Legitimate policing or big brother attitude?

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
andy_k said:
All that manpower could have been far better but less publicly used to enforce outstanding warrants, round up bail absconders or arresting shop lifters.

And maybe today that is what they are doing, but yesterday they were arresting burglars, bail absconders, folks wanted on warrant...

..oh, hang on, they were doing that yesterday!!!!

:D
 
andy_k said:
yes I'm sure Kent police do a wonderful job of assessing how best to spend their money.

They even economised recently by not bothering to drive to criminals houses in order to arrest them on outstanding warrants. Instead they wrote them a letter asking them to hand themselves in or the police might come round and arrest them during a football match :D

comedy policing

it says in the article last time they tried this nearly half of the outstanding warrants were cleared up - what about the other half? Did they get a really stern letter saying they'd get sent to bed with no tea?

Andy

They need to come up with more expensive ways of solving the problem - that was far too cheap and efffective. :crazy:
 
Swiss Toni said:
And maybe today that is what they are doing, but yesterday they were arresting burglars, bail absconders, folks wanted on warrant...

..oh, hang on, they were doing that yesterday!!!!

:D

no they weren't, they didn't make any arrests :)

they seized 27 cars which some people will no doubt manage to claim back when and if they can produce the relevent paperwork but they didn't actually arrest anyone.

One of those 40 police officers could have been given a big book of stamps and access to a photocopier and been more effective according to their own site.

The other 39 could have been deployed visiting houses of the known criminals who hadn't bothered replying last time the letters were sent out or as I suggested eariler checking cars parked around estates etc.

I seriously think that a days work for 40 officers and all the other officialdom that was in attendance was a huge waste of their limited resources and should have been spent actively looking for criminals rather than waiting for them to drive past.



Andy
 
andy_k said:
no they weren't, they didn't make any arrests :)

they seized 27 cars which some people will no doubt manage to claim back when and if they can produce the relevent paperwork but they didn't actually arrest anyone.

One of those 40 police officers could have been given a big book of stamps and access to a photocopier and been more effective according to their own site.

The other 39 could have been deployed visiting houses of the known criminals who hadn't bothered replying last time the letters were sent out or as I suggested eariler checking cars parked around estates etc.

I seriously think that a days work for 40 officers and all the other officialdom that was in attendance was a huge waste of their limited resources and should have been spent actively looking for criminals rather than waiting for them to drive past.

Andy

No problem with your opinion, but the article (and we are very thin ice if we rely on this as being a true and accurate record of what actually happened...) doesn't say no one was arrested.

As for the 27 cars being returned - not sure where you get that from either.

Some will be, when someone else can show they have insurance to cover the vehicle, but that does not stop the driver at the time being prosecuted for driving without insurance.

I suggest you might have an axe to grind (and perhaps with good reason?).

If your opinion is only informed by the press report and some early evening telly, then you will have less than 50% of the truth?! :D



Now, where's Timmy? :D
 
Swiss Toni said:
Some will be, when someone else can show they have insurance to cover the vehicle, but that does not stop the driver at the time being prosecuted for driving without insurance.
Just given a producer, surely?
 
nick mercedes said:
That's a bit harsh, that assumes that punishment is a waste of time for all criminals and once a criminal always a criminal....

When I posted, I didn't intend to post again, and hence why I said that was my two penneth, but...

"Harsh"?

Maybe. Even without any specific statistics to back it up, I reckon what I said is probably true.

"Once a criminal always a criminal"?

To be fair, to be a criminal you must be convicted of a crime, and therefore what you say is right - "once a criminal always a criminal".

If someone has been convicted, then the fact that they are a criminal will be carried with them for the rest of their days. I don't think a criminal record is removed if someone isn't convicted again after a certain period - unless you know different?

"Punishment is a waste of time for all criminals"?

For some maybe.

Does punishing someone - by which I'm thinking we only really have fines, community service, or prison at our disposal - really stop them committing a crime again? Or is it something deep within the person, that sets whats "right" and "wrong" that stops them committing a crime in the first place?

I'm not saying that paying a fine, fulfilling community service, or serving a spell inside isn't tough - I wouldn't fancy any of them! I just know that for me, and many other law abiding citizens, it's not the threat of these things that stop us committing crime, it's inherrantly knowing it's wrong!!

For example, could you imagine someone dependent upon drugs worrying about a fine, community service, or time inside, when they are desperate for their next hit? Their right and wrong has been overpowered by their dependency, and the consequences are something they'll worry about later ...if they get caught.

Of course, sometimes people get into desperate circumstances, commit a crime as they are at a vulnerable time in their life and see no other way out, and then get caught. Is it the punishment that stops them doing it again? I suspect it's the fact that they know they were wrong, and will live with it for the rest of their days. I suspect that is the real punishment for one-only criminals.

