This site is supported by the advertisements on it, please disable your AdBlocker so we can continue to provide you with the quality content you expect.
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Picture Penzance is free to join and use. So why not join our community. As a member you can upload images, add comments, participate in our contests and connect with like minded people.
    All the best,
    Halfhidden (founder member)

Sign up for free today
Membership Is Free
No Adds
Members Only Areas
And lots More!

CLICK HERE

Now we're all going to be the police.

Discussion in 'Conspiracy theories' started by 46traveller, Jul 27, 2010.

  1. 46traveller

    46traveller Member

    Messages:
    272
    Likes Received:
    0
  2. Halfhidden

    Halfhidden Untouchable Staff Member Administrator

    Messages:
    2,890
    Likes Received:
    944
    Having just read the article
    I'm divided on a decision. I agree that the public should have a larger part to play in policing... but I don't think the public should have the power to sack such high ranking officers. there is a lot about policing that the public don't understand.... and/or protected from and therefore knows little of the overall situations the police are in day in and out.
    Personally I would like to see more transparency and better control over police chiefs, but I really don't think this is the way.
    The title of the article suggested "dads army" but the idea of a reserve police is not that new at all. What would concern me is the money and resources put in to such schemes that could be otherwise invested in what we already have... in our professional police.
    A civilian will have limited power and always protected from the ruff end of the law... so why are we trying to dilute the best police force in the world by adding liability's to it?
    Any police officer will affectedly become a babysitter for the member of public that joins them on the beat... is that really the right way to go?
     
  3. matt

    matt

    Messages:
    13
    Likes Received:
    0
    i think they should attempt to increase the amount of specials and do away with the cost of pcso's, this new suggestion is practically going to be watered down pcso's who are already a waste.
     
  4. 46traveller

    46traveller Member

    Messages:
    272
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi Halfhidden, I think there are times when the public should be able to sack anyone in a position where they have sworn on oath to do whatever duty and fail miserably. There seems to be a magical escape clause written in to some of these contracts enjoyed by politicians and civil servants alike. Robert De Menzes murder a classic example, if I remember correctly the police involved were charged under the Health And Safety Act for an infringement. How about MPs expenses, those MPs are never going to be bought to justice, it's a case of them saying "Oh sorry did I do that wrong" a slap on the wrist from the whip and back to business. Wouldn't you agree that if the public had at least a small say in how these cases are handled, and the power to suspend or in the worst case sack the OFFENDERS ('cos that's what they are) the top knobs in the police, and politicians who lie and steal, would be a lot more conscientious about doing their jobs. A good percentage of the country are fed up with internal enquiries that just don't go far enough with regards punishment. These people are fiddling thousands of pounds of tax money yet we don't even have a say. They tell us "Well don't vote for them next time" so we like idiots have to put up with their brand of politics for up to four more years. A man is shot on a tube train several times in the head in front of witnesses, the people involved are suspended on full pay during the enquiry, and sent back on duty with a flea in their ear. Meanwhile some of the public on that train are still under a counsellor for recurring nightmares and state that they will never travel on a train again.
    From my point of view we need a much stronger Public Enquiry System, otherwise it will just be business as usual while all we can do is sit back in disbelief at the not guilty pleas.
    YES we do have a great Police Force, but if no one is able to bring the bad apples to justice, that may well change.
     
  5. Halfhidden

    Halfhidden Untouchable Staff Member Administrator

    Messages:
    2,890
    Likes Received:
    944
    @46traveller I don't have a problem with the public getting involved and I believe that I mentioned that in my thread. What I think would be disastrous would be to appoint a member of the public with powers to destroy someone's career and or unstable a regional police force.
    What I'm saying is that you can't just shove a member of the public in to what is an incredibly sensitive area of policing and tell them that they have more power than a police chief. They would need years of training to understand the job and to fully understand if the police chief really is failing at his/her job, otherwise the sacked police chief would simply take the force to a tribunal and sue for compensation.
    Also whom ever was elected from the public to watch over the police chiefs would be privy to some very sensitive policing areas possibly up to national security level.
    That's why I don't think that this is workable... rather hot air from a politicians mouth... not a solid solution.
    Now addressing the real issue of failing police chiefs... Have we really had that many? Considering the amount of police chiefs we have I can only name a few that have failed, and in at least one of those cases it could have been a political decision rather than a security one.
    I should explain what I meant by that.
    I believe that the Metropolitan police have increasingly been influenced by the government of the time and the police chief at the time (Blair) played the game. I believe that the force was manipulated in to acting out scenarios for and on behalf of the government when they were supposed to be crime fighting. whether or not this was because the police chief at the time was looking for a peerage is unclear. What is clear was the way the Metropolitan police changed and not for the better.

