Policing reality or political correctness

metman · 19-10-2008 10:29AM #1

TVP Pull out of Road Wars
19-Oct-08

Thames Valley police have pulled out of the reality TV series Road Wars over concerns about the way its officers were being depicted....

Thames Valley police have pulled out of the reality TV series Road Wars over concerns about the way its officers were being depicted.

Chief Constable Sara Thornton has told Bracknell Forest councillors: 'It does not show us in the best light.' Her comments followed claims by Ascot councillor Tony Virgo, a television producer who worked on The Bill, that the popular Sky series showed the force being 'too lenient'.

'There is a lot of bad behaviour, yet nothing is done about it,' said Virgo. 'It makes the police look weak.'

Road Wars followed 14 members of the Thames Valley police road crime unit, known as the 'Tango Victors', and made minor celebrities out of its officers. Thames Valley said in a statement: 'Some clips did not depict the force in a good light. This, though, was not the main reason for us ending our contract with the company.'

Steve Warr, of Raw Cut TV, who produces the programme, said: 'We have had nothing but praise from Thames Valley, with letters saying "Thank you very much and well done", some signed by Sara Thornton.

***************************

Interesting this. I suspect Essex may follow suit with 'Police Interceptors' as this show has also attracted comments that the show portrays officers as rude and overly aggressive.

Is this simply another example of political correctness over common-sense or is it that the powers that be are embarrassed at how the courts continuously let the police down with poor results following high-risk pursuits etc not to mention the Crown Prosecution Service (aka Couldn't Prosecute Satan) being overly unwilling to prosecute.

As an example, while watching Sky Cops this week, it featured an arrest in which I was involved. At the end of the show my mrs commented that it was unbelievable that nearly every one of the jobs featured on the program was resulted with 'no further action' being taken by the police.....but that's the issue; its not the police who decide to let the offenders walk away. It is the CPS/Courts that ultimately decide not to proescute/nfa or give the persistent offender yet another laughable sentence, and in doing so make the police look ineffective in dealing with those that feature in reality police shows.

deadwood · 19-10-2008 11:48AM

I think this show, street wars et al show the practical side of policing. We all aspire to live in communities where a bobby on the beat doffing his cap to the vicar. Unfortunately, this day has passed, as far as public order and crime detection go. If these shows represent typical policing in the UK, it shows how the Gardai are providing a service summed up by "we've been getting away with it this way so far".

In the commentary on these shows, it seems obvious to me that joe bloggs not being prosecuted is not the fault of the bobby who has been rolling around the street with him on a Saturday night.

I would think the public view these shows with some admiration for police who meet like with like. God forbid they make the odd smart comment to social deviants, poor dears.

Dave! · 19-10-2008 11:57AM

Ahh that's a shame... I actually watch Street Wars and Road Wars very regularly and think they're fantastic shows. I don't believe they show the police as being lenient or anything other than professional tbh. It's refreshing to have a show on tv that (a) introduces a bit more transparency to the police, and (b) shows that they're just normal people. I would have thought it does alot of good for the police to have shows like this which engage with the public.

Perhaps they're worried that the officers in the show are becoming some sort of minor celebrities and so it makes them look unprofessional / diminishes their authority?

I dunno. Shame though.

FGR · 19-10-2008 02:12PM

I was beginning to wonder how the higher-up ranks in TVP would have reacted to the unbelievable amount of 'cautions' their officers are required to administer for what can be, to some people, quite serious offences.

I remember they were trying to put Section 3 MDA down as something for an Adult Caution; nevermind the other offences that are listed for it and shouldn't be there.

If they ever do produce a Garda-like show; it'll only show how so many people get away with so much and how the system really needs to toughen up.

EDIT: for the record those men and women are excellent officers. There cannot be any doubt about that.

Eru · 19-10-2008 02:26PM

metman wrote: »

Her comments followed claims by Ascot councillor Tony Virgo, a television producer who worked on The Bill, that the popular Sky series showed the force being 'too lenient'.

Theres your problem, a TV producer on a cop show telling real police how it should be done instead of the other way around.

metman wrote: »

'There is a lot of bad behaviour, yet nothing is done about it,' said Virgo. 'It makes the police look weak.

metman wrote: »

the show portrays officers as rude and overly aggressive

Hmmmm, now theres a case of no win situation. Personaly I think the shows were pretty good, they showed the reality of policing. Boredom, the monday morning quarterbacks and how good work is proving a waste of time when it hits the courts.