Oh and one other thing. Just because a crime has been committed, doesn't mean someone will be convicted. I really dread to think how many crimes are committed - by one-and-only-timers or repeat-offenders - that do not result in a conviction. Maybe checks of the type that started this thread may result in a few more convictions, even if on this occasion no arrests were made.
 
Swiss Toni said:
They need to come up with more expensive ways of solving the problem - that was far too cheap and efffective. :crazy:

Ironically the letter probably costs more in real terms than sending someone round!!
 
Shude said:
Just given a producer, surely?

No - Where a car is seized from (for example) a driver who does not have a licence or insurance to cover that car at that time, some needs to produce evidence that they have insurance to cover the use upon return of the vehicle.

They will also have to pay the costs (something like £105 recovery plus £12 a day storeage).

Typically they have to produce this to a Police Station for the return authority to be granted.

And the original driver still get prosecuted for no insurance / licence etc.


The cars aren't simply seized because the driver could not produce their docs by the side of the road (I don't carry mine) - there will need to be some grounds for the Cop to believe that there is no insurance.

:D
 
andy_k said:
no they weren't, they didn't make any arrests :)

they seized 27 cars which some people will no doubt manage to claim back when and if they can produce the relevent paperwork but they didn't actually arrest anyone.Andy

The BBC item said that some of the cars were seized for being in a 'dangerous' condition , unlikely to be 'handed back' . Unlicensed vehicles , on the other hand , could be reclaimed once the taxes had been paid .

Whilst mistakes undoubtedly do happen from time to time , I doubt that many , if any at all , of the 27 vehicles were improperly impounded .

The operation also targeted benefit cheats - these people , once identified (perhaps by being caught in a works' van whilst claiming unemployment benefit) , would probably have their details taken and then be sent on their way , prosecution pending ; arrest not appropriate .
 
Interestingly , no mention of anyone being convicted of drink-driving on the day , out of the presumably hundreds or thousands stopped .

A notable change in social attitudes .

Had this taken place 30 or 40 years ago , they'd likely have nabbed one or two for being 'over the limit'.
 
Swiss Toni said:
And the original driver still get prosecuted for no insurance / licence etc.
Assuming that they failed to provide evidence then?
Swiss Toni said:
The cars aren't simply seized because the driver could not produce their docs by the side of the road (I don't carry mine) - there will need to be some grounds for the Cop to believe that there is no insurance.
"Some grounds"? I don't understand how there can be any other way to prove it?

I suppose if I told the police to ring Norwich Union and ask them they'd happily do that and I'd be on my way in minutes?
league67 said:
...police will not ring your insurance to confirm details.
Whoops! No.

Quote from this thread.
 
Shude said:

Is this the quote from the thread :) :)

Hopefully an officer will have a 'feel' for the dodgy' character, or the one that wants to be obstructive. As I stated earlier, within 24 hours Direct-line had put my son's insurance details onto the relevant computer.

On this forum we seldom get to hear 'the other side' of any rant against the Police, but Plodd has given us an insight.

I bet the suspects that tried to pull the wool over his eyes have logged onto a forum saying how they spoke very nicely to the Police Officer but the car was still seized for no reason!!

Let us all accept that in general when a journalist comes in the front door, the truth sails out the window, and yes I have numerous personal examples of this.

Let us also accept that perhaps there are also two sides to any story about Police harassment. I also suggest we accept that there are some less than polite Police out there... No names, but some folks might have made a nomination?? (Plodd is a good bloke, so PLEASE do NOT think I am throwing any hints in that direction)

I am very surprised there were allegedly NO arrests,

John
 
Shude said:
Assuming that they failed to provide evidence then?

"Some grounds"? I don't understand how there can be any other way to prove it?

I suppose if I told the police to ring Norwich Union and ask them they'd happily do that and I'd be on my way in minutes?

Whoops! No.

Quote from this thread.

There could be a number of ways that the Cop conducting the investigation would come to a decision as to whether the vehicle was insured.

If the database suggests there is no insurance, they would start asking you questions.

There are a number of vehicles where no insurance details will be logged, but the car IS actually insured - the Cops know this.

If you put forward one of those circumstances, they are usually in a position to check whether the story you offer is likely to be true. If they can't, then they can always send you on your way (as you correctly identified) with a document producer.

It has been a common scam to get insurance and then default on the payment - leaving you with a certificate to "produce" (by the side of the road or otherwise). There are systems in place to check this too.

There is no need to phone Norwich Union (always an option, but not a very good one) - there are other methods to obtain this information!

;)
 
Shude said:
"Some grounds"? I don't understand how there can be any other way to prove it?

Its a legal nicety but it is not about proof, it is about belief.

If the driver was asked the right questions, the Officer would record their grounds to believe (whether or not) the driver had insurance.

:)
 
THANKS NICK MERCEDES
Somebody has to be Devil's Advocate and you gave us all cause for a good debate.
 
