On Fri, 9 May 2008 04:00:43 -0700 (PDT), Maria
wrote:
>On May 9, 9:28 am, MM wrote:
>> On Thu, 8 May 2008 19:15:13 -0700 (PDT), Maria
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On May 8, 9:27 am, MM wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 08 May 2008 03:10:46 +0100, judith
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >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.
>>
>> >> Er, you first have to have engaged in intimidatory behaviour and
>> >> similar unpleasant activity:
>>
>> >> "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 what is the purpose of harrassing them, apart from to give the
>> >police something else to do, and for organs of the state to commit
>> >harrassment? (I understand that the DSS, TV licencing and DVLA are to
>> >be allowed to bug them repeatedly) Are organs of the state allowed to
>> >harrass people? Either they are innocent and should be left alone, or
>> >they are trouble, and should be off the streets. What legal premise is
>> >there for hounding someone who is free, has served their time, and
>> >not on probation or whatever?
>>
>> If they have been engaging in intimidation, burglary, criminal damage,
>> antisocial behaviour, or and vehicle crime, then it's pretty clear
>> they only have themselves to blame when the police arrive to move them
>> on, even if at that precise instant they are behaving like choirboys,
>> or may even be choirboys. You'll know how easy it is for 16-year-olds
>> to act the part, then change like the wind two minutes later!
>
>The rules in the past were that you had to get some evidence and
>prosecute these people and imprison them. It seemed to work. This
>doesn't, *and* it is wrong because it is arbitrary. Very wrong
>because it seriously undermines the cornerstone of our justice system
>and threatens to change it for good away from the notion of innocent
>until *proven* guilty in a court of law.
>Just because we have all become too lazy to care for our own
>neighbourhoods and for one another...now we expect the police and the
>state to do it increasingly. We get what we deserve.
It is not that we have become too lazy to care it is that the right
has been taken away from us
I refer you to Peel's rules of policing |