I remember one of the shows where the guys grabbed a sandwich while they were watching someone and this git came out of a shop and starting moaning that he had been watching them sit there eating for the past 5 minutes and is that what tax money is for, blah blah. It was great to see him on camera being firmly put in his place.

metman · 19-10-2008 02:41PM

ForegoneReality wrote: »

unbelievable amount of 'cautions' their officers are required to administer for what can be, to some people, quite serious offences.

You have raised a very valid point there, and it is around this that the whole 'detections culture' revolves in UK policing....this is what rank and file want done away with as it substitutes court appearances with box-ticking.

The issue is this. The response team/specialist unit risk their necks in a high speed pursuit and wind up rolling around with a nasty villain, possibly getting injured into the bargain. Public property has been damaged in the pursuit, and officers lives put at risk, as well as them being assaulted on arrest. Once the prisoner is booked in, it is (usually) then picked up by a prisoner processing team who have little interest in what happened prior to them picking up the job and simply want the job cleared. Herein lies the rub. The job can be cleared as effectively (stats-wise) by giving the person a caution or a ticket as it can by charging that person. So more often than not, because there is no ownership taken of the job, a caution is seen as the easy result, a box is ticked for the prisoner processing team and no one has to go to court. Response team/Specialist unit only hear the result months later (if they hear the result at all). Chances are the assault police is ignored (as its seen as something the CPS is reluctant to charge and the courts do little about anyways....) as is the damage to public property (or its dealt with by way of ticket; so you get two tickey boxes).

However when the courts hand out consistently disappointing sentences, its hard to argue that a court appearance would guarantee a better result.

This is why the persistent offenders are laughing at the system. If this is why the Chief of TVP is opting out of Road Wars its pathetic and avoids tackling the issue at hand.

James_UK · 19-10-2008 03:01PM

Oh hell no

. I love that show (Road Wars, Police Int., Sky Cops and whatever others I can find). What a load of rubbish. Of course there's going to be situations where the public are not fully in understanding of what kind of situation the officers are in. There have been VERY few episodes where I have said "Oh... that's a little rough." but the MAJORITY (98% I'd say) are dealt with accordingly.

I remember watching it with a friend of mine who had no idea I wanted to join the P.S.N.I but knew I loved all that stuff, he was sitting beside me and we watched an episode were two officers where going around an estate (Male & Female Officer) and they saw a gang of youths, the female officer approached them and had a word about what they were doing. Whilst this was going on, the male officer spotted someone fiddling about in their pockets a few meters away (This happened off the screen at the time) but he started to struggle with the officer and was assaulting him, the female officer tried to help get him off but then took her asp (I think they're called that?) to him, struck him once and stunned him, the usual happened, friends crowded, a lot of shouting and struggling and the rest. My friend got really into it and started saying

"What a load of s**t! They didn't need to whack him!"

I kind of 'lost it' and started going on at him about it, "What would you have done if you were working and someone assaulted your work college?"

Anyway! Moral to that really stupid story is, people DON'T understand the problems that happen whilst on the job, and I think that should be addressed instead of axing the contract.

Rant over

JUK =] x

Dave! · 19-10-2008 03:35PM

I didn't notice any inappropriate amount of cautions being issued by the police tbh... but what I DO notice in all honesty is when the [narrator] tells the outcome of the arrest and it's very often "X was given 10 hours community service / released without charge / fined 55 pence", etc., which I thought undermined the work the police actually do to some degree.

TheNog · 19-10-2008 03:48PM

For the love of god please don't kill off Road Wars. I fully agree with Karlito on this that the programme producer (and also a councillor) made a bloody idiotic comment of the lads being too lenient. What does he want Robocops so the show can bring in more ratings??

Whether we like it or not all police forces in the developed world have entered into an era of accountability and transparency and shows like Road Wars do exactly that. It shows the general public how policing is done and how it has changed over time. If a problem is identified even on the show, don't try to hide it, improve and learn from it. And so what if the lads were made mini celebrities in the mean time. Ever heard of ROLE MODELS!!!!

