Criminal police

Home Forum Chat Forum Criminal police

Viewing 18 posts - 41 through 58 (of 58 total)
  • Criminal police
  • kaesae
    Member

    Thugs and criminals I tells ya!

    [video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJrrqrvxOAw[/video]

    nealglover
    Member

    kaesae – Member
    neal glover, why does it not surprise me that you know exactly how to make a tin foil hat

    eeeeerm ……. because because you know I used google image search to take the piss out of you ?

    do I win a prize ?

    you can use one of the many other Licensed UK Mail Carriers if you dont want to send it via Royal Mail

    it not like they have a monopoply is it ?

    kaesae
    Member

    It’s a pity the don’t have monopoly, they might be a bit better with money and resources if they did!

    nealglover
    Member

    It’s a pity the don’t have monopoly

    Now thats strange…

    because someone with the same username as you has been banging on about how the Royal Mail has a Monopoly on here for the last couple of weeks, despite being told it was bollx.

    weird eh ?

    cynic-al
    Member

    *cracks knuckles*

    Elfinsafety – Member
    Once again, STWers miss the point of what the OP is actually saying, and go on to only present facts to support their own argument/agendae….

    You’ve posted up about how you think many Police aren’t doing their jobs properly, conviction or not…which is irrelevant to the OP.

    thegreatape
    Member

    George, as far as I know, the reasoning behind the bankruptcy rule was that anyone who was or was close to being bankrupt could be more susceptible to bribery/corruption. I think the rules may have changed though, and bankruptcy does not now automatically mean dismissal.

    Elfinsafety
    Member

    No it’s not. The OP is on about crime ina Babylon, and how it is shocking that known criminals convicted of serious crimes are allowed to work as police officers (I always though conviction for a criminal offence meant instant dismissal from the police, obviously I’m wrong).

    You and others started bleating on about fishing licences and stuff.

    I don’t have a problem with someone being done for speeding or not having a fishing licence; I do have a problem with a robber or sex offender being in police uniform. We’re not talking about relatively minor crimes being committed in someone’s misspent youth, we’re talking about people who have comitted and bin convicted of crimes while serving as police officers, and being allowed to keep their jobs. That is massively hypocritical and undermines Law and Order.

    So there.

    I’d imagine there aren’t that many out of the 900 odd who have actually bin convicted of serious stuff, but anyone who has should be expelled from the police force.

    As for rehabilitation; well, I’m sorry, but if you’ve bin done for sexual assault and then try to give me a ticket for riding through a red light or something, then explain to me why I should respect your uniform? Fact is, I won’t. Because you’re a far worse criminal than I’ll ever be.

    You’ve chosen to thoroughly disrespect the uniform, institution and indeed the society you are meant to serve, and you are therefore unworthy of any respect yourself.

    thegreatape
    Member

    Calm down youth, I was only telling George about bankruptcy.

    Elfinsafety
    Member

    Calm down Babylon; I was talking to Cynic-Al… 😛

    cynic-al
    Member

    Well that’s a change from your first post then is not it?

    Elfinsafety – Member
    I fully believe in the rehabilitation of offenders

    …and…

    As for rehabilitation; well, I’m sorry, but if you’ve bin done for sexual assault and then try to give me a ticket for riding through a red light or something, then explain to me why I should respect your uniform? Fact is, I won’t. Because you’re a far worse criminal than I’ll ever be.

    You’ve chosen to thoroughly disrespect the uniform, institution and indeed the society you are meant to serve, and you are therefore unworthy of any respect yourself.

    But you said you believed in rehabilitation? What if the conviction was prior to working for teh Fuzz?

    In any event, how would a sexual offence of an officer be relevant to the fact that you’ve broken the law? Any excuse to exculpate your behaviour. It’s criminal or not as judged by THE LAW, not an individual.

    duntmatter
    Member

    cynic-al – Member

    OP: so you believe:

    No one is capable of rehabilitation?

    Existing punishments for crimes are not enough?

    No, I don’t believe those things and there’s no evidence that I do. Not sure where you got that from.

