Police constantly quoting “diminishing resources” as reason for rising crime statistics

duff_man

Striker
Witnesses and video footage mate
That is evidence relating to the offence, that is completely different to having grounds to arrest someone. Unfortunately you don’t know much about the law, you and your mrs should just let those who do get on with doing their jobs.
 

jackynutmeg

Winger
That is evidence relating to the offence, that is completely different to having grounds to arrest someone. Unfortunately you don’t know much about the law, you and your mrs should just let those who do get on with doing their jobs.
Both policeman that came to the house said they had enough to press charges.
 

Hull_Mackem

Winger
Absolute bollocks IMO!!!!

Surely with the technological advances made over the past 20 years, internet, cctv on every street corner, DNA etc etc surely solving crime has never been so easy. What must it have been like 40 years ago when a bobby had a notebook, truncheon and handcuffs yet he still had time to patrol his beat and solve complex crimes!
To address just a few of your points.

CCTV- a lot has been turned off or broken with no budget to repair it since budget cuts to both police and local authority.

DNA- only helps with a limited number of crimes and also new rules mean some gets deleted from the database.

Internet- causes far more crimes than it would ever help solve.

Plus prisons are full, the police do solve lots of crimes compared to your nostalgia view.
 

bryc1

Striker
If they spent a bit less time harassing Tommy Robinson and his family they might be available to do some proper graft and catch some baddies..
 

Invictus

Central Defender
Both policeman that came to the house said they had enough to press charges.
As @duff_man says even if there is enough evidence to potentially charge someone with an offence it doesn’t mean you have the grounds to arrest them. They would normally be allowed to come in a as voluntary attender under these circumstances it’s only when that doesn’t work would you have the grounds to arrest someone.
Don’t blame the cops for this, blame the government who changed the rules a couple of yrs ago.
 

jackynutmeg

Winger
As @duff_man says even if there is enough evidence to potentially charge someone with an offence it doesn’t mean you have the grounds to arrest them. They would normally be allowed to come in a as voluntary attender under these circumstances it’s only when that doesn’t work would you have the grounds to arrest someone.
Don’t blame the cops for this, blame the government who changed the rules a couple of yrs ago.
He'll not be able to walk in to a police station when I get hold of the cvnt
 

duff_man

Striker
Both policeman that came to the house said they had enough to press charges.
Like I said, having enough evidence to run with a prosecution has no baring on if a person should be arrested. The two things are completely different aspects of an investigation.

As @duff_man says even if there is enough evidence to potentially charge someone with an offence it doesn’t mean you have the grounds to arrest them. They would normally be allowed to come in a as voluntary attender under these circumstances it’s only when that doesn’t work would you have the grounds to arrest someone.
Don’t blame the cops for this, blame the government who changed the rules a couple of yrs ago.
It’s as if I know about this sort of thing.
 

duff_man

Striker
Let me help you then. Cyber security is winning. Another case of technology making life better
Cyber security is winning what? Cyber crime is the fastest growing crime type, cyber security breaches are happening more regularly. Doesn’t sound like it’s winning.
 
As @duff_man says even if there is enough evidence to potentially charge someone with an offence it doesn’t mean you have the grounds to arrest them. They would normally be allowed to come in a as voluntary attender under these circumstances it’s only when that doesn’t work would you have the grounds to arrest someone.
Don’t blame the cops for this, blame the government who changed the rules a couple of yrs ago.
So let's get this right. The police know they have enough evidence to charge someone of a crime, but they can't go and arrest them?. Do they have to sit and wait till they walk into a station and confess ffs? The mind boggles with laws. See, if anyone harmed my daughter and the police wouldn't or should I say couldn't arrest them I'd kill the bastard.
 

Invictus

Central Defender
So let's get this right. The police know they have enough evidence to charge someone of a crime, but they can't go and arrest them?. Do they have to sit and wait till they walk into a station and confess ffs? The mind boggles with laws. See, if anyone harmed my daughter and the police wouldn't or should I say couldn't arrest them I'd kill the bastard.
There are circumstances where arresting someone immediately is fine like if you catch someone committing a burglary or see someone assaulting a person in front of you. It also matters how serious the offence is and if evidence can be lost by not arresting someone.
The police Officer has to justify why that person has been arrested and arrests can be refused if there are insufficient grounds for the arrest.
In the case above on the face of it it looks like a relatively minor assault and there is no evidence going to be lost so it makes it difficult to justify the arrest.
As I said don’t blame the cops they would probably rather lock the lad up and get it done and dusted but the government decided that’s wrong.
If the governments decision had anything to do with massaging the arrest figures to show crime was down I wouldn’t really know:rolleyes:.
 

BlackOps

Winger
This was a nobody who had not been politically involved. In this case my best guess would be a single copper who got offended on everyone's behalf. He's by no means far right, he's got a hammer and sickle tattoo on his chest for one.

If there are no teams, who checks on these people?
Who checks on far right groups?

Witnesses and video footage mate
Thats not grounds for arrest. Thats evidence. A necessity to arrest needs to be given. IMO the officer in case will be trying to arrange a voluntary interview with him as i know a custody sgt wouldnt accept that based on basic info youve given
 
Last edited:

duff_man

Striker
So let's get this right. The police know they have enough evidence to charge someone of a crime, but they can't go and arrest them?. Do they have to sit and wait till they walk into a station and confess ffs? The mind boggles with laws. See, if anyone harmed my daughter and the police wouldn't or should I say couldn't arrest them I'd kill the bastard.
This is why people who know fuck all about a subject shouldn’t comment.
To arrest someone you need to suspect them of comitting an offence, based upon reasonable grounds, you also need to satisfy code G of PACE, but I am sure you knew that anyway didn’t you?

Who checks on far right groups?



Thats not grounds for arrest. Thats evidence. A necessity to arrest needs to be given. IMO the officer in case will be trying to arrange a voluntary interview with him as i know a custody sgt wouldnt accept that based on basic info youve given
If I was custody sergeant it would be a detention refused based on what he has told us so far
 
This is why people who know fuck all about a subject shouldn’t comment.
To arrest someone you need to suspect them of comitting an offence, based upon reasonable grounds, you also need to satisfy code G of PACE, but I am sure you knew that anyway didn’t you?



If I was custody sergeant it would be a detention refused based on what he has told us so far
Now now officer.I'm just repeating what's been said on here, including yourself. Do you not find it strange that the police have sufficient evidence to charge soneone yet can't arrest them ffs? Ya fucking tail end.
 

Top