    I wondering if a new system would be more appropriate to investigate all levels of policing.
    A committee of senior servicemen and women who could conduct an investigation into the conduct of a police chief and or investigate serious complaints against the police. Civilians could be drawn from area's such as lawyers, doctors, magistrates to strike a balance. This way no single person makes a decision and some of the more sensitive information can be investigated by those who already have high level security passes and above all, understand the kind of decision making a police chief would make at that kind of level.
     
  6. 46traveller

    46traveller Member

    Messages:
    272
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi again Halfhidden,
    I wasn't suggesting a permanent group of the general public watched over every move or order made by the police chiefs, but after ANY Public outcry about the conduct of officials in ANY department, the general public (Twelve Good Men And True) should be invited to any tribunials or enquiries held (They cost enough of taxpayers money) to make sure the views of the majority could be heard. How many such investigations are held off camera, no reporting, just a prepared statement being issued at the end of a whitewash? Now you may say that they're not whitewash's, but under the present legislation can you say that with hand on your heart? I don't think so! Personally i'm not interested in the details of how the official messed up, or broke their oath, I would like to see a JUST result leading to someone actually being held to their sworn oath and taking responsibility for their mistake. As for Lawyers Doctors and Magistrates being involved in the place of the public, why?? What sense of right or wrong have they got that differs from ours? In fact Lawyers and Magistrates are duty bound to come down on the side of the police on any inquiry held, simply by means of their trade, for surely those trades count on the police for their livelyhood.
    Here's the thing, and it's a fact, any judge or magistrate is obliged to have about his person his sworn oath in any court of law. He cannot function as a Judge without it. If he hasn't got it and you don't ask, he can act beyond his authority in the case he is trying, eg directing the jury to the advantage of the defense. If you want proof of this (and i've done it) walk in to a Magistrates court and ask "Sir are we on record and do you have your oath on your person?" Now that does cause a stir!! They threw my silly case out, I've never heard from them since.
    Here's another little tit-bit, any evidence you may send in to the court about your case (Even if it's only a parking ticket that you know for sure was a fiddle) to the magistrates which you feel may aid your defence and you are relying on that for a fair result, may not even be seen by them at all. It goes to the Clerk of the Court, now if he feels for any reason that the Magistrates don't have to see it, (Hey we're running late) he can quite legally put it in his Court papers and not even mention it, you're guilty by default. The only way a Magistrate will get your notice is if you seal it in an envelope and send it to the Court with your case number on it and FOR THE MAGISTRATES EYES ONLY. written in bold letters. How many people have been fined or worse because of this scenario ?? Do you know what is terrible about this, the fact that you and I were never told. This is happening Country wide, in every court that dishes out fines wholesale.

    I'm finding out quite a few things that they haven't revealed to us, and my question is "WHY". The answer is plain and simple, the more we know the less they can pull the wool over our eyes. That's just it, they don't want us to know their business. The only people that make money from the sham that stands for justice in this country at Magistrates level are The Courts, and the Police. Every political party that's arrived on the British table over the last twenty years has put in their election manifesto, "More Open Government" "More Freedom Of Information" Blah Blah Blah. If there's anyone on this forum that feels more informed after their empty promises, just let me know. There are more secrets being witheld now than ever before, and we now have to wait 100, THAT'S ONE HUNDRED YEARS before some are released under the official secrets act. Can't wait to see those eh ??
     
  7. Halfhidden

    Halfhidden Untouchable Staff Member Administrator

    Messages:
    2,890
    Likes Received:
    944
    Just a small point, magistrates don't instruct jury members.

    Ok I understand you point but a selective body would have to be assembled to make it worth while. In a court the jury is selected from a cross proportion of the public, yet they have trained professionals to guide them to a decision and help understand area's of the law.... even then a judge can strike or instruct that information should be dropped from notice.
    So I doubt a jury style system would work that well.

    I see from your court room scenario that you are suggesting that information is sometimes withheld from the general public as with the case of the oath. I don't see it this way necessarily, I wonder rather than seeing it as information purposely withheld it could be seen as not their duty to inform you of the information in the first place. The law is complex at best and I would urge anyone who lands themselves in court to hire a lawyer.

