Legitimate policing or big brother attitude?

[Swiss Toni]

(Tells self to calm down, post rate getting too high... )

Good debate tho.

 

[andy_k]

I would much rather have seen these police resources being used as Spike suggested. Wandering around Maidstone and Chatham's housing estates where the cars get parked and dealing with them BEFORE they were used on the roads. Stopping them once they are using them is not enough they should be addressing the problem at it's source.

How about the police hit an area in the small hours of the morning and clamp every non taxed car whilst the owners are sleeping then come around the next day and complete the paperwork.

Stopping drug dealers and other criminals isn't going to be addressed with random road blocks becauase that isn't what the police are looking for despite what they may say. Unless I am very much mistaken they tend to ask "motoring" based questions rather than searching you for drugs.

It would be equally productive but much less of a PR exercise to follow my shopping centre suggestion just think, they are bound to find a few who are wanted especially if they did it on a Saturday afternoon when the shops were really busy

If I get stopped, then I'm happy to co-operate and glad to see the police are doing their job but I totally disagree with "computer policing" like we are seeing here.

If the computer systems were more reliable then I'm sure I'd be less critical but have a look around the net using EDS and CSA, DVLA etc as the basis of your search and you may just begin to doubt the wisdom of such methods.

It was an EDS system computer at the DWP which told me I didn't exist last year My tax records had disappeared (even though I was querying a bill they had sent me that week). My National Insurance number apparently belonged to someone else (even though I pay it monthly on Direct Debit) and they could findd no record of me on their database.

This took nearly 6 weeks to resolve before they admitted they had made a mistake and typed in one digit of a refereence number incorrectly. If that was a roadside check we would have lost the car.

Guilty because the computer says so until proven innocent doesn't quite sound as good as Innocent until proven guilty.

Andy

 

[Swiss Toni]

Stopping drug dealers and other criminals isn't going to be addressed with random road blocks becauase that isn't what the police are looking for despite what they may say. Unless I am very much mistaken they tend to ask "motoring" based questions rather than searching you for drugs.

Guilty because the computer says so until proven innocent doesn't quite sound as good as Innocent until proven guilty.

Andy

Andy

You are mistaken.

These Cops are motivated to arrest the Burglars and Drug Dealers - but motoring offences are often a good indicator of further criminal activity, and anyway, if they don't have insurance, they deserve to lose their car!!

 

[BonzoDog]

You know what I mean though?

Call me stupid or call me Shirley but sorry I don't know what you mean.
Other European motorists should be stopped and not UK motorists?
Given that most of us willingly submit to airport security checks which I suspect add far, far more delay than the car stops and that there is about a 3,000,000,000 to 1 (my rough calculation) chance of a terorist passing through a check, what the Kent Police are doing seems like a pretty good job.
Stupid or Shirley.

 

[bibamus]

These multi agency road checks have been going on for years, more and more though, have the anpr equipment in use to help stop inconveniencing innocent law abiding drivers. Police also physically select vehicles for stopping using their own experience of dealing with vehicles.
But, whats wrong with carrying your driving documents around with you ( I dont, I`m just asking the question!!) They dont need to be left in the car, so there is no question of them being stolen with the vehicle. Most people carry around a wallet or purse/handbag, full of credit cards, receipts, bits of paper, etc. The new driving licence is easy to carry now ( you dont need both parts all the time) your MOT certificate incorporates a sticker that you can affix to the windscreen, so that leaves one sheet of A4 paper ( ins cert) that you may need to carry, folded up in your wallet/purse. Not a major logistical problem, is it?
Drivers in the USA generally carry these about anyway, French and German and probably more EU countries, motorists display their insurance details on the car windscreen.

I suggest if you have a problem being stopped by the Police at these road checks, there is probably an underlying reason for it!

And, yes, running road check like this ( as well as speed cameras etc) is probably lazy policing, but this is because Police Forces are now run by accountants who demand value for money not the fare paying customers ( you and me) who demand an effective impartial Police Service.

Allan

 

[Swiss Toni]

Guilty because the computer says so until proven innocent doesn't quite sound as good as Innocent until proven guilty.

Andy

The computer database will provide a collation of the information available from a number of different sources - some accurate and some not (the information should be graded so that the Cop who conducts the investigation by the roadside kows how accurate the information is likely to be and how confident they can be of relying on it (eg anon info that you have drugs in your car).

Your concerns are right, but they folks do have access to a much bigger range of information - and there may be some difference between putting lots of Cops into a shopping centre to "look good" and actually targetting their activity to take criminals off the roads.

PS - you are right, getting rid of the cars by dead of night is an alternative (and they do that too) but this is about locking up criminals, not just motoring offences.

 

[andy_k]

Andy

You are mistaken.

These Cops are motivated to arrest the Burglars and Drug Dealers - but motoring offences are often a good indicator of further criminal activity, and anyway, if they don't have insurance, they deserve to lose their car!!

agreed, no insurance,then take the car away. If they are a "known burglar" or there is a warrant out for them arrest them, not wait at the side of the road for them to drive past

Unless I'm mistaken a parked car is a lot easier to deal with than one which is being driven and it's certainly a lot less likely to place other road users in jeopardy by being driven off at high speed to avoid being stopped.

The police in Essex did this one night around a big council estate in Ongar and took 30 cars off the road. In my opinion, that's a far better way of dealing with untaxed cars and possibly uninsured cars.

