Skip to content

Having a pop

May 6, 2006
The Daily Mail seems to have found a rich vein of readers with a thinly disguised contempt for the way that modern policing is going.
A couple of stories from their online edition have comments that are quite clearly showing a lack of faith in the way that some police officers go about their business.
In the article “Driver flung in air fending off car thief” some commenters suggested that it was not the driver’s fault that his car was stolen after he had left his car unattended with the keys in the ignition. Somehow, it has been translated into an indictment of police attitudes towards crime in general. I’m still waiting for my comment to be published.
In the story “Farmer seized by armed police… for scaring off a dog” Bedfordshire Police get a slating for their response to an incident where a farmer shot at a dog he thought was worrying his sheep. It may surprise you to know that it is legal to do this in certain circumstances, so I would imagine the farmer was a bit surprised when six patrol cars came to lock him up.
The comments are along the lines of “Where are the police when I report a burglary?” and “Next time I ring the police, I’ll mention a gun and get a good response”
I’ve responded, but again the comment hasn’t been published yet. I personally think that whoever made the decision to deal with this issue in this way has totally over-reacted and made the police look foolish. I’ve also advised people against mentioning non-existent firearms in calls to the police. It will actually slow down the response time. Police officers don’t like going to gun jobs unless the odds are stacked in our favour. Please bear this in mind!
The general view is that the police are not interested in catching real criminals. The reality is that some police officers are so brainwashed by statistics that they think the way to get the job done is to tick the Home Office performance indicators. Serving the public is coming second to satisfying the Home Office number crunchers to an ever increasing number of officers. It needs to be stopped, before we need guns to protect ourselves from an army of dissatisfied citizens.
4 Comments leave one →
  1. PC Pee Cee permalink
    May 7, 2006 21:31

    Try telling my inspector that. Ive already been raked over the coals once this month for not enough sanctioned detections, If Im out preventing crime, how can I bring in prisoners to non existent crimes?

  2. ExtraSpecialCopper permalink
    May 7, 2006 22:00

    I do wonder how crime rates would decrease if all these detection rates and stuff were chucked and police officers could . . . actually police!

  3. Lennie Briscoe permalink
    May 7, 2006 23:07

    It’s a load of bollocks… Can we have tasers instead.. Much more fun.

  4. Rosey permalink
    May 7, 2006 23:24

    I read the article you linked to about the farmer and his gun. It was very sensationalised. To me the question it raises is that – yes the police were right to have so many turn up as there was a firearm involved. It depends on the information the person who phoned gave. But surely speaking to the “shooter” they must have learned the truth behind it?

    Maybe the involved police need to work on their communication skills or is that too simple a response?

    With regard to the man leaving his car unattended with the keys in. Don’t be such a bloody idiot! How obvious is it to not leave your car like that AND to then be a “have a go hero” it was a car not a person after all.

    I hate tabloids.

    I feel better for sharing.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: