|
|
Post by sheepy on Jul 9, 2024 9:41:28 GMT
We need more real police solving real crimes. What exactly constitutes a real crime? because it seems nobody actually knows what they are. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2024 9:43:45 GMT
We need more real police solving real crimes. What exactly constitutes a real crime? because it seems nobody actually knows what they are. Let's start with something triable at Crown Court? |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jul 9, 2024 9:47:53 GMT
So no shoplifters or possession of drugs offences then?
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jul 9, 2024 10:00:47 GMT
We need more real police solving real crimes. What exactly constitutes a real crime? because it seems nobody actually knows what they are. A real crime must have one or more real victims who are real due to having suffered a real loss.
The bullshit starts when one describes something someone says to someone as an attack, where an attack was historically understood as someone coming at you with the view to either killing you or severely injuring you. Injuring just to be clear is blood everywhere, broken bones and a lot of physical pain.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2024 10:01:46 GMT
So no shoplifters or possession of drugs offences then? Theft is triable either way, or used to be? Minor drugs offences are what they are. |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Jul 14, 2024 0:34:12 GMT
Nothing. The college of policing has only been in existence since 2012, it is an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy put in place by Cameron/Cleggs coalition government and was the start of woke infecting the police force. OK didn't understand what you was on about. But what woke are you on about I shall TRY to explain When I was a few months older than my grand daughter is now, I was handed a booklet describing my choices of subjects to take at O level. It explained the academic opportunities certain O Levels would open, and those that would be closed by my decision to abandon others. It went on to describe careers I might already be considering, and tried to outline the sort of qualifications I might need. Careers in Nursing and The Police force were, I noted, open to any regardless of academic achievement because each had, alongside it's lower entry requirements, internal training facilities, There was, in fact, a police college slap in the middle of Cwmbran New Town. It's job was to take recruits and educate them in the necessities of police work. They ran the academic course training constables and above how to produce and present evidence in court, for example. The same college ran the postgraduate course which I took to enable me to testify as an expert witness. It did not teach me what I needed to know as an expert, it assumed I already knew that. It taught me how to present such evidence. In short, the police colleges of the eighties taught those who went through its doors the niceties of how to be a successful thief taker The building was demolished under Labour. The syllabus of today would be rather more concerned at teaching how to wave a gay pride flag than teaching how to make your evidence stick when presented in court |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Jul 14, 2024 0:35:00 GMT
So no shoplifters or possession of drugs offences then? Should possession even be a crime ? |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jul 14, 2024 1:19:45 GMT
That's a separate debate.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Jul 15, 2024 10:44:31 GMT
That's a separate debate. Yes, and then again If coppers, courts and prisons are overworked and overflowing, it seems to me that the problem is fourfold 1) an increase in the number of people committing crime 2) an increase in the number of crimes it is possible to commit 3) an increase in the number of people being detained awaiting tbeir trial 4) an increase in the number of detained convicted criminals and length of detention You cannot tell me the christ knows how many new ways of getting a criminal record created under blair’s misrule ISN'T a contributory factor to this. And yes it may be a separate debate in detail but far too much time seems to be wasted on pursuing pointless new crimes. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jul 15, 2024 11:07:27 GMT
...You cannot tell me the christ knows how many new ways of getting a criminal record created under blair’s misrule ISN'T a contributory factor to this. And yes it may be a separate debate in detail but far too much time seems to be wasted on pursuing pointless new crimes. Maybe, but how many new crimes did B'liar actually create? We hear a lot about the 3,000 odd "New" laws but many simply replaced outdated existing laws. Sexual offences were previously covered by a variety of different Acts which were repealed and replaced in the Sexual Offences Act 2003. So that, for example, Indecent Exposure (Vagrancy Act 1824) became "Exposure" under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Likewise Deception (Theft Act 1968) was replaced by Fraud (Fraud Act 2006). And there are many, many more. So although those offences were new, they weren't actually "Extra" - they were the same thing just brought up to date. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jul 15, 2024 11:30:09 GMT
