On Sat, 10 May 2008 16:31:39 +0100, MM wrote:
>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.
>
But they get jobs as cops anyway |