As you can gather at this stage I am a big fan of transparency, this show and hopefully the Garda show does that. The day of "We will tackle crime with our wits and determination" is just not good enough these days. Better equipment, communication and along with community support is the way forward along with complete transparency ( as complete as poosible) and accountability.

And why the hell should the police be trying to protect the image of the courts who are unwilling to hand out severe sentences. Should we go back to when a fella gets off with a suspeneded sentence and the police gets the blame? Why not show the courts for what they are?

FFS I'm so fookin pissed off

eroo · 19-10-2008 03:54PM

Tbh, I don't really watch many 'police shows'. But I am a fan of Street CrimeUK on a Sunday morning or some other show called Crime Britain or something.

The reason I didn't watch Road Wars was because I thought the format was bad. Follow around the same 12 officers for a couple of series? Your asking for trouble. It becomes a realistic version of The Bill imo. Whereas Street Crime UK do 1 shift with a team/unit and that's it. You are given an insight into policing and what a shift can be like, and that's it. You probably won't remember any of the officers names, but you will have an increased amount of respect for the police officers who put up with what is seen in the episodes.

James_UK · 19-10-2008 03:55PM

TheNog wrote: »

For the love of god please don't kill off Road Wars. I fully agree with Karlito on this that the programme producer (and also a councillor) made a bloody idiotic comment of the lads being too lenient. What does he want Robocops so the show can bring in more ratings??

Whether we like it or not all police forces in the developed world have entered into an era of accountability and transparency and shows like Road Wars do exactly that. It shows the general public how policing is done and how it has changed over time. If a problem is identified even on the show, don't try to hide it, improve and learn from it. And so what if the lads were made mini celebrities in the mean time. Ever heard of ROLE MODELS!!!!

As you can gather at this stage I am a big fan of transparency, this show and hopefully the Garda show does that. The day of "We will tackle crime with our wits and determination" is just not good enough these days. Better equipment, communication and along with community support is the way forward along with complete transparency ( as complete as poosible) and accountability.

And why the hell should the police be trying to protect the image of the courts who are unwilling to hand out severe sentences. Should we go back to when a fella gets off with a suspeneded sentence and the police gets the blame? Why not show the courts for what they are?

FFS I'm so fookin pissed off

Fully Agree! Good one Nog

JUK

James_UK · 19-10-2008 03:56PM

eroo wrote: »

Tbh, I don't really watch many 'police shows'. But I am a fan of Street CrimeUK on a Sunday morning or some other show called Crime Britain or something.

The reason I didn't watch Road Wars was because I thought the format was bad. Follow around the same 12 officers for a couple of series? Your asking for trouble. It becomes a realistic version of The Bill imo. Whereas Street Crime UK do 1 shift with a team/unit and that's it. You are given an insight into policing and what a shift can be like, and that's it. You probably won't remember any of the officers names, but you will have an increased amount of respect for the police officers who put up with what is seen in the episodes.

I suppose peoples taste in the way the programs are set out is different, totally understand where you are coming from.

JUK

metman · 19-10-2008 06:27PM

Eroo - I agree with you that celeb-coppers isn't always an idea. I know that with Police Interceptors some divisional officers are unhappy that the show gives the impression that the ANPR team deal with routine stuff a la response team, when in actual fact they don't....unless the cameras are present and nothing better is going on! Take away the cameras and you can't get an ANPR bod for love nor money.... The same with the Proactive Unit in TVP.

As regards transparency, I always thought it strange and lacking in foresight that AGS didn't jump on the tv bandwagon and use it as a way of upping the public image and facilitating better understanding at the same time, as has been done with the multitude of UK cop shows. Lets be honest, love them or hate them these type of shows are popular. Why? Not because joe public loves the Police, but rather as the shows afford a glimpse into a world that joe public isn't privvy to....and everyone loves a good nosey.

deadwood · 19-10-2008 06:30PM

ForegoneReality wrote: »

I remember they were trying to put Section 3 MDA down as something for an Adult Caution; nevermind the other offences that are listed for it and shouldn't be there.

It'd save a lot of messing about sending away tiny samples of 'personal'. An on the spot fine would be a good way to go. Off topic, though!

