- Sep 1, 2004
(Tells self to calm down, post rate getting too high... )
Good debate tho.
Good debate tho.
andy_k said: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.
nick mercedes said:You know what I mean though?
andy_k said:Guilty because the computer says so until proven innocent doesn't quite sound as good as Innocent until proven guilty.
Swiss Toni said: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!!
bibamus said: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.
BonzoDog said: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.
andy_k said: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.
bibamus said:I suggest if you have a problem being stopped by the Police at these road checks, there is probably an underlying reason for it!
Swiss Toni said: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 said:I'm just saying police checkpoints are more what I'd expect in a warzone than in Kent.
nick mercedes said:Surely it's better to catch him in the act of burgling?
nick mercedes said: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?
nick mercedes said: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.
Swiss Toni said: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 said: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?
nick mercedes said:How do you convict someone who has yet to commit the crime?