...You cannot tell me the christ knows how many new ways of getting a criminal record created under blair’s misrule ISN'T a contributory factor to this. And yes it may be a separate debate in detail but far too much time seems to be wasted on pursuing pointless new crimes. Maybe, but how many new crimes did B'liar actually create? We hear a lot about the 3,000 odd "New" laws but many simply replaced outdated existing laws. Sexual offences were previously covered by a variety of different Acts which were repealed and replaced in the Sexual Offences Act 2003. So that, for example, Indecent Exposure (Vagrancy Act 1824) became "Exposure" under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Likewise Deception (Theft Act 1968) was replaced by Fraud (Fraud Act 2006). And there are many, many more. So although those offences were new, they weren't actually "Extra" - they were the same thing just brought up to date. They may well be doing the bringing up to date on these laws, but what you actually find is more restrictions that piggyback onto a bill which can be explained as a much needed revision for other reasons. The media argues the valid case for the new bill but ignores the extra things loaded into it. They love the catch-all wording, where in the case of sexual offences it would probably make sense not to go anywhere near a litigious woman in case you looked at her the wrong way one day or something. |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Jul 15, 2024 11:37:09 GMT
...You cannot tell me the christ knows how many new ways of getting a criminal record created under blair’s misrule ISN'T a contributory factor to this. And yes it may be a separate debate in detail but far too much time seems to be wasted on pursuing pointless new crimes. Maybe, but how many new crimes did B'liar actually create? We hear a lot about the 3,000 odd "New" laws but many simply replaced outdated existing laws. Sexual offences were previously covered by a variety of different Acts which were repealed and replaced in the Sexual Offences Act 2003. So that, for example, Indecent Exposure (Vagrancy Act 1824) became "Exposure" under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Likewise Deception (Theft Act 1968) was replaced by Fraud (Fraud Act 2006). And there are many, many more. So although those offences were new, they weren't actually "Extra" - they were the same thing just brought up to date. Ok i dug around a bit www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/blair-s-frenzied-law-making-a-new-offence-for-every-day-spent-in-office-412072.htmlApparently it’s now illegal to cause a nuclear explosion. Best warn Kim Jong FuckinSillyHaircut But there is a fascinating fact thrown up by the above Blair actually created a large number of NEW offences, and a very substantial number were DESIGNED to be imposed as instant summary justice, with zero recourse to the court to have the ‘offence’ heard. A number of his antics destroyed established law and precedent eg his so called domestic violence legislation that broke Semayne’s Case, and his removal of double indemnity. In short he was a prize wanker who didn’t gove a flying one about the chaos he created |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Jul 15, 2024 12:23:21 GMT
...You cannot tell me the christ knows how many new ways of getting a criminal record created under blair’s misrule ISN'T a contributory factor to this. And yes it may be a separate debate in detail but far too much time seems to be wasted on pursuing pointless new crimes. Maybe, but how many new crimes did B'liar actually create? We hear a lot about the 3,000 odd "New" laws but many simply replaced outdated existing laws. Sexual offences were previously covered by a variety of different Acts which were repealed and replaced in the Sexual Offences Act 2003. So that, for example, Indecent Exposure (Vagrancy Act 1824) became "Exposure" under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Likewise Deception (Theft Act 1968) was replaced by Fraud (Fraud Act 2006). And there are many, many more. So although those offences were new, they weren't actually "Extra" - they were the same thing just brought up to date. The Law Commission which is an independent body constantly removes old and outdated legislation that is no longer required |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Jul 15, 2024 12:54:39 GMT
We need more real police solving real crimes. What exactly constitutes a real crime? because it seems nobody actually knows what they are. All you need to do is look at the CPS Website and all the different legislation that covers all the different Criminal Offences is on there , |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Jul 15, 2024 12:56:12 GMT
So no shoplifters or possession of drugs offences then? Theft is triable either way, or used to be? Minor drugs offences are what they are. It still is |
|