FGR · 19-10-2008 11:39PM

deadwood wrote: »

It'd save a lot of messing about sending away tiny samples of 'personal'. An on the spot fine would be a good way to go. Off topic, though!

I wholeheartedly agree! And back on topic I just want to clarify that I do no believe the officers themselves were too 'leniant' but that in the majority of cases they really have no choice but to issue the caution. Metman got it in one..except we don't have prisoner processing teams.

The problem is that the public won't see that it's the system that's to blame. They'll blame the police for it all. Shame, really..

...Gee..Wouldn't it be nice to just tell the SHO the offence and let them deal with the perp after that? Ahh.../dreams :rolleyes:

Eru · 20-10-2008 11:04AM

ForegoneReality wrote: »

I wholeheartedly agree! And back on topic I just want to clarify that I do no believe the officers themselves were too 'leniant' but that in the majority of cases they really have no choice but to issue the caution. Metman got it in one..except we don't have prisoner processing teams.

The problem is that the public won't see that it's the system that's to blame. They'll blame the police for it all. Shame, really..

...Gee..Wouldn't it be nice to just tell the SHO the offence and let them deal with the perp after that? Ahh.../dreams :rolleyes:

We operated a custody team for years, you didnt even go back with the prisoner. Filled out a form and that was that. In the last few years it seems to have stopped and there is far more lads stuck in the station now.

Johnny Utah · 20-10-2008 03:33PM

Watch Road Wars, Night Cops etc a fair bit. There are some good cops on Road Wars, but also some bad ones too- rude, aggressive, searching without reasonable suspicion and so on. And, that's what they show on camera!

deadwood · 20-10-2008 03:34PM

I'll say it before someone else does:

"...into the back of a van and drive them up the Dublin Mountains...." (I'd suggest driving them down into a valley - anyone can walk down a mountain cue the north-face jacket brigade "in actual fact, more accidents happen when cloimbers ore, loike, walking down the mountain")

and

"...political correctness gone mad."

donvito99 · 22-10-2008 02:14PM

Your man Waller on Road Wars is a bit...unsensitive.

Although all the others are great,mish,charlie,conrad,simon,daz etc.

Johnny Utah · 24-10-2008 07:14PM

donvito99 wrote: »

Your man Waller on Road Wars is a bit...unsensitive.

Although all the others are great,mish,charlie,conrad,simon,daz etc.

He's very unprofessional. I've seen him throwing people to the ground (unjustifiably) and then pushing their head into the ground. Doesn't deserve to be a copper. Ignorant fat fooker.

civdef · 24-10-2008 09:14PM

You're qualified professionally to make that assessment I take it?

metman · 24-10-2008 09:31PM

CD +1.

Johnny Utah.....:rolleyes:

Eru · 25-10-2008 02:25AM

metman wrote: »

CD +1.

Johnny Utah.....:rolleyes:

Ah good aul Johnny.

Johnny Utah · 31-10-2008 01:17AM

Snide comments and rolleyes aside, anyone with an ounce of common sense would accept that you do not aggressively push a person's face into the ground. Maybe in a life or death scenario you might have to, but not in the case where a chav has merely made an insulting remark to our friend Waller.

I've also seen Conrad & Simon stopping and searching people without reasonable suspicion. And, yes I am "qualified" to make that statement, thanks.

It's funny how some posters here are allowed to pontificate about the judiciary and the prosecution process, matters which they clearly have a poor understanding of, yet I am attacked the minute I mention the over-aggressive antics of an overweight copper.

deadwood · 31-10-2008 10:28AM

Johnny Utah wrote: »

And, yes I am "qualified" to make that statement, thanks.

Not an attack, but how are you qualified to make that statement? Just interested.
You'll find the posters here will happily argue the toss with anyone when they know what angle they're coming from.

Eru · 31-10-2008 01:06PM

Johnny Utah wrote: »

Snide comments and rolleyes aside, anyone with an ounce of common sense would accept that you do not aggressively push a person's face into the ground. Maybe in a life or death scenario you might have to, but not in the case where a chav has merely made an insulting remark to our friend Waller.

How do you 'restrain' a prisoner without using force? I would love to know.

Johnny Utah wrote: »

I've also seen Conrad & Simon stopping and searching people without reasonable suspicion. And, yes I am "qualified" to make that statement, thanks.

