The police chiefs claim to be keen on cutting down on dangerous close passes, but I'm painfully aware that lazy, arrogant cops (like the cliche you like to play on here) aren't bothered by them, it's not exclusive to the met. Like how you can't be bothered to address how they simultaneously don't have the resources to address dangerous driving yet they can somehow prioritise prosecuting people for cycling on cycle paths over knife crime.
Crazy Driver at Tesco
- Thread starter Precaution
- Start date
RedTillI'mDead
A Key Tool
No I understand....Without being condescending I'm not quite sure you grasp the criminal justice system and the role of the police. Not only that I doubt you are aware how incidents are screened to establish if they should be investigated in line with cost and public interest (due to the need to prioritise following cuts etc)
* Stealing phones is fine, police won't follow up
* stealing watches in a mugging is fine....camera evidence is too hard to identify assailants
* criminal damage is fine, it was an 'accident'
* domestic criminal damage is fine, it can't be proven, their word vs yours
I'll tell you one story I even heard as an excuse for not following up on such incidents...
* there was one scene where a girl was murdered and two guys blamed each other. The police couldn't do anything, as it was a domestic related incident with no forced entry. Both got off.
So yeah, I get it....if its violence, murder, terrorism there is a chance something might happen if there is some way to prove it. Otherwise oops. Outside of this...oh the cuts and forget a mountain of evidence on the top list, it will still be disregarded as low priority.
And forget cuts. I've seen or heard numerous examples of the police being entirely useless over the course of my whole life!
Is it a tough job, yes, am I in anyway convinced in the quality of the job, not so much!
SalfordRed18
Netflix and avocado, no chill
Mate of mine literally got run over in a hit and run, just outside shudehill infont of Dixys a few month back. Loads of CCTV round the area, and hes basically been palmed off by the police because he didnt sustain any major injuries.
My 2 cent i guess.
My 2 cent i guess.
TheReligion
Abusive
I would be interested to see if he was actually prosecuted for that offence as to be honest I tend not to take the word of random agenda driven people on the internet who don't know a great deal.The police chiefs claim to be keen on cutting down on dangerous close passes, but I'm painfully aware that lazy, arrogant cops (like the cliche you like to play on here) aren't bothered by them, it's not exclusive to the met. Like how you can't be bothered to address how they simultaneously don't have the resources to address dangerous driving yet they can somehow prioritise prosecuting people for cycling on cycle paths over knife crime.
I'm not sure what cliche you speak of. I'm just stating facts backed up by figures and statistics detailing the massive cuts to resources. No one seemed to be the bothered when the government announced the public spending review. The police federation did tell everyone what would happen yet only now people seem surprised.
TheReligion
Abusive
Yeah the full code evidential test has been around for a very long time. Nothing new. Essentially police must believe a case passes the evidential stage and then the public interest stage before referring to the CPS (if the offence is one that must go to them). Every domestic abuse case would be sent to the CPS for a decision, as must a number of others, providing there is actually some evidence. That's national policy and in the Director of Public Prosecutions guidance.No I understand....
* Stealing phones is fine, police won't follow up
* stealing watches in a mugging is fine....camera evidence is too hard to identify assailants
* criminal damage is fine, it was an 'accident'
* domestic criminal damage is fine, it can't be proven, their word vs yours
I'll tell you one story I even heard as an excuse for not following up on such incidents...
* there was one scene where a girl was murdered and two guys blamed each other. The police couldn't do anything, as it was a domestic related incident with no forced entry. Both got off.
So yeah, I get it....if its violence, murder, terrorism there is a chance something might happen if there is some way to prove it. Otherwise oops. Outside of this...oh the cuts and forget a mountain of evidence on the top list, it will still be disregarded as low priority.
And forget cuts. I've seen or heard numerous examples of the police being entirely useless over the course of my whole life!
Is it a tough job, yes, am I in anyway convinced in the quality of the job, not so much!
Essentially the role of the police is to gather evidence both for and against the victim. They have nothing to do with many charging decisions and nothing to do with sentencing at court. If there's no realistic prospect of conviction or a case doesn't pass the public interest stage then it will be binned. The same goes for investigations of that nature.
Factors like independent witnesses, credibility of a witness, willingness to attend court, supplemental evidence to support a case (documented injuries, CCTV etc), lawful defences made by the defendant are examples of the evidential stage whilst things like the defendants previous history, age of those involved, ability of the police to resolve by other means i.e. caution are looked at versus cost to the public purse, the level of risk presented and the defendants previous criminal history.
Just an example. There's many more things considered.
Last edited:
Red Defence
Full Member
Did I blame anyone? No, merely said it was embarrassingly low for the crimes committed, which it is.To be fair you can't blame the police for sentencing, that's why I linked only to police decisions.