Andy

 

[Swiss Toni]

And, yes, running road check like this ( as well as speed cameras etc) is probably lazy policing, but this is because Police Forces are now run by accountants who demand value for money not the fare paying customers ( you and me) who demand an effective impartial Police Service.

Allan

In days gone by the Cops had to rely on their intuition as to which cars to pull (this was often very accurate).

Now, they get to use the same intuition, but add to that, information from across the country - eg a car passing by is used by a burglar from Newcastle who is down south to commit crime in a location where he and his car are not known (and to top it off, it is a stolen, nearly new BMW on cloned plates, so not some tatty Nova that the "intuition" might miss)

 

[nick mercedes]

Call me stupid or call me Shirley but sorry I don't know what you mean.
Other European motorists should be stopped and not UK motorists?
Given that most of us willingly submit to airport security checks which I suspect add far, far more delay than the car stops and that there is about a 3,000,000,000 to 1 (my rough calculation) chance of a terorist passing through a check, what the Kent Police are doing seems like a pretty good job.
Stupid or Shirley.

I'm just saying police checkpoints are more what I'd expect in a warzone than in Kent.

 

[Swiss Toni]

agreed, no insurance,then take the car away. If they are a "known burglar" or there is a warrant out for them arrest them, not wait at the side of the road for them to drive past

Unless I'm mistaken a parked car is a lot easier to deal with than one which is being driven and it's certainly a lot less likely to place other road users in jeopardy by being driven off at high speed to avoid being stopped.

The police in Essex did this one night around a big council estate in Ongar and took 30 cars off the road. In my opinion, that's a far better way of dealing with untaxed cars and possibly uninsured cars.

Andy

Agreed.

But this way you get the burglar and the car - and this is not just about car tax, it is about catching criminals (car tax and insurance is important, but catching criminals is very important... )

And if they garage their car over night or don't park it on the road, the night-time alternative is ineffective (but it does get done too).

 

[nick mercedes]

I suggest if you have a problem being stopped by the Police at these road checks, there is probably an underlying reason for it!

I don't like being the idea of people being treated as criminals when there is no eveidence that they are.

UK public sector computer systems are renown for their errors and I don't see why innocent people should risk having their cars siezed.

 

[nick mercedes]

Agreed.

But this way you get the burglar and the car - and this is not just about car tax, it is about catching criminals (car tax and insurance is important, but catching criminals is very important... )

And if they garage their car over night or don't park it on the road, the night-time alternative is ineffective (but it does get done too).

Surely it's better to catch him in the act of burgling?

 

[Swiss Toni]

I'm just saying police checkpoints are more what I'd expect in a warzone than in Kent.

They have guns in a warzone (and in most other countries across the world) here are far fewer armed Cops in Kent, and I bet there are more roadchecks in other countries than the UK (because of the legal requirements that need to be addressed before they can be set up).

 

[Swiss Toni]

Surely it's better to catch him in the act of burgling?

I like your approach.

I think it is better to catch him and remove his car before he commits the burglary.

(Getting too RoboCop... )

 

[Bobby Dazzler]

That's a little bit suss as well, surely we as a society should not assume that all criminals are repeat criminals, and harass them on the off chance that they're at it again?

Down to semantics I suspect, but surely if someone is inclined to break the law, then they will be inclined to do so on more than one occasion?

What would make tomorrow different from today? If an indivdiual can 'get away with something' once, surely it must make it easier to do a second time?

Whilst of course there will be one-offs, I suspect there are many more repeat offenders - whether that be serious crime or motoring offences.

No need to harrass criminals, but surely part of the consequences of committing a crime, are that you are a criminal, and as such can reasonabley expect more attention from the police?

Tuppence said.

 

[Swiss Toni]

I don't like being the idea of people being treated as criminals when there is no eveidence that they are.

UK public sector computer systems are renown for their errors and I don't see why innocent people should risk having their cars siezed.

Again, you are right.

Who gets treated as a criminal where there is no evidence that they are?

There are tens of thousands of people arrested every year where the arrest doen not result in a conviction - the arrest is part of the investigation.

The truth is, that the investigation has to take place, this does not mean you should be treated like a criminal (thought I do understand your point, that you might feel that way).

 

[nick mercedes]

I like your approach.

I think it is better to catch him and remove his car before he commits the burglary.

(Getting too RoboCop... )

How do you convict someone who has yet to commit the crime?

He's done it before so we'll nick him on the off chance he's going to do it again?

 

[nick mercedes]

Again, you are right.

Who gets treated as a criminal where there is no evidence that they are?).

Didn't someone here get their car impounded by mistake?

 

[nick mercedes]

Down to semantics I suspect, but surely if someone is inclined to break the law, then they will be inclined to do so on more than one occasion?

What would make tomorrow different from today? If an indivdiual can 'get away with something' once, surely it must make it easier to do a second time?

That's a bit harsh, that assumes that punishment is a waste of time for all criminals and once a criminal always a criminal....

 

[Swiss Toni]

How do you convict someone who has yet to commit the crime?

You take his car off him.

Because he is a burglar (and they don't tend to bother with insurance...!) and deny his the use of the road.

You do this every time he drives a car without insurance.

You prevent him being able to get about and comit his offences.

You prosecute him for no insurance and get him banned from driving.

And

Because he is a burglar and a driving ban will not actually stop him driving, you catch him in a roadside ANPR check (hey, like this one!), arrest him for driving whilst disqualified and he gets 3 months inside.

It happens regularly and works very well.