ForumGarden

SnoozeAgain;1368019 wrote: I tend to get confused in my dotage but "Police Accountability" usually doesn't have anything to do with online dalliances. I could be wrong however.


You are not wrong. However, most threads today tend to deviate from the topic. On many Internet Boards the Moderators delete posts that are off topic. This isn't done here and until we are informed that off topic posts are frowned upon, they will continue for right or for wrong.

SnoozeAgain;1368019 wrote: I tend to get confused in my dotage but "Police Accountability" usually doesn't have anything to do with online dalliances. I could be wrong however.


Oh is *that* what it was about. I skimmed. Poor Hope, she was one well-confused poster. Not in Odie's league but even so.

Never mind, onward and upward. Police accountability.

spot;1368041 wrote: Oh is *that* what it was about. I skimmed. Poor Hope, she was one well-confused poster. Not in Odie's league but even so.

Never mind, onward and upward. Police accountability.


Hey ho... back to topic...

Spot....

It Is my belief that some officers are rotten to the core long before they applied to the force.

Would you agree with a system as In 'Three strikes and you're out'... ie, If Investigated by the IPCC and the Police Standards three times, Immediate dismissal ?

In many cases, the officer has been flagged up by the IPCC long before they get to shoot someone In a back of a taxi or on a tube station. Should they be suspended from any work Involving riot control or fire-arms the moment a serious complaint hits the IPCC In the early stages of their career weather the proof Is there or not?

I've no opinion regarding the policeworthiness or otherwise of people who have joined. I'm solely concerned with the structure and procedures of the force and the application of the justice system to those who make a balls-up of their job and cost some poor unfortunate their life.

I think the structure and procedures in particular of the Armed Ambush team at Leman Street is a complete disgrace.

I think the willingness of individual officers to lie is a consequence of an institutionalized police culture of protecting colleagues from the consequences of their errors of judgement and that it should be actively extirpated. The absolute lack of honour involved, if nothing else, should indicate how outrageous the current state of affairs is.

I'd call each instance of current practice - the collaboration over notes and refusal to be interviewed other than in writing and the refusal to bring prosecutions into a courtroom where evidence can be tested by a jury - a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. I'd call a police-wide refusal to carry mandatory video monitoring equipment while on duty the same thing.

spot;1368051 wrote: I've no opinion regarding the policeworthiness or otherwise of people who have joined. I'm solely concerned with the structure and procedures of the force and the application of the justice system to those who make a balls-up of their job and cost some poor unfortunate their life.

I think the structure and procedures in particular of the Armed Ambush team at Leman Street is a complete disgrace.

I think the willingness of individual officers to lie is a consequence of an institutionalized police culture of protecting colleagues from the consequences of their errors of judgement and that it should be actively extirpated. The absolute lack of honour involved, if nothing else, should indicate how outrageous the current state of affairs is.

I'd call each instance of current practice - the collaboration over notes and refusal to be interviewed other than in writing and the refusal to bring prosecutions into a courtroom where evidence can be tested by a jury - a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. I'd call a police-wide refusal to carry mandatory video monitoring equipment while on duty the same thing. The point I was making Is this...and I believe relevant.

I have police officers In my family. They are and have been Constables for many years and have no desire to go out shooting anyone or smashing skulls. More community policing. They seem perfectly normal, well adjusted people and although often tied by government targets, there seems to be no desire to get hold of a gun or go out on riot control.

My theory Is, that those officers who do end up shooting some-one In the back of a taxi or killing Ian Tomlinson must have a desire within themselves for that kind of policing.

And I have no opinion as to whether you're right or not because I've no evidence either way. You may be be right, you may be barking, I've no idea how to even test the notion. It reminds me of the sort of argument tobacco companies came up with as to why smokers got cancer - because they had a built-in tendency toward lung cancer which also attracted them toward smoking and that therefore the cause of the cancer was inbuilt regardless of whether they indulged or not. Nobody knew how to test that one either.



eta: actually they did, now I think about it. Lung cancer rates differed between otherwise similar societies depending on whether tobacco was available or not available. But I still don't know how to check what you're suggesting as regards police recruitment. I do still maintain that nobody can morally join an organization whose members are obliged to unlawfully intimidate when the government chooses to unleash them in that capacity. As far as "unlawfully" goes, check the compensation settlements after Orgreave. Your relatives may not want to go out on "riot control" as you euphemistically put it, but they do when they're ordered to - it's not optional.

jones jones;1368004 wrote: Wow Kev ... "Jaysus Christ!" as my Irish forefathers would have said. For the very first time in my entire time spent on FG, I have just read a post of ten lines that made absolutely no sense at all. I honestly have absolutely no ****ing idea what you have just said.