    I really can't explain why some secrets are withheld but in the vary nature of security and protection secrets would need to be kept. I shudder to think what would happen if every week a list of national secrets were published in the Sun Newspaper. It's a matter of fact that every country has secrets and yes I'll be the first to agree that this can encourage misdoings. Yet we live on the cutting edge of technology and it has become harder and harder for the police to cover up blonder or outright beatings (as in the G20 incident).
    A panel made up of public bodies wouldn't stop this from happening rather they would draw a conclusion as to why and how it happened and if appropriate blame proportion.
     
  8. 46traveller

    46traveller Member

    Messages:
    272
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi Halfhidden,
    I think if you read it again I said "he couldn't function as a Judge without it" Then went on to mention Magistrates.
    What I'm getting at is we should be advised before we go into court about these things (and there's a lot else they don't mention) And I don't know anyone who has attended Court being told about anything like this by their solicitor or defence council. Surely we are entitled to the best defence possible, we pay an arm and a leg to hire Solicitors and Barristers yet they choose to either withold or not mention information which may be of use in your case. This in itself is tantamount to your highly paid representative not giving you all the facts.
    As for it being NOT their duty to inform you of ALL the facts relating to your case, then you are in a second place position from the outset, and you lose even with a solicitor present. Now who would you suggest takes the blame for you losing, you with little knowledge of the Law, or your legal advisor who has studied Law for many years to attain that position (and you have put your faith in), but fails to inform you of facts that have a bearing (No matter how small) on your case.
    I'm not saying that anyone should try to defend themselves, what I am saying is that without FULL disclosure of your options for the upcoming scenario by your legal team, you are entering a situation with less chance of actually winning. Agreed that defence lawyers have no wish to upset the Judge, but that will be at your expence not theirs, they get paid no matter what result.
    Being quite open about it, I am (Hopefully) never going to any court again. But after just finding out a few facts on law, if by some quirk of fate I did have to appear, I know enough now to be able to ask the right questions at the right time from my solicitor to possibly make a difference to the outcome. If not at least I tried.
    My advice to anyone, be it a parking ticket or something else, is to study for yourself the Laws and Acts relating to your case, so that you can ask your solicitor whether or not that is relevant to your situation. Do the "Boy Scout" thing, "Be Prepared" it can't hurt, and all it costs is a few hours on the internet.
    PS
    I don't think the law is complex at all, they just write the Law books in a language that would send normal people to sleep within minutes. Once you begin to see how it is written down, it's really not that hard. Like I say what have you got to lose??
     
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2010
  9. Halfhidden

    Halfhidden Untouchable Staff Member Administrator

    Messages:
    2,890
    Likes Received:
    944
    Well the scenario you painted above didn't include solicitors. You said that you attended court and asked about the oath. You didn't mention that you had a solicitor with you, and if a solicitor was in attendance. then why didn't he/she ask this of the judge. Simply because you didn't know about the oath yourself doesn't mean that every solicitor doesn't either.
    I said that the judge/magistrate does not have a duty to inform you of courtroom duties. It is not their job to advise you on the law, and that what I was saying. They are there to judge and if you go to court unprepared or without representation then that's asking for trouble.

    Basically, if what you say was true and solicitors are withholding facts from you that could loose you a case then you have the right under present legislation for a mistrial.
    Yes that is exactly what anyone should do I agree.
     
  10. 46traveller

    46traveller Member

    Messages:
    272
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi Halfhidden,
    Just by reading and studying various aspects of everyday type Law, returning goods, complaining to your ISP etc. I am now a lot more confident and certain about my rights than ever before. Taking something back to the shop always seemed to turn in to an arguement, and once it has reached that position you're on a losing slope. Now I know how to approach situations, and people, quote my rights as a consumer and judge peoples reactions to my points. That has turned the tables as far as I'm concerned. OK I have plenty of time for study and I'm lucky to have that. One of my sons has now taken an interest in general law and I think it will make him a better person, solely by the fact that he will learn how to take situations and apply his knowledge to it before tempers are raised and everyone loses. Up till now this knowledge has been a sort of "Get Out Clause" for the smart and knowledgable, there's nothing to say we can't be smart.
    I can't ever see "Your Law And Rights" as a curriculum subject in our school system, and on that subject I would recommend the link below. Sir Ken Robinsons speech at the end of a teachers conference. A truly great teacher (Retired Professor) on a subject close to every parents heart.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZIlJN0JVro

    Just Found This, had to put it in.

    Blackstone pointed out that English law was superior to that of other nations because liberty under the law was the purpose of the constitution: "A right of every Englishman is that of applying to the Courts of Justice for redress of injuries. Since the law in England is the supreme arbiter of every man's life, liberty and property, Courts of Justice must at all times be open to the subject, and the law be duly administered therein."
     
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2010

Share This Page