On Thu, 08 May 2008 18:33:48 +0100, judith
wrote:
>On Thu, 08 May 2008 14:39:21 +0100, MM wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 08 May 2008 11:18:09 +0100, judith
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 8 May 2008 07:45:38 +0100, "Dr Zoidberg"
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"judith" wrote in message
>>>>news:c4o424hsceinn3ppd1jtgbkhtg32fsp573@4ax.com...
>>>>> Police should be harassing badly behaved youths by openly filming them
>>>>> and hounding them at home to make their lives as uncomfortable as
>>>>> possible, the home secretary will say today.
>>>>>
>>>>> The crime initiative is part of a government strategy to win back
>>>>> voters by proposing more radical approaches to tackling deep seated
>>>>> problems
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/may/08/police.ukcrime
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ffs - Innocent until ........... the police take a dislike to you.
>>>>
>>>>Surely if they are badly behaved , then they *aren't* innocent?
>>>
>>>Behaved badly - in whose opinion?
>>
>>"The police followed 14 people in their teens and early 20s. Each was
>>well known to the force, having built up criminal records for offences
>>such as intimidation, burglary, criminal damage, antisocial behaviour
>>and vehicle crime."
>>
>>So, which part of intimidation, burglary, criminal damage, antisocial
>>behaviour or vehicle crime did you have trouble in understanding,
>>judith?
>>
>>>I'm sorry - I thought that we were all innocent until proven guilty -
>>>to which we can now add - disliked by the police.
>>
>>But only after having built up criminal records for offences
>>such as intimidation, burglary, criminal damage, antisocial behaviour
>>and vehicle crime.
>>
>>>You're not ex-plod by any chance are you ? You do seem to take their
>>>side/point of view rather a lot.
>>
>>I do exactly the opposite, however, when the police are on the right
>>track I tell 'em so! Fair's fair.
>>
>>MM
>
>
>I couldn't give a monkey's what their previous is. If they are doing
>something illegal - let plod arrest them and charge them.
>
>Does Smith really think that "harassing" and "hounding" someone is the
>answer to any problem.
>
>If you have a drunk driving offence against you - would it be
>reasonable that plod stopped you every time they saw that you were
>driving to check if a breath test was in order.
If they have reason to suspect I could be driving erratically, sure.
As with anyone else.
MM |