Anyway laddie, selective memory is like part of the denial syndrome when we are faced with something we would have preferred never took place. Coohil, if you wanna go that route but does the name "Southern Belle" aka Rhonda maybe ring a belle?

You flirted with her for months on end yet now you've forgotten her? For shame! I will e-mail her immediately and ask her if she maybe remembers you. :wah:Why don't you tell me which words you are having trouble with and perhaps we can stumble upon the meaning of what I'd said, regardless of the seemingly endless repetition.

K.Snyder;1368108 wrote: Why don't you tell me which words you are having trouble with and perhaps we can stumble upon the meaning of what I'd said, regardless of the seemingly endless repetition. I understand your posts perfectly Kevvy Kins.

It seems to me that all local police are scrutinized to such an invariable degree that the "overwhelming" influx of criticism is viewed by the police as necessary to suppress with the ideology they might do their jobs better, which ultimately trumps any moral question directly minimizing police accountability either subconsciously or not

oscar;1368113 wrote: I understand your posts perfectly Kevvy Kins.


Oh thank you Honey Buns! :yh_kiss :yh_wink

K.Snyder;1368117 wrote: It seems to me that all local police are scrutinized to such an invariable degree that the "overwhelming" influx of criticism is viewed by the police as necessary to suppress with the ideology they might do their jobs better, which ultimately trumps any moral question directly minimizing police accountability either subconsciously or not


oscar;1368113 wrote: I understand your posts perfectly Kevvy Kins.


Are you sure Oscar ?

Reminds me of the classic Morcambe and Wise sketch with Andre Previn, I recognise ALL the words, and know what they mean.........but as Eric said paraphrased of course

"They are ALL the right words, but not necessarily in the right order"

Bruv;1368142 wrote: Are you sure Oscar ?

Reminds me of the classic Morcambe and Wise sketch with Andre Previn, I recognise ALL the words, and know what they mean.........but as Eric said paraphrased of course

"They are ALL the right words, but not necessarily in the right order" :wah::wah::wah:

You reminded me of Boris Johnsons statement during the blizzards that grounded Gatwick:

" It's the right kind of snow but In the wrong kind of Quantity"

Bruv;1368142 wrote: Are you sure Oscar ?

Reminds me of the classic Morcambe and Wise sketch with Andre Previn, I recognise ALL the words, and know what they mean.........but as Eric said paraphrased of course

"They are ALL the right words, but not necessarily in the right order"Just read it a few more times if you don't understand the first time

K.Snyder;1368117 wrote: It seems to me that all local police are scrutinized to such an invariable degree that the "overwhelming" influx of criticism is viewed by the police as necessary to suppress with the ideology they might do their jobs better, which ultimately trumps any moral question directly minimizing police accountability either subconsciously or not


K.Snyder;1368242 wrote: Just read it a few more times if you don't understand the first time
I have mentioned before I have some problems understanding your phraseology, don't take it personally, you may have problems with mine, I too have my own way of talking. I tend to read your posts several times as it is, so as an exercise in comprehension, let me paraphrase your post to see if I get close.



"The constant criticism of the police is seen by them as part of doing their job properly, so calls for more accountability confirm that fact."

Close ?

Bruv;1368264 wrote: I have mentioned before I have some problems understanding your phraseology, don't take it personally, you may have problems with mine, I too have my own way of talking. I tend to read your posts several times as it is, so as an exercise in comprehension, let me paraphrase your post to see if I get close.



"The constant criticism of the police is seen by them as part of doing their job properly, so calls for more accountability confirm that fact."

Close ?


Oscar steps away from the thread at this point :wah:

oscar;1368265 wrote: Oscar steps away from the thread at this point :wah:


No seriously.......if it's THAT clear, give me your understanding of it................or anybody else for that matter.

(I am a simple soul....humour me)

K.Snyder;1368108 wrote: Why don't you tell me which words you are having trouble with and perhaps we can stumble upon the meaning of what I'd said, regardless of the seemingly endless repetition.


There you go again dude ... I still don't understand you.

Do me a favor and speak like Kevin Snyder ... I can see you're a wannabee Spot but it ain't gonna work.

jones jones;1368268 wrote: There you go again dude ... I still don't understand you.

Do me a favor and speak like Kevin Snyder ... I can see you're a wannabee Spot but it ain't gonna work. No No No Jones... There MAY be a Spot wannabe here but It Isn't Kev.... He has always written In that mode and I admire his Intelligence and knowledge... Kev certainly never needs to copy some-one else. It's his own style.

