Current Affairs The Labour Party

[zzr45]

Abbott's only worried about the Pizza Delivery Boy getting knocked off on the way round to hers. Again.

 

[zzr45]

She isn't wrong. I know someone that got knocked off his bike some years ago, and is now unable to walk as a result.

The focus should be placed firmly on targeting the reasons for crime.

• Social and racial inequality.
• Police cuts.

Oh look. Another situation where you have personal experience of something happening to close down debate.

She is wrong. It's not being done by every Tom Dick and Harry on the force, it's done by people with training and has halved the instances of moped relate crime by nearly half since it was implemented. Rather than having Police act as souped up social workers, maybe it's time that those that want to flout the laws of the country are treated accordingly.

 

[Number_25]

Oh look. Another situation where you have personal experience of something happening to close down debate.

I speak from personal experience. I apologise if this offends you, but it is what it is. I wouldn't want to inflict that on anyone, so would actively advocate for it not to happen - regardless of prevailing circumstance.

She is wrong. It's not being done by every Tom [Poor language removed] and Harry on the force, it's done by people with training and has halved the instances of moped relate crime by nearly half since it was implemented. Rather than having Police act as souped up social workers, maybe it's time that those that want to flout the laws of the country are treated accordingly.

Unmitigated circumstances come to mind here. Regardless of however well trained you are, there exists a chance that things could go ballsup and someone (an innocent person, in the eyes of the law may I dd) could get seriously hurt.

I'd much rather us fund our police properly, and then work with the communities in which these sorts of crime are most prevalent to understand their concerns and then actively seek to alleviate them.

You can't go around and pretend that this is a choice that people actively seek to take.

 

[zzr45]

I speak from personal experience. I apologise if this offends you, but it is what it is. I wouldn't want to inflict that on anyone, so would actively advocate for it not to happen - regardless of prevailing circumstance.



Unmitigated circumstances come to mind here. Regardless of however well trained you are, there exists a chance that things could go ballsup and someone (an innocent person, in the eyes of the law may I dd) could get seriously hurt.

I'd much rather us fund our police properly, and then work with the communities in which these sorts of crime are most prevalent to understand their concerns and then actively seek to alleviate them.

You can't go around and pretend that this is a choice that people actively seek to take.

Come off it. By the same logic the police shouldn't chase and apprehend people fleeing from a crime in case they hurt them and they shouldn't look to use tactical stopping methods in car chases. There's a risk of people being injured, but to use the old quote, 'live by the sword, die by the sword.' If people want to be criminals then they need to accept the circumstances that come with it.

And it's laughable that you say this isn't a choice people actively take. It is. You can go and get a job, no matter how unglamorous it may be, or you can decide to get on your moped, throw acid in someones face and take their belongings. This isn't someone going and nicking a loaf of bread from a bakery to survive, it's pure unadulterated theft. Excusing it as people having no other chance to survive is exactly the wrong approach. The softly, softly approach clearly hasn't worked, its time to make people think very carefully about their actions.

 

[Number_25]

Come off it. By the same logic the police shouldn't chase and apprehend people fleeing from a crime in case they hurt them and they shouldn't look to use tactical stopping methods in car chases. There's a risk of people being injured, but to use the old quote, 'live by the sword, die by the sword.' If people want to be criminals then they need to accept the circumstances that come with it.

I think you misunderstand my point. The issue is about minimising risk. It's important to understand that, in the eyes of the law, these people are innocent until proven otherwise. It's important that we don't ignore that fact.

And it's laughable that you say this isn't a choice people actively take. It is. You can go and get a job, no matter how unglamorous it may be, or you can decide to get on your moped, throw acid in someones face and take their belongings. This isn't someone going and nicking a loaf of bread from a bakery to survive, it's pure unadulterated theft. Excusing it as people having no other chance to survive is exactly the wrong approach. The softly, softly approach clearly hasn't worked, its time to make people think very carefully about their actions.

I've been to 3 cities over the past 3 weeks. In each and every one, the people doing the remedial work were members of the BAME community. I spoke to a lass at a conference centre yesterday, and she has a Masters in something Biology related - but had been working there since graduating 3 years ago. It was telling on the tube this morning that the vast majority of "well dressed" people were white, whilst the ones dressed for work such as cleaning were BAME.

It's this sort of gross racial disparity that needs to be addressed first. Imagine being told that you need to be proud of belonging to a country that doesn't respect you enough to give you a job worth having? How angry would it make you?

I also fail to understand the "softly, softly approach". We have some of the most regressive legislation when it comes to dealing with these issues.

 

[zzr45]

I think you misunderstand my point. The issue is about minimising risk. It's important to understand that, in the eyes of the law, these people are innocent until proven otherwise. It's important that we don't ignore that fact.

And the risk is being minimised, it's being carried out by trained officers in pursuit of criminals. It's not knocking random lads off mopeds.

I've been to 3 cities over the past 3 weeks. In each and every one, the people doing the remedial work were members of the BAME community. I spoke to a lass at a conference centre yesterday, and she has a Masters in something Biology related - but had been working there since graduating 3 years ago. It was telling on the tube this morning that the vast majority of "well dressed" people were white, whilst the ones dressed for work such as cleaning were BAME.

It's this sort of gross racial disparity that needs to be addressed first. Imagine being told that you need to be proud of belonging to a country that doesn't respect you enough to give you a job worth having? How angry would it make you?

I also fail to understand the "softly, softly approach". We have some of the most regressive legislation when it comes to dealing with these issues.

