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

jackynutmeg

jackynutmeg

Winger
duff_man said:
I told him how the law works, he didn’t like the answers that were given. I have had many requests on here from people for advice which I have happily helped with whenever I could, they didn’t seem to think I had a condescending or arsey attitude. Maybe that’s because they were glad to recieve help and learn something about which they didn’t have much knowledge of.
Click to expand...
grow up man and get the chip off your shoulder
 
T

the dark one

Winger
duff_man said:
No chip on my shoulder at all.
Click to expand...
Duffman making a cock of himself shocker.
At no point in this thread has anyone tried to paint a bad picture of the polis, or argue. Many are shocked at the laws or 'codes' that the police have to follow.
Yet here he is, acting the cynt. He refuses to answer my simple question of does he agree with 'code G' as he puts it.
 
duff_man

duff_man

Striker
the dark one said:
Duffman making a cock of himself shocker.
At no point in this thread has anyone tried to paint a bad picture of the polis, or argue. Many are shocked at the laws or 'codes' that the police have to follow.
Yet here he is, acting the cynt. He refuses to answer my simple question of does he agree with 'code G' as he puts it.
Click to expand...
What do you mean code G ‘as I put it’? That is the name given to it in legislation. Like I said look it up, educate yourself. Do I agree with it? Yes, it is there to safeguard people.
 
T

the dark one

Winger
duff_man said:
What do you mean code G ‘as I put it’? That is the name given to it in legislation. Like I said look it up, educate yourself. Do I agree with it? Yes, it is there to safeguard people.
Click to expand...
It sounds great. Has someone committed a crime? Yep. Have the police got enough evidence to charge them? .Yep.
Are the police going to arrest them?. Nah, are they fuck. If they want arresting, let the bastards come in themselves.
 
T

the dark one

Winger
errant said:
I’ve heard people on here say that if you don’t like the laws of this land, then fuck off out of it... perhaps they were referring to you?
Click to expand...
Tell me which part of that law is good mate ..

errant said:
I’ve heard people on here say that if you don’t like the laws of this land, then fuck off out of it... perhaps they were referring to you?
Click to expand...
If you were in jacks position and the police couldn't arrest them due to the laws would you be happy like?
 
Last edited:
duff_man

duff_man

Striker
the dark one said:
It sounds great. Has someone committed a crime? Yep. Have the police got enough evidence to charge them? .Yep.
Are the police going to arrest them?. Nah, are they fuck. If they want arresting, let the bastards come in themselves.
Click to expand...
The suspect needs interviewing under caution not necessarily arresting. There is a huge difference between the two. And based on an allegation without the suspect being interviewed is very rarely classed as enough evidence to charge, what if they raise a defence? That will need to be clarified before a charge is even considered. I could mention the threshold test and full code test but that would probably blow your already confused mind so will let you google that at your own leisure.

jackynutmeg said:
Safeguard people?
What about the victim?
Click to expand...
A suspect is innocent until proven guilty so they too need safeguarding as well as the victim, wouldn’t you agree? Or as soon as someone accuses someone else of a crime should we just arrest them and throw them in gaol without trial?
 
Last edited:
T

the dark one

Winger
duff_man said:
The suspect needs interviewing under caution not necessarily arresting. There is a huge difference between the two. And based on an allegation without the suspect being interviewed is very rarely classed as enough evidence to charge, what if they raise a defence? That will need to be clarified before a charge is even considered. I could mention the threshold test and full code test but that would probably blow your already confused mind so will let you google that at your own leisure.



A suspect is innocent until proven guilty so they too need safeguarding as well as the victim, wouldn’t you agree? Or as soon as someone accuses someone else of a crime should we just arrest them and throw them in gaol without trial?
Click to expand...
OK then, point taken.. Why havnt the police brought him in for questioning, which is what I would imagine Jacky is alluding too. Present the evidence against him. The police have already said they have enough on him. I may not be the sharpest in law, I don't need to be, I don't get that he shouldn't be brought in for questioning.
 
jackynutmeg

jackynutmeg

Winger
duff_man said:
The suspect needs interviewing under caution not necessarily arresting. There is a huge difference between the two. And based on an allegation without the suspect being interviewed is very rarely classed as enough evidence to charge, what if they raise a defence? That will need to be clarified before a charge is even considered. I could mention the threshold test and full code test but that would probably blow your already confused mind so will let you google that at your own leisure.



A suspect is innocent until proven guilty so they too need safeguarding as well as the victim, wouldn’t you agree? Or as soon as someone accuses someone else of a crime should we just arrest them and throw them in gaol without trial?
Click to expand...
But how is he going to be proven guilty if they arent even arsed to go and get him and question him ? and in the mean time he is allowed to go about causing trouble?
 
duff_man

duff_man

Striker
the dark one said:
OK then, point taken.. Why havnt the police brought him in for questioning, which is what I would imagine Jacky is alluding too. Present the evidence against him. The police have already said they have enough on him. I may not be the sharpest in law, I don't need to be, I don't get that he shouldn't be brought in for questioning.
Click to expand...
‘Brought him in for questioning’ alludes to arresting him which I have already explained about numerous times. He will be questioned but at an appropriate time.

jackynutmeg said:
But how is he going to be proven guilty if they arent even arsed to go and get him and question him ? and in the mean time he is allowed to go about causing trouble?
Click to expand...
As above, going and getting him would be arresting him which from what you have told us about the incident is not an option at the minute.
Is he actually going about and causing trouble or do you just think he is?
 
P

powburn red

Midfield
At the risk of having to wear a few tin hats!!...and as an owld git who has seen cops in a few other countries..ours do not seem that bad ..at least you are not "expected" to hand over money if they stop you as a right of passage.
 
duff_man

duff_man

Striker
ravydavygravy said:
In this scenario how long would you wait on average before arresting him?
Click to expand...
There is no fixed answer. What level were the injuries? Anything to suggest it may happen again? Any intel about the suspect? Was it domestic related? Has the suspect been actively avoiding police contact? How many times has the suspect been contacted or attempts made?
All of these things and more need to be considered by an investigating officer before they decide to deprive someone of their liberty, unlawful arrest civil claims cost a lot of money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top