On Sat, 10 May 2008 15:46:34 +0100, Cynic
wrote:
>On Sat, 10 May 2008 09:55:29 +0100, MM wrote:
>
>>So you're yet another who thinks it's okay for the police to know who
>>is, or has been, engaging in intimidation, burglary, criminal damage,
>>antisocial behaviour or vehicle crime, but do nothing to make sure the
>>perps get the message not to do it again?
>
>If they know for certain who is doing it, there is obviously
>sufficient evidence to allow a magistrate or jury to *also* know for
>certain.
>
>Therefore ISTM that harrassment is a ridiculously soft option to use -
>the perps should obviously be arrested, charged, convicted and
>sentenced.
>
>Or could it be that they are not quite as certain that the people they
>harrass are as guilty as they say they are?
I'm pretty sure that the police's intent is to warn them off BEFORE
they consider further intimidation etc, much as the local bobby used
to shout at us for riding our bikes with no lights or even speak to
our parents, who promptly gave us a hiding. This is how things once
were. Britain would be a far better place if it returned to that
state. A good dollop of deference wouldn't go amiss, either. Nowadays,
trollops, strumpets, yobs and chavs think they're as good as anyone
else, when patently they aren't.
MM |