Yet another hot thread on law enforcement! I know Swiss Toni has never answered my calls for assistance, as he considers me an idiot, but I have to jump to his defence here. Sadly, he is out of his depth, and talking rubbish about how policing used to be done. So do forgive his ramblings.

Thankfully, the Police have grown up a little and are now 'intelligence led'. Burglars, sadly , are mostly drug addicts. They don't tend to use cars and so operations such as the one discussed will have little impact on arresting them. The Police know who they are and target them accordingly.

Operations like this, probably called operation 'DRAGNET' or something, is exactly that. Lets see what we can catch. And motorists without the relevant docs will get caught in the net, and rightly so.

So just to clear things up, it's not about catching burglars etc, it's about catching folk who drive illegally. Toni's comments about ANPR are not accurate and neither are his comments about the grading of info on it. However, to comment further would be foolish. I feel enough has been divulged already.
 
Having read this thread I cannot see why anyone has a problem with the police "road block" method.
The article doesn't say that every car is stopped so presumably only those that either fail an ANPR check or appear dodgy are stopped.

I personally don't mind the Police having such powers as I abhor illegal drivers. Why is this? Because like most of us have commented at some stage these drivers do cause damage and we have to pay for it.
If the checks "drag" in other criminals then all the better.
 
glojo said:
Let us also accept that perhaps there are also two sides to any story about Police harassment. I also suggest we accept that there are some less than polite Police out there... No names, but some folks might have made a nomination?? (Plodd is a good bloke, so PLEASE do NOT think I am throwing any hints in that direction)

I am very surprised there were allegedly NO arrests,

John

Care to expand on that ?
 
Hello all (walks in late at the back of the room, but cleverly wearing a full faced helmet and pads)..... :) ) I see the spirit of the ID card debate is alive and well on this topic.

In short, I fully support the police blocking as many roads as they want for as long as they want for whatever reason they want with NO ANPR. I consider it a proper use of police resources, and am pleased to see this happening. I also see it as 'fairer' than picking on an estate, or similar, where you are clearly targeting a social bracket. A road is a public place, and I firmly believe that the people using it represent a random cross section of society.

I have experienced such roadblocks in Australia - in fact I got booked by one for two things - 1) not having a front numberplate and 2) not carrying my license as a provisional driver. I knew that I was wrong on both fronts, and happily accepted the fine. Some stop every car, some randomly select a sample from the oncoming traffic.

I've also seen them funnel three lane motorways into one lane, where absolutely every single vehicle using that road is subjected to a driver's breath test for alcohol. In fact it was quite common every friday night on the main roads out of the CBD. The sheer amount of people that would be caught for 1) Driving under the influence or 2) outstanding warrants, fines, insurance, license issues was impressive. (My definition of impressive was measured by the number of cars left by drivers under arrest).

I often look on in sheer amazement at some of the comments that people post in this forum in response to some issues (but with respect and tolerance), but this one has probably entertained me more than any other I can think of.

What sensible, reasonable person would object to any type of law enforcement when focused on a random selection of the public? Surely it's the only fair way to approach law enforcement without specific information.

Everyone's so critical of any policing issues that may have gone wrong, then you also criticise them for trying to do something right. For god's sake people - police are humans too, just staff of a business with guidelines, and they do their best on whatever they are tasked with. Like every other group/org/entity, they are allowed to make mistakes. If you think you can do a better job of running a police force, get yourself down there and join up. Or perhaps become a politician?

Why not just help the cops to do their job by supporting, co-operating, carrying your documents and co-operating? Works very well for me.

Scott (likely no more mates, but prepared for that)

PS - I would be interested to know if anyone here has been the subject of bungled policing in this type of scenario and has suffered greatly in anyway, for anything more than slight inconvenience. Might add weight to the argument, rather than just talking about the possibilities.
 
Last edited:
kbhogalW126 said:
I take delivery of a Golf on Wednesday.

So would that mean if I call up my insurance company on Tuesday night to get the car covered from midnight (Wednesday am) and that if I get stopped by the Police on Wednesday morning after delivery they will think that I am driving uninsured and confiscate the car?

Please advise.

I apologise in advance if I have said anything wrong!

regards,

KJ
Hi KJ
My son contacted his insurance company on a Friday and informed them he was buying a VW Golf GTi the next day (Saturday)

That very next day a Saturday, my son took delivery of his pride and joy. within ten minutes your typical BMW owner :D :) :eek: drove straight into the back of his car.

The Police turned up, asked my son if he had insurance, he explained he had, but the certificate had not been delivered. They got on the radio to confirm my son's story and the car was still registered to a 'Motor Trader' but the insurance information was spot on. They even gave my son the details they had! So in answer to your question I can say that Direct-Line are extremely quick at updating the information!

Regards,
John
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom