Discussion in 'SMB' started by Papa Smurf, Oct 9, 2018 at 6:15 PM.
grow up man and get the chip off your shoulder
No chip on my shoulder at all.
Well the OP got what he was after with this thread, bravo.
The cops are the agency that cannot say 'no'. They spend at least 50 % of their time dealing with the massive mental health void that the government ignore. This was not the case 10 years ago.
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.
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.
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.
What about the victim?
They don't count man . the fuckers are deluded.
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?
Tell me which part of that law is good mate ..
If you were in jacks position and the police couldn't arrest them due to the laws would you be happy like?
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?
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.
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?
‘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.
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?
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.
In this scenario how long would you wait on average before arresting him?
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.
They'd have more time if they wern't busy hiding evidence via disclosure.
Few thickos on here mind
Separate names with a comma.