'Kin hell. Again you've got the inside scoop on something, terrific. You've painted this a race thing and honestly it seems so wide of the mark it's actually untrue. Your suggestion is that this country is telling the BAME Community that all they are good for is remedial work? And that all whites get streamlined into a good job? What are you smoking?

It has nothing to do with racial inequality, there's as many young white lads in the videos of mopeds getting clipped as there are blacks. Your lame attempt to frame it otherwise is half the issue with the world today.

 

[tsubaki]

Unmitigated circumstances come to mind here. Regardless of however well trained you are, there exists a chance that things could go ballsup and someone (an innocent person, in the eyes of the law may I dd) could get seriously hurt.

I'd much rather us fund our police properly, and then work with the communities in which these sorts of crime are most prevalent to understand their concerns and then actively seek to alleviate them.

This is why she (and everyone who can tbh, but especially the Shadow Home Secretary) should have made it their business to find out what Police are doing, how they do it and how these things are managed. I agree with the point that this should be something Parliament discussed (if for no other reason that they've been keen to tell police what to do but less keen to provide a legal framework to protect them when they do it - and there still isn't any protection for cops or the control room staff when they carry out these tactics), but quite a lot of what she wrote appeared to suggest that she was responding to a headline rather than reporting what she had found out.

For a start, if she had looked into it then she would have found that this only happens for people suspected of serious and/or organized crime, and is only carried out by specially trained drivers in suitable vehicles who have been specifically authorised to take that action after a risk assessment by a more senior officer in the control room who has been specifically trained to risk assess and manage pursuits (and who has access to pursuit tactical advice).

More importantly, it only takes place in order to resolve a pursuit, to stop the pursuit in a controlled way - which is vastly superior to the alternative of allowing a pursuit to continue and put the moped riders / the public / the cops at a much greater risk. Quite a lot of the reason why the current pursuit tactics, supervision / support and policy were brought in is because what has happened in the recent past - the Henry Hicks case for example.

You can't go around and pretend that this is a choice that people actively seek to take.

The problem with most of these offences is that this is actually something that they actively seek to do; it is organized at a considerable level (to obtain the nicked mopeds, to fence the large number of phones stolen, to find out where to carry out these offences etc). This isn't someone going into Harvey Nichols and pinching a bag.

 

[PhilM]

I think you misunderstand my point. The issue is about minimising risk. It's important to understand that, in the eyes of the law, these people are innocent until proven otherwise. It's important that we don't ignore that fact.

Let's also not ignore the important fact that it is entirely lawful for a constable to detain an individual if they 'reasonably' believe that:

- Someone has committed an offence,
- Is in the process of committing an offence
- Is about to commit an offence.

Let us also not ignore the simple fact that you are lawfully obliged to stop a vehicle, if asked to do so by a constable, and failure to do so is committing an offence.

As @tsubaki also correctly mentions, this isn't done on a whim by any or everyone, but rather is a trained tactic to stop and detain individuals involved in S&OC.

I totally agree with needing to focus on long-term causes, yet a blasé approach to actually fulfilling a duty - to uphold the law - is in itself reckless.

 

[Number_25]

I do apologise. I think I may have misread the initial article. I'll have to read it sometime tonight and reflect on it.

If I have made a mistake, I hope you understand it's a misunderstanding.

 

[tsubaki]

I do apologise. I think I may have misread the initial article. I'll have to read it sometime tonight and reflect on it.

If I have made a mistake, I hope you understand it's a misunderstanding.

Don't apologise - if this episode has proved anything its that very few of our political leaders understand what actually happens, and the moment one of these goes wrong you will be completely unable to find MPs "standing up for our Police".

 

[Harryflashman]

Don't apologise - if this episode has proved anything its that very few of our political leaders understand what actually happens, and the moment one of these goes wrong you will be completely unable to find MPs "standing up for our Police".

Similar the coppers who carry firearms i’m Not sure i’d Be too happy being the one who actually instigates the collision . At the moment it’s all press releases , tea and medals but the first serious or potentially life change injury they could quite easy find themselves in the crown court tightly holding a rail .

 

[zzr45]

Haha get out you crap nodding dog. Not even fit to run their own families, let alone the country.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-46414207

And to close the wet socialist farts down, I don’t care that she’s black or a woman. It’s the general fact they dictate the way the country should be run, when really their children should be in jail for drug dealing but mummy has powerful friends.

 

[Walken]

Haha get out you crap nodding dog. Not even fit to run their own families, let alone the country.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-46414207

And to close the wet socialist farts down, I don’t care that she’s black or a woman. It’s the general fact they dictate the way the country should be run, when really their children should be in jail for drug dealing but mummy has powerful friends.

This post is laced with hilarious irony in terms of complaining about 'powerful parents' on the left and also downright nastiness in openly laughing at someones family problems. You are everything I have come to expect from the right wing

 

[zzr45]

This post is laced with hilarious irony in terms of complaining about 'powerful parents' on the left and also downright nastiness in openly laughing at someones family problems. You are everything I have come to expect from the right wing

That’s alright mate. I didn’t go to a private school like scummy little son or threaten journalists like scummy mummy. So take your little socialist nonsense and throw yourself down a well with it.

 

[Walken]

That’s alright mate. I didn’t go to a private school and lord it over others. She did as did her scummy little son. So take your little socialist nonsense and throw yourself down a well with it.

thanks for the pm by the way though I'm not sure why you deemed it necessary, clearly you are a bit rattled tonight and have had a few too many, at least I hope that's all it is and you seem a bit unhinged at the moment