manner of advertising their successes would be OK with you?
bocadillo
Water Gypsy
What is a foundation of democracy? I'm not following you here.
Nor do I see why it is dangerous for a police force to publish lists of convicted people. It is all information that is in any case in the public domain.
Do you also object to Train Operating Companies putting up posters with the names and pictures of people who have been convicted for fraudulent travel?
Macky
Gruntled Member
No. I'm suggesting that it's debatable that they do always do the job that they're paid to do. Very debatable.
Because they swear an oath to maintain the Queen's peace and to uphold law and order. Nothing more, nothing less.
None. It should be left to the media to report.
Macky
Gruntled Member
That there is a professional and impartial police force in place. Surely not that hard to follow.
That isn't what I said.
I couldn't give two shits and a **** what train companies do or don't do.
bocadillo
Water Gypsy
#796 in the series of 1001 things to do with a false leg
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-14705328
Private security firm G4S has sacked two members of staff who tagged a man's false leg allowing him to remove it and break a court-imposed curfew.
The pair were fooled by Christopher Lowcock, 29, who wrapped the prosthetic limb in a bandage when G4S set up the system at his Rochdale home.
He was then able to remove the limb and break a curfew imposed for offences involving drugs, driving and a weapon.
G4S sacked the pair for committing a serious disciplinary offence, it said.
In a statement the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) said procedures "were clearly not followed in this case and G4S have taken action against the staff involved".
"Two thousand offenders are tagged every week and incidents like this are very rare," a spokesman added.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-14705328
Private security firm G4S has sacked two members of staff who tagged a man's false leg allowing him to remove it and break a court-imposed curfew.
The pair were fooled by Christopher Lowcock, 29, who wrapped the prosthetic limb in a bandage when G4S set up the system at his Rochdale home.
He was then able to remove the limb and break a curfew imposed for offences involving drugs, driving and a weapon.
G4S sacked the pair for committing a serious disciplinary offence, it said.
In a statement the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) said procedures "were clearly not followed in this case and G4S have taken action against the staff involved".
"Two thousand offenders are tagged every week and incidents like this are very rare," a spokesman added.
Feriol
Well-Known Member
Steven
Active Member
bocadillo
Water Gypsy
Why would it be a vegetarian?
Most meat eaters are squeamish about where their food comes from.
bocadillo
Water Gypsy
Idiots!
| P | Pld | Pts | |
| 1 | Liverpool | 11 | 28 |
| 2 | Manchester C | 11 | 23 |
| 3 | Chelsea | 11 | 19 |
| 4 | Arsenal | 11 | 19 |
| 5 | Nottm F | 11 | 19 |
| 6 | Brighton | 11 | 19 |
| 7 | Fulham | 11 | 18 |
| 8 | Newcastle | 11 | 18 |
| 9 | Aston Villa | 11 | 18 |
| 10 | Tottenham | 11 | 16 |
| 11 | Brentford | 11 | 16 |
| 12 | Bournemouth | 11 | 15 |
| 13 | Manchester U | 11 | 15 |
| 14 | West Ham | 11 | 12 |
| 15 | Leicester | 11 | 10 |
| 16 | Everton | 11 | 10 |
| 17 | Ipswich | 11 | 8 |
| 18 | Palace | 11 | 7 |
| 19 | Wolves | 11 | 6 |
| 20 | Southampton | 11 | 4 |
