observer Posted August 15, 2006 Report Share Posted August 15, 2006 News tonight: An NHS Trust is paying the Police for extra security to protect staff from drunken yobs! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted August 15, 2006 Report Share Posted August 15, 2006 Only this soft touch Government to blame with 24 hr drinking, soft on drugs and no discipline. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonymaillman Posted August 16, 2006 Report Share Posted August 16, 2006 Observer ...... I think that's an insult to the intelligence of Neanderthal man Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBain Posted August 17, 2006 Report Share Posted August 17, 2006 I'd rather the NHS give each drunken yob a free injection of a powerful anasthetic/knock-down drug so that they quit moaning, then quit being conscious, and are then turfed back out in the street after being given a few judicious clouts around the ear 'ole  The tattoo across the forehead saying "I'm a drunken pillock" could then be re-charged to them once they wake up Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posted August 17, 2006 Report Share Posted August 17, 2006 It really shouldn't matter where you are or what you?re doing, if there's trouble the police should deal with it without putting their hand out. Â I can just about see the logic of charging for the policing of football matches where a company is making a profit but hospitals and public events? Surely these sort of things are just part of everyday life and as such should be part of their "normal" duty. Â I like the tattoo idea. A bit drastic but perhaps something similar with a big thick permanent marker that'd take a week of scrubbing to get off might be a good deterrent! Â [ 17.08.2006, 21:12: Message edited by: Bill ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted August 17, 2006 Author Report Share Posted August 17, 2006 Alas; what it tells us, is the Police are underfunded and undermanned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posted August 17, 2006 Report Share Posted August 17, 2006 I don't think their either. They just have an impossible task to perform with rules they have to follow. Â Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Kennedy Posted August 17, 2006 Report Share Posted August 17, 2006 Originally posted by observer: Alas; what it tells us, is the Police are underfunded and undermanned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted August 17, 2006 Report Share Posted August 17, 2006 They also have to write a report on every conversation they have with Joe Public. Work for 4 hours and paper crunch for 4 hours. Â Not what people join the police for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted August 18, 2006 Author Report Share Posted August 18, 2006 Why can't they use standard reports using a hand held computer, at the scene of an incident? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted August 18, 2006 Report Share Posted August 18, 2006 Not only would they need an ology, but they would probably get them nicked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBain Posted August 18, 2006 Report Share Posted August 18, 2006 Ob, it would be easier for the police to use more straight forward technology like a digital memo-taker (with a 4GB capacity it could store hours of data) and then either record their conversation so it could be transcribed verbatim or subsequently typed up by a trained typist back at the office, or just verbally record their notes.  Unfortunately there is far too much red-tape preventing the Police from actually policing. In many instances it is simply not worth the officer's time intervening because of the sheer amount of paper work it will generate  It may be that it is not more officers that are needed, just more "back-room johnies" to support the officers we do have :confused: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Kennedy Posted August 18, 2006 Report Share Posted August 18, 2006 Or just a lot less "red tape", problem is we would have to get the legal fraternity to agree. The more red tape there is, the easier it seems to be to get the guilty off on a technicality. Â On the other hand there are those who will say, we need all the "red tape" to ensure there are less miscarriages of justice with innocent people being found guilty. Â Mind you I always find guilty people getting off on a technicality a miscarriage of justice. Â Being the simple fellow that I am, the accused either committed the crime or they didn't, technicalities don't come into it. Rather reminds me of a recent court case I read about where a person was stopped and found to be driving at over twice the drink drive limit, told to plead not guilty by his solicitor because the police had not asked him, had he vomitted prior to the breath test. When found guilty, the solicitor said that his client would have pleaded guilty but for the technicality of the vomitting question. Maybe the Magistrates should have sent both the accused and the solicitor to prison, one for committing perjury and the other for perverting the course of justice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBain Posted August 18, 2006 Report Share Posted August 18, 2006 It's more probable that they would make the solicitor a Q.C. for his knowledge of how to exploit the system, and relegate the Magistrate for being a dunce  The problem seems to be that the "safeguards" on the system are biased toward the criminal rather than the victim. Intimidation of witnesses seems to be commonplace, but heaven-forbid a witness should try and browbeat a guilty defendant! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Kennedy Posted August 18, 2006 Report Share Posted August 18, 2006 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Curran Posted August 18, 2006 Report Share Posted August 18, 2006 I think its got more to do with the fact thar there are to many police of on sick pretending to be ill and they are just lazy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Kennedy Posted August 18, 2006 Report Share Posted August 18, 2006 Bold statement that Mick. Although it is a fact that sickness levels in the State sector are appreciably higher than those in the Private sector, guess its because you can't export many State type jobs to China/India. Mind you makes you think how many Polish police would like to come to work in the UK and for how much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted August 18, 2006 Report Share Posted August 18, 2006 Don't the police have to do the backroom stuff as well now, because the civvies have been got rid of? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonymaillman Posted August 18, 2006 Report Share Posted August 18, 2006 Mick, I wouldn't say lazy .......... more like disillusioned and demoralised. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted August 18, 2006 Author Report Share Posted August 18, 2006 How is it, that in some countries; like China, you can't move for coppers? :confused: As it seemed to be the case in the early 60s here? :confused: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBain Posted August 21, 2006 Report Share Posted August 21, 2006 Ob, you can't move for coppers in China because they are there to ruthlessly enforce a massively oppressive regime that needs to keep the majority in check. Are you saying you want the same here Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted August 21, 2006 Author Report Share Posted August 21, 2006 Well yes McB; I suppose you do need lots of coppers to oppress a quarter of the world's population! BUT most Countries appear to have more per head of population than we do; maybe all ours are in the office, or out hunting for clues to a plot?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBain Posted August 21, 2006 Report Share Posted August 21, 2006 Ob, lack of prison space can only be a contributory factor to the lunacy that is frequently exhibited by the judiciary. The truth of the matter is that too many judges and Magistrates are wrapped up in trying to cosset the criminals rather than punish them  As for lack of prison space, it was easy to solve a few years ago because the Crown could just build a new prison on its land without the need for planning permission. Unfortunately most prisons should be constructed far away from existing population centres (i.e. out in the countryside somewhere) and, with the Crown now subject to the planning Acts, this just will not happen! People will be up in arms about "loss of Green Belt" whilst at the same time bemoaning the increase in community service sentencing  This issue needs some serious political thought - who's going to do that... John Reid????? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted August 21, 2006 Author Report Share Posted August 21, 2006 I believe sentencing policies are "advised" from above, certainly to magistrates; and are governed by prison availability. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted August 21, 2006 Report Share Posted August 21, 2006 Perhaps time off for good behaviour should be knocked on the head and then that might act as a deterrent. More ways of killing a cat! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.