Baroness Jones

[SydneyRover]

I thought it would be obvious belton but the public should have confidence in those that work in the force and have confidence that if they have been convicted of a serious offence which it appears too many have then the public can know why a decision was made to allow them to stay in.

Those with a criminal record that is not on the public record may be subject to blackmail in the course of their duties or it may affect how they deal with a particular matter.

[drfchound]

Officers without a criminal record might also be subject to blackmail so I’m not sure how you would differentiate between those two scenarios.

[SydneyRover]

And the world may be flat hound but we know it's not, or some of us do

[drfchound]

And the world may be flat hound but we know it's not, or some of us do

The riddler is at it again.
I was adding a point to your post, just for balance of course.

[SydneyRover]

Officers without a criminal record might also be subject to blackmail so I’m not sure how you would differentiate between those two scenarios.

This is nonsense hound

[belton rover]

So it would be for an individual member of the public to decide if a police officer’s conviction is serious or not?

[SydneyRover]

If that's what you think belton

[drfchound]

Officers without a criminal record might also be subject to blackmail so I’m not sure how you would differentiate between those two scenarios.

This is nonsense hound

Why is it nonsense when it is in response to the post of yours that preceded it.

[SydneyRover]

explain why then it doesn't apply to eveyone on the planet

[drfchound]

explain why then it doesn't apply to eveyone on the planet

Of course it could which is why I made the point that police officers without a conviction might also be subject to a blackmail situation.
You appeared to be saying that only officers with a conviction might be subject to blackmail.
Hope that has simplified it for you.

Anyway, I won’t be replying to you for a couple of hours as I am watching the game now.
Something must be keeping you awake.
Is there a police car outside the house.

[belton rover]

Sydney, I want you to tell me what you think. You have made a statement that I’m struggling to quite understand so I asked you a question to clarify your opinion. I know you think the answer is simple and needs no explanation, but believe me, your responses are rarely simple to decipher.

[SydneyRover]

I thought it would be obvious belton but the public should have confidence in those that work in the force and have confidence that if they have been convicted of a serious offence which it appears too many have then the public can know why a decision was made to allow them to stay in.

Those with a criminal record that is not on the public record may be subject to blackmail in the course of their duties or it may affect how they deal with a particular matter.

This is what I think belton

[SydneyRover]

explain why then it doesn't apply to eveyone on the planet

Grow up hound






Of course it could which is why I made the point that police officers without a conviction might also be subject to a blackmail situation.
You appeared to be saying that only officers with a conviction might be subject to blackmail.
Hope that has simplified it for you.

Anyway, I won’t be replying to you for a couple of hours as I am watching the game now.
Something must be keeping you awake.
Is there a police car outside the house.

[Filo]

I see the chuckle brothers are at it again

[drfchound]

I see the chuckle brothers are at it again

Yep, you and Sydney are a natural pairing.
Keep up the good work.

[belton rover]

Filo. I may be taking liberties, but I’m assuming your really funny ‘Chuckle Brother’s’ quip was partly aimed at me. Yet all I’ve done is respond to your post and Sydney’s. All, especially yours, quite respectfully (though I do admit to lowering myself to a bit of sarcasm when it comes to responding to Sydney’s post’s. He’s just got one of those writing styles that make you want to scream).
If you weren’t referring to me, then I apologise.

[SydneyRover]

belton it looks as though you and your two star deputy are quite happy with a situation that we have a number of criminals in the police and many forces don't want the public to know how many and none of us know who has made a decision that they can stay and why.

[drfchound]

More gibberish.

[SydneyRover]

it the cap fits hound

[drfchound]

Only you know your size.

[SydneyRover]

so try and stop avoiding the question are you happy that their are serious criminals in and running some of the police in the UK?

[belton rover]

You’ve just nailed exactly what is wrong with why debate on here is nigh on impossible, Sydney. I’ve asked you to elaborate on your concerns about police with convictions. You take that as me having no problem with the police taking on criminals.
At least I think that is the gist of what you are trying to say. Is the punctuation free rant just for comedic effect now?

[SydneyRover]

Because I put up plenty of information and answered your question twice which would show any reasonable person where I stand on the matter whereas you yourself have asked more questions of me without stating your position. What is it?

[drfchound]

so try and stop avoiding the question are you happy that their are serious criminals in and running some of the police in the UK?

I haven’t said but in post 166 you have decided what I think.
How can I argue with the all knowing Sydney.

However, once again you are making stuff up.
You are asking me to answer something that you say you have already asked.
I don’t see a post on here in which you did ask me what I thought about the police employing people who had convictions.

Anyway, I have had a message from another vsc poster asking me why I bother to respond to you when you spout so much stuff that is intended to wind me up.
With that in mind I really shouldn’t let myself be sucked in by your WUM like posts so I am going to try to avoid responding to you and your cohort.

[SydneyRover]

maybe because you and belton appear to be taking umbridge at the fact I don't like criminals in and running the police and spend your time asking me question all the time avoiding declaring what you think, it sounds like you are defending them is all hound ............. is that unreasonable?

[belton rover]

For what it’s worth, Sydney. I have faith in the vetting system.

[SydneyRover]

that tells me nothing other than you have faith in the vetting system, I assume for hiring, what about the system that allows criminlals to stay in the job even run the force?

[SydneyRover]

So I think we're done here with this part of the topic as neither belton nor hound has declared or defended their position around having criminals within and running the police force, despite taking umbridge at someone who does.

[belton rover]

I’ve also made it clear, Sydney, that having a criminal record should not automatically mean rejection. Which in turn means that I think it is okay for some officers to have criminal records. As it should be for teachers, doctors or any other career.

And no I don’t think the public have a right to know who has a record and for what for, because that could very easily compromise their duties. I am quite sure there are fantastic police officers with convictions, as there are poor officers without.

[SydneyRover]

20 out of 45 forces not releasing data we, well I can assume and I will that they know it will reflect bab=dly on them. Until we know how mant and why regarding criminals in the force there is little chance that we can do anything about it. We know for a fact that officers convicted of assaulting members of the public can keep their jobs ............. how far does this go sexual assault, manslaughter? we just don't know. What is your limit belton where would you draw the line surrounding drumming these criminal out of the force?