Sure, It took me some time when I first joined to get my head around some of his mode of writing but I got there In the end.f

I would like to disassociate my misunderstanding of K Snyder's posts from jones jones campaign.

Bruv;1368267 wrote: No seriously.......if it's THAT clear, give me your understanding of it................or anybody else for that matter.

(I am a simple soul....humour me)


Don't feel bad, I don't get it either.

Bruv;1368271 wrote: I would like to disassociate my misunderstanding of K Snyder's posts from jones jones campaign.


Really? Now why would you say something like this if you really felt this way? Why not just ignore me for god's sake.

oscar;1368269 wrote: No No No Jones... There MAY be a Spot wannabe here but It Isn't Kev.... He has always written In that mode and I admire his Intelligence and knowledge... Kev certainly never needs to copy some-one else. It's his own style.

Sure, It took me some time when I first joined to get my head around some of his mode of writing but I got there In the end.f




Yeah right ... "honey buns!"

SnoozeAgain;1368274 wrote: Don't feel bad, I don't get it either.


Thank goodness.........Now........ I don't want this to turn into fellow poster bashing.....I get the words.....and recognise the intent, just don't get the nitty gritty.

jones jones;1368277 wrote: Really? Now why would you say something like this if you really felt this way? Why not just ignore me for god's sake.


I am trying......you keep on popping up.....with yer attitude.

Memo to self *must try harder*

Bruv;1368264 wrote: I have mentioned before I have some problems understanding your phraseology, don't take it personally, you may have problems with mine, I too have my own way of talking. I tend to read your posts several times as it is, so as an exercise in comprehension, let me paraphrase your post to see if I get close.



"The constant criticism of the police is seen by them as part of doing their job properly, so calls for more accountability confirm that fact."

Close ?Local police feel they will do their jobs better by suppressing local criticism and they do anything it takes to do that, including arresting innocent people because that's how arrogant these pricks are. What it does, Bruv, is prove that police don't have to answer to anyone, which I'd go as far to suggest I don't know if this is true upon their conscious or subconscious level, but it's most certainly a fact.

jones jones;1368268 wrote: There you go again dude ... I still don't understand you.

Do me a favor and speak like Kevin Snyder ... I can see you're a wannabee Spot but it ain't gonna work.Now I think we've entered the point of conversation in which I don't know what you're talking about but I assure you that if you're flattered enough you might get an autograph

K.Snyder;1368336 wrote: Local police feel they will do their jobs better by suppressing local criticism and they do anything it takes to do that, including arresting innocent people because that's how arrogant these pricks are. What it does, Bruv, is prove that police don't have to answer to anyone, which I'd go as far to suggest I don't know if this is true upon their conscious or subconscious level, but it's most certainly a fact.


If that is what you meant to say, why the convoluted language ?

Anyway I disagree......big time.

In your world the police are above and beyond the law, indeed they are the law.

Things may not be perfect, far from it, but when your idea becomes reality I shall shoot myself.

Bruv;1368366 wrote: If that is what you meant to say, why the convoluted language ?

Anyway I disagree......big time.

In your world the police are above and beyond the law, indeed they are the law.

Things may not be perfect, far from it, but when your idea becomes reality I shall shoot myself.My original statement says far more than my clarifying it for you.

What's the idea about it? It's a statement of fact.

Police are bombarded with intense scrutiny every day to the point they can't do their jobs. Of course there are standards of some police officers that comes in to question but that's the case with any profession.

If the public wasn't so ready,however, to burn sticks and tie ropes the police wouldn't feel so pressured into arresting innocent people.

Police are not paid very well compared to what their job entails. It's obvious police officers feel obligated to assist society. Some have power trips, which is true, but without public scrutiny they would be held accountable by the department where it should be, not from public lynch mobs.

jones jones;1368278 wrote: Yeah right ... "honey buns!"Now you're just having a conniption fit jones, take a time out

K.Snyder;1368371 wrote: It's obvious police officers feel obligated to assist society.Well no. That's the point. It's not.

spot;1368373 wrote: Well no. That's the point. It's not.Well, I suppose I mainly mean that in their reasons for becoming a police officer and my point I'm trying to make is that the public scrutiny serves to impede the success of convicting the guilty. With such a degree of public criticism police feel resentful and they become cynically vigilant over their citizens.

K.Snyder;1368377 wrote: Well, I suppose I mainly mean that in their reasons for becoming a police officer and my point I'm trying to make is that the public scrutiny serves to impede the success of convicting the guilty. With such a degree of public criticism police feel resentful and they become cynically vigilant over their citizens.
I totally disagree.

All Officers whatever rank have guidelines and should follow the book. The ensuing amount of complaints submitted by the public Is not about public criticism but because too many officers believe they are mavericks and above the rule book, public scrutiny and are Immune from prosecution when they deliberately flout the rule book.

It;s quite simple... If they acted within the law of the land and the guidelines, there would be no complaints.

Some Officers have an arrogance where I am sure they believe they are perfectly entitled to bury witness's that would assist the defence, emergency calls that would assist the defence and a fair amount of bullying defence witness's In the process. When they get caught out, they boo hoo hoo to their superiors that the nasty member of the public Is evil and has got It In for them.

oscar;1368379 wrote: I totally disagree.

All Officers whatever rank have guidelines and should follow the book. The ensuing amount of complaints submitted by the public Is not about public criticism but because too many officers believe they are mavericks and above the rule book, public scrutiny and are Immune from prosecution when they deliberately flout the rule book.

It;s quite simple... If they acted within the law of the land and the guidelines, there would be no complaints.

Some Officers have an arrogance where I am sure they believe they are perfectly entitled to bury witness's that would assist the defence, emergency calls that would assist the defence and a fair amount of bullying defence witness's In the process. When they get caught out, they boo hoo hoo to their superiors that the nasty member of the public Is evil and has got It In for them.Well, when you say "If they acted within the law of the land and the guidelines, there would be no complaints" is not entirely true. The exception is the public that disagrees with the law which includes those wrongfully convicted, those opposed to accepting wrongful convictions, and obviously those guilty of the crimes in question.

"If they acted within the law of the land and the guidelines, there would be no complaints" says that if given enough time there would be absolutely no wrongful conviction ever. Due to the fact that wrongful convictions exist, and much more often than most realize, this means a time frame is implemented as a direct means to satisfy the public. And when we have statistics that says "Only a fraction of criminal cases involve biological evidence that can be subjected to DNA testing, and even when such evidence exists, it is often lost or destroyed after a conviction. Since they don’t have access to a definitive test like DNA, many wrongfully convicted people have a slim chance of ever proving their innocence." along with 77% of all wrongful convictions is directly linked to eyewitness misidentification proves without a doubt the impact the public has on policing not only after the detainment of individuals but throughout prosecution and...and...the rest of the unfortunates life due to destroying gathered evidence after the trial so as to minimize police accountability altogether...

Police accountability is worth nothing without weighing with public scrutiny, which is as equally immoral.

It's like our education system, just because people walk the streets makes them feel like they have the right to analyze crime and implement law.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/Images/ ... es_225.gif

I had an odd moment on the bus this morning when I saw Theresa May quoted on a Metro front page main headline to the effect that "Police killers will never be released". Finally, I thought. Recognition of a major problem, effective action by a Home Secretary, wonders will never cease.

All they need do now is bring charges and get the guilty officers convicted. I don't expect there's more than thirty of them out there thinking until now that they were immune for life.

Týr;1427096 wrote: I had an odd moment on the bus this morning when I saw Theresa May quoted on a Metro front page main headline to the effect that "Police killers will never be released". Finally, I thought. Recognition of a major problem, effective action by a Home Secretary, wonders will never cease.

All they need do now is bring charges and get the guilty officers convicted. I don't expect there's more than thirty of them out there thinking until now that they were immune for life.


You are either being Ironic or sarcastic.

You can not be that dumb.

She means any member of the public killing a police officer will never be released not police officers killing a member of the public.



http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/cr ... 16311.html

oscar;1427106 wrote: She means any member of the public killing a police officer will never be released not police officers killing a member of the public.
I beg to differ. That would be a Police-killer. A Police killer can only be a police officer who has killed a member of the public. A member of the public who kills a police officer can only be a Police-killer, he can't possibly be a Police killer.

Týr;1427108 wrote: I beg to differ. That would be a Police-killer. A Police killer can only be a police officer who has killed a member of the public. A member of the public who kills a police officer can only be a Police-killer, he can't possibly be a Police killer. Then you have posted In the wrong thread... you should have Included It In your thread on Illiterate journalism.

oscar;1427110 wrote: Then you have posted In the wrong thread... you should have Included It In your thread on Illiterate journalism.


On the contrary, I listened to Theresa May addressing the Police Federation and noted her tone of voice and her articulation. She clearly meant what was reported in the headline, that any member of the police who unlawfully kills a member of the public will face life imprisonment without possibility of release, and she definitely referred to them as Police killers.

Isn't it great when daily mail readers squabble about sematics?

Language evolves......Tyr doesn't