    Thank **** you’re not (and never will be) a politician.

    ^^ This is extraordinary! What fun!

    I make no point about rehabilitation, but I am curious why some have enthusiastically listed minor offences when the point I was making was about violent crime and dishonesty offences.

    Elfinsafety – Member

    I’m pretty sure the OP is asking whether officers committing offences of this severity should be made to leave the force, not so much the ones done for driving or fishing offences.

    Yes!

    Some people who know what they are on about seem to understand the point..

    Nick Hardwick, chair of the IPCC, said: “Dizaei behaved like a bully … The greatest threat to the reputation of the police service is criminals in uniform like Dizaei.”

    Gaon Hart of the CPS said: “The public entrust the police with considerable powers and with that comes considerable responsibility.”

    BTP say “The public is entitled to expect that BTP will recruit people that demonstrate the highest standards of professional conduct, honesty, and integrity”

    Why do you think that might be?

    cynic-al
    Member

    duntmatter – Member
    No, I don’t believe those things and there’s no evidence that I do. Not sure where you got that from.

    Your OP implied that ex-cons should not be Police because they would not act properly in office of law enforcement (and therefore that they could not be rehabilitated) – to me this amounts to more punishment.

    I make no point about rehabilitation, but I am curious why some have enthusiastically listed minor offences when the point I was making was about violent crime and dishonesty offences.

    You refer to burglary and robbery (not “violent crime and dishonesty”) – mid-level offences. The report itself states:

    Most of the convictions are for traffic offences

    and I guess that’s why the minor offences got the attention.

    Kato
    Member

    Elfin, if you were convicted of robbery or sex pesting in the job, you’d be out of a job faster than you could blink

    I’m sure the other filth on here will back me up on that one.

    Elfinsafety
    Member

    But you said you believed in rehabilitation? What if the conviction was prior to working for teh Fuzz?

    As I understand it, a conviction for a crime as serious as sexual assault would automatically preclude you from joining the police anyway, which suggests that those in the police force who’ve committed such offences have done so whilst employed as an officer of the Law.

    So, someone who has had such significant and wholesale disregard for the Law to commit such an offence whilst employed to uphold the Law is not a fit and proper person to hold such office.

    It’s criminal or not as judged by THE LAW, not an individual.

    I don’t believe someone who has committed a serious crime whilst employed as a police officer should ever have the honour and privilege of representing the Law, as such a thing undermines and makes a mockery of that Law.

    Nah. Lead by example. Anything else is utterly hypocritical and undeserving of any respect.

    duntmatter
    Member

    cynic-al – Member

    Your OP implied that ex-cons should not be Police because they would not act properly in office of law enforcement (and therefore that they could not be rehabilitated) – to me this amounts to more punishment.

    The rehabilitation leap is entirely your own.

    You refer to burglary and robbery (not “violent crime and dishonesty”) – mid-level offences.

    Theft, burglary and robbery are classed as dishonesty offences. A violent crime is a crime in which the offender uses or threatens to use violent force upon the victim. This entails crimes such as robbery.

    Not sure what your quibble is with my phrasing.

    kaesae
    Member

    WE’RE ALL DOOMED!!!

    cynic-al
    Member

    Fred…there’s no evidence that any serving officer has committed a sexual assault…and I can’t imagine, ap kato said, you’d not be dismissed for it, so your hypothetical example is a fantasy…but very useful for your purpose of dissing and fuzz.

    OP I don’t see how your op makes any sense without “my” rehabilitation leap, but if you need to win the point on pedantry then have it. I wasn’t aware theft etc were designated crimes of dishonesty or violence (different up here).

    Elfinsafety
    Member

    Well the article states that ‘900 police officers have criminal records’. I took that to mean serving police officers, rather than former police officers….

    I’m just someone who believes that the police should be as exemplary as possible, and that they are way too flawed and must always be closely scrutinised and criticised whenever necessary.

    WE’RE ALL DOOMED!!!

    We are actually all doomed, this is actually true.

Viewing 18 posts - 41 through 58 (of 58 total)

The topic ‘Criminal police’ is closed to new replies.