Well evidently the courts and superiors agreed with them and not you as they werent sued or taken to task. How are you qualified? Whats reasonable suspicion? Please, tell us the definition and ingredients.

Johnny Utah wrote: »

It's funny how some posters here are allowed to pontificate about the judiciary and the prosecution process, matters which they clearly have a poor understanding of

Examples please, when and where have police officers made incorrect statements about the law and justice system?

Johnny Utah wrote: »

yet I am attacked the minute I mention the over-aggressive antics of an overweight copper.

You werent attacked, its just that your like a broken record now. Constant negative comments against the police without having a clue about our jobs.

TheNog · 31-10-2008 01:16PM

Johnny Utah wrote: »

Snide comments and rolleyes aside, anyone with an ounce of common sense would accept that you do not aggressively push a person's face into the ground. Maybe in a life or death scenario you might have to, but not in the case where a chav has merely made an insulting remark to our friend Waller.

I've also seen Conrad & Simon stopping and searching people without reasonable suspicion. And, yes I am "qualified" to make that statement, thanks.

It's funny how some posters here are allowed to pontificate about the judiciary and the prosecution process, matters which they clearly have a poor understanding of, yet I am attacked the minute I mention the over-aggressive antics of an overweight copper.

Johnny

I think that if you maybe phrased your post a little differently so it wouldn't be bordering on flaming, the replies would have been as such to reflect your thoughts. We all here are not against discussion and a little moaning too but posts that appear to be a little aggressive in nature are not welcome.

Anyway to reply to your post: Aggression is sometimes part and parcel of policing especially when trying to affect an arrest on a violent or non-compliant person. Believe it or not pushing a persons face into the ground is used to control that person. It is difficult to get handcuffs onto a person when they don't want to go into them. Many people will buck their bodies, including their heads to prevent them being arrested and some even intentionally hit their faces to cause themselves injury and blame it on the Police. So to prevent this the face will be pushed to the ground and either held there with a hand or as I prefer my knee although using enough force to keep the head there and prevent movement but not to cause injury. You see this technique ensures the safety of the prisoner and the officer effecting the arrest. Also it is good to point out that some people will try to bite officers and again holding the head prevents injuries to the officers.

I realise that pushing a persons face into the ground seems degrading but safety and reasonable use of force is paramount.

metman · 31-10-2008 07:49PM

Johnny Utah wrote: »

Snide comments and rolleyes aside, anyone with an ounce of common sense would accept that you do not aggressively push a person's face into the ground.

I've done similar actions in the course of my service, all of which have been justified.

Maybe in a life or death scenario you might have to, but not in the case where a chav has merely made an insulting remark to our friend Waller.

Your post, in this respect, indicates a complete ignorance of operational policing; use of force is a tactical option available to an officer provided said use is proportionate, appropriate, lawful and necessary. I've used force on many an occasion. It does not have to be life or death to justify using force, far from it.

I've also seen Conrad & Simon stopping and searching people without reasonable suspicion. And, yes I am "qualified" to make that statement, thanks.

I can see from your attention to detail vis a vis the Road Wars show, that you are a regular viewer. I also detect that you are probably either a lawyer/law student and feel eminently qualified to comment on the legality of stops carried out by officers on the program. Ultimately you are not qualified to make such a comment. Until such time as you sit on the bench presiding over a case involving such a stop, you are a layman like every other civilian. Officers have powers that you do not have, and have to justify their usage in a court of law. If they stray outside their powers, or get it wrong, then they either get disciplined or at minimum lose their job in court. All the people you have complained about are still serving Police Officers. Draw our own conclusions.....or maybe not.

It's funny how some posters here are allowed to pontificate about the judiciary and the prosecution process, matters which they clearly have a poor understanding of, yet I am attacked the minute I mention the over-aggressive antics of an overweight copper.

I pontificate that your posts indicate too much pontificating and not enough action outside of the law library.

Johnny Utah · 31-10-2008 11:02PM

TheNog wrote: »

Johnny

I think that if you maybe phrased your post a little differently so it wouldn't be bordering on flaming, the replies would have been as such to reflect your thoughts. We all here are not against discussion and a little moaning too but posts that appear to be a little aggressive in nature are not welcome.

Okay, sorry about my previous post. I wasn't flaming, was just a bit annoyed by some of the previous comments.

TheNog wrote: »

Anyway to reply to your post: Aggression is sometimes part and parcel of policing especially when trying to affect an arrest on a violent or non-compliant person. Believe it or not pushing a persons face into the ground is used to control that person. It is difficult to get handcuffs onto a person when they don't want to go into them. Many people will buck their bodies, including their heads to prevent them being arrested and some even intentionally hit their faces to cause themselves injury and blame it on the Police. So to prevent this the face will be pushed to the ground and either held there with a hand or as I prefer my knee although using enough force to keep the head there and prevent movement but not to cause injury. You see this technique ensures the safety of the prisoner and the officer effecting the arrest. Also it is good to point out that some people will try to bite officers and again holding the head prevents injuries to the officers.

I realise that pushing a persons face into the ground seems degrading but safety and reasonable use of force is paramount.

I understand that, and you've given a very good explanation of why reasonable force is used. In the incident I remember, I thought that Waller was overly aggressive in his use of force.

To give a bit of balance, I'll give you another example. There's a cop on the show Night Cops (I think but it could be another show). I can't remember his name, but he is an ex-Marine, and I'd consider that he's a very good copper. There was an incident where a fella was banging the van, and he gave yer man a chance to stop it and walk away. He refused and was becoming more aggressive, so they decided to arrest him. I think there were 3 cops on the scene at the time. He was a fairly big lad too, so it took 2 of them to take him down, and the third cop (the ex-marine) managed to hold the fella's head with two hands as he was being taken down. He still held yer man's head when he was being cuffed on the ground, without pushing it into the ground, if that makes sense. It was actually very skilfully done, and the arestee's head/face was protected at all times. It just struck me that the way they went about it on Nighcops was a lot safer, and more professional than the method Waller used (and as it happens the arrestee was far more aggressive in the Nightcops example).

deadwood wrote: »

Not an attack, but how are you qualified to make that statement? Just interested.
You'll find the posters here will happily argue the toss with anyone when they know what angle they're coming from.

I don't want to get into specifics on an internet forum. I hope you respect this, but I can assure you that I'm not pretending to be something I'm not. I have experience in the area.

Karlitosway1978 wrote: »

How do you 'restrain' a prisoner without using force? I would love to know..

I never said that the police should not be allowed to use reasonable force. I'm against the police using excessive force in situations where it is unjustified.

Karlitosway1978 wrote: »

Well evidently the courts and superiors agreed with them and not you as they werent sued or taken to task..

Ah, it's not that simple- you and I both know that.

Firstly, a lot of lay people do not fully understand the powers of stop + search, and therefore are unlikely to make a complaint in the first instance. Secondly, a lot of people are reluctant to even make a complaint on any matter against the police.

Furthermore, at summary trial in the DC, it is unlikely that the question of whether there was sufficient reasonable suspicion will even be brought up. I'm sure you know what it's like in the DC- overcrowded and not enough time to deal with that sort of legal argument. Maybe in the CC if you have a sharp Junior Counsel, then perhaps it will be dealt with.
In the case on Road Wars that I'm thinking of, they found a small quantity of cannabis, which obviously would end up in the DC (orthe English equivalent) if it was prosecuted. Accordingly, very unlikely to be questioned on how reasonable suspicion to search arose in a case like this.

However, even if the issue of reasonable suspicion is raised at trial, then there's a strong chance that the Guard will either try to rely on "confidential sources", or else he will say that 'he saw the accused put something in his pocket', or 'he passed something to his friend' etc. Therefore, the lack of sufficient reasonable suspicion is something that is actually quite difficult to prove even if it does arise at trial.

Karlitosway1978 wrote: »

How are you qualified? Whats reasonable suspicion? Please, tell us the definition and ingredients.

Reasonable suspicion: there must be some evidence, information or circumstance upon which the Guard/Police Officer can decide that a search would be appropriate. Whether the evidence/information/circumstance amounts to reasonable suspicion is to be judged by objective standards.

Examples might include; reliable confidential information received that such a person is involved in a drug deal, the sight of a person acting like they are dealing drugs, where a person is known to local Guards as having numerous previous convictions for possession of drugs, the presence of a smell of drugs from a car, a person frequenting an area/house that is notorious for drug dealing, etc. It’s common sense basically.

It’s also important to point out that if evidence is obtained on foot of an illegal search, this does not mean that reasonable suspicion was present. Therefore, the lack of reasonable suspicion would make a search illegal. By the same token, if the results of a search of a person prove negative it does not mean that the initial suspicion which formed the basis for the search was unreasonable in the first instance.

Karlitosway1978 wrote: »

Examples please, when and where have police officers made incorrect statements about the law and justice system?

You werent attacked, its just that your like a broken record now. Constant negative comments against the police without having a clue about our jobs.

I never said that police officers made incorrect statements about the law. I said that some posters had a poor understanding of how the criminal justice system operates. Jibes like 'can't prosecute satan', sentencing too lenient, etc. Do you know how long it takes to get to the position of a CC, or HC judge? Do you think you're in a better position to sit on the bench and hand out appropriate sentences? Personally, I think that the position judiciary should be respected; they're in a better position to act as judges by virtue of their knowledge, expertise, and years of experience.

As for the CPS, well they need solid evidence in order to secure a conviction. Often, this is clearly lacking so it would be futile to even run a case- simple as that. And, furthermore, it takes time to build a case. They're doing a job like the rest of us, give them a break.

I'm sorry if I came across like a 'broken record' in my previous post, but I was just a bit annoyed about some of the previous comments. Apologies but no harm intended.

metman wrote: »

I've done similar actions in the course of my service, all of which have been justified.

Often use of force is justified in circumstances far below what you describe..

Yes, I know reasonable force is allowed in many other circumstances. I was just giving an example of where the force used is more than usual, ie. a life or death scenario.

metman wrote: »

I can see from your attention to detail vis a vis the Road Wars show, that you are a regular viewer. I also detect that you are probably either a lawyer/law student and feel eminently qualified to comment on the legality of stops carried out by officers on the program. Ultimately you are not qualified to make such a comment. Until such time as you sit on the bench presiding over a case involving such a stop, you are a layman like every other civilian. Officers have powers that you do not have, and have to justify their usage in a court of law. If they stray outside their powers, or get it wrong, then they either get disciplined or at minimum lose their job in court. All the people you have complained about are still serving Police Officers. Draw our own conclusions.....or maybe not.

I wouldn't describe myself as a regular viewer. If nothing else is on (and it usually isn't at that hour), then yes I'll watch it, but I don't follow it every week.

And, how do you know that I'm not sitting on the bench. I could be Murray CJ for all you know;) I was merely making an observation on an incident in the show. No need to get up on your high horse, it's not as if I was making a complaint against the officers- I was just making an observation. And despite what you say, I am in a different position to a lay person as I understand the issues involved.

Finally, the officers wouldn't lose their job for carrying out an illegal search. Don't be silly, maybe a slap on the wrist, but I seriously doubt they'd lose their jobs.

metman wrote: »

I pontificate that your posts indicate too much pontificating and not enough action outside of the law library.

No need to get nasty.

metman · 31-10-2008 11:21PM

Johnny Utah wrote: »

Finally, the officers wouldn't lose their job for carrying out an illegal search. Don't be silly, maybe a slap on the wrist, but I seriously doubt they'd lose their jobs.

No need to get nasty.

What a smug and conceited post that is :rolleyes:

First off, none of the officers on the show conduct illegal searches. In the unlikely event they did it would not feature on the program.

On the other hand, had officers engaged in an illegal search they would be looking at serious disciplinary measures.

<SNIP>

Eru · 01-11-2008 12:35AM

metman wrote: »

What a smug and conceited post that is :rolleyes:

First off, none of the officers on the show conduct illegal searches. In the unlikely event they did it would not feature on the program.

On the other hand, had officers engaged in an illegal search they would be looking at serious disciplinary measures.

What Johnny is attempting is called trolling.

Johnny is a student or barrack room lawyer.

Its evident in his refusal to state anything to back up his claims. I mean you know my name, rank and station as well as Nogs and vice versa. We all know a little about eachother without fear of the internet gremlins getting us but hey, lets just trust Johnny and a few others.

Besides, when the hell does a judge refuse to allow the defence question a Gardas power based on time limits? Its probable one of the most common angles employed in drugs and drink driving cases.

Policing reality or political correctness

Comments