Do you trust the police?

[BigColSutherland]

Best thing to do is what I do. Be a law abiding citizen and you will have no need for Legal Aid.

We have all broken one law or another. It's just that we rarely get caught.

Make your mind up Mick.

[Filo]

Best thing to do is what I do. Be a law abiding citizen and you will have no need for Legal Aid.

We have all broken one law or another. It's just that we rarely get caught.

Make your mind up Mick.

Maybe between March 8th and now he's gone on a law breaking spree

[RedJ]

Now we wait for the goalposts to be moved again.

[IDM]

We have all broken one law or another. It's just that we rarely get caught.

Who's "we"?

And, following your logic, it implies that even more traffic police may have broken traffic laws, but are getting away with it by not getting caught.  Even more of an argument then to punish those who do get caught, as a deterrent to others.

[jucyberry]

When it all boils down, it all comes down to the fact that when you join the police force, you swear to uphold the law. Thousands of Police men and women manage to do that, they go through their entire working lives without a blemish.

As a child two of my dad's friends were policemen. True village coppers. Both decent men that knew their community and the people in it.

So called bent coppers spit in the face of men and women like this, they taint the view of the populace. Let's face it as we all know, a bad reputation is easier to gain and far harder to lose than a good one.

Do I believe they should stay in the force? No, their crime is double that of an 'ordinary' criminal..

 They have broken their vow as well as the law.

[IC1967]

Look, we all need to come back into the real world. Show me a motorist that hasn't broken the law and I'll show you a liar. Show me someone who has never broken a law and I'll show you a saint or a liar.

We have all broken the law at some stage in our lives. The police are no different. If you want the force just to be made up of saints then we'd have no police force at all.

I still feel it unfair for us to expect a police officer to have extreme punishment handed out to them for a minor misdemeanor. OK I will accept the argument (there's a first time for everything) that in certain circumstances maybe they should face a harsher sanction than an ordinary member of the public due to the nature of their job.

However I do feel the balance is too far towards the severe end of the scale. This is part of the problem. No wonder there are cover ups when you're going to lose your job and final salary pension scheme etc if you get caught wrong doing.

[Filo]

I wouldn't label drink driving a minor misdemeanor

[IC1967]

When it all boils down, it all comes down to the fact that when you join the police force, you swear to uphold the law. Thousands of Police men and women manage to do that, they go through their entire working lives without a blemish

.

I think that statement needs modifying slightly. How about:

When it all boils down, it all comes down to the fact that when you join the police force, you swear to uphold the law. Thousands of Police men and women manage to do that, they go through their entire working lives without getting caught.

[IDM]

So by your logic, all the police are corrupt to some degree, yet you question those posters on here who in answer to the OP, don't trust them????

[IDM]

I wouldn't label drink driving a minor misdemeanor

Neither would I, nor, I guess (note I say "guess", not state as a fact) would most sensible people.

[IC1967]

I wouldn't label drink driving a minor misdemeanor

I would in certain circumstances. Say if you were only just over the limit or you got done in the morning after the night before when you hadn't drunk excessively.

[jucyberry]

There is no logic I'm afraid, you cannot reason with some one who's position alters like a wind sock in a hurricane....

And , I don't need modifying, I do believe there are honest law abiding never put a foot wrong coppers.

As a amorphous mass however my original statement stands.

[IC1967]

So by your logic, all the police are corrupt to some degree, yet you question those posters on here who in answer to the OP, don't trust them????

Corrupt is too strong a word. If you drive occasionally at 31 in a 30 zone I'd hardly call that corrupt.

[Filo]

I wouldn't label drink driving a minor misdemeanor

I would in certain circumstances. Say if you were only just over the limit or you got done in the morning after the night before when you hadn't drunk excessively.

Over the limit is over the limit, regardless of when you had a drink, your comments are an insult to thousands of families who's life has been ripped apart by drunk drivers

[IDM]

So by your logic, all the police are corrupt to some degree, yet you question those posters on here who in answer to the OP, don't trust them????

Corrupt is too strong a word. If you drive occasionally at 31 in a 30 zone I'd hardly call that corrupt.

You didn't read my words "to some degree".  And if you're being pedantic about doing 31mph in a 30 zone, well speedos aren't that accurate anyway.

I guess you are being argumentative for the sake of it.  Is this natural to you, or do you get up early to practice? 

[IC1967]

I still think using the word corrupt is a bit over the top. We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

[IDM]

I still think using the word corrupt is a bit over the top. We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

So what does "they go through their entire working lives without getting caught" mean?  Corrupt? Immoral? Hypocritical? Unacceptable?  You arguing about choice of words doesn't get away from the original point, does it?

[IC1967]

I think you are missing the point or reading more into my comments than is actually there. We all break the law and we all nearly always get away with it. That doesn't make us all corrupt.   

For example someone riding their bike on the pavement is breaking the law. I find this annoying but I wouldn't describe the person who does it as corrupt.

[IDM]

We're talking about the police, abusing their position of authority, by breaking the very laws they are empowered to uphold.

Also, I have already addressed the choice of wording and can replace "corrupt" with other words, in my last post.  Why do you need things explaining more than once?

If by being argumentative for the sake of it, you are hoping to get a rise by baiting me (or others) to react by abusing you, calling you names or telling you to f off, then that ain't going to happen, well not with me anyway, you can continue spouting your unsubstantiated opinionated drivel on here for all to read and make their own conclusions, as you seem to think everyone comes here to read your posts. 

[TheFunk]

He could have been given a role that didn't require him to drive for the duration of his ban. If I got a drink driving ban then I could always get to work somehow without driving. I would not automatically lose my job.

I thought you had retired at the age of 3.

[IC1967]

So what does "they go through their entire working lives without getting caught" mean?  Corrupt? Immoral? Hypocritical? Unacceptable?  You arguing about choice of words doesn't get away from the original point, does it?

It means that in the real world they have all broken one law or another but that doesn't mean they are any of the adjectives you use. You are the one arguing about words and the one getting away from the original point. Don't you realise how daft you are making yourself look by suggesting that if an officer breaks the law they are to some degree corrupt, immoral, hypocritical or unacceptable.

It also doesn't mean they are unsuitable for the job. If you wanted a police force with officers that have never broken any laws you wouldn't have a police force.

You need to get real. It seems to me that you are trying to be argumentative just for the sake of it. It seems to me that if any officer broke the speed limit you'd want them to lose their job. This is way over the top.

[IC1967]

If by being argumentative for the sake of it, you are hoping to get a rise by baiting me (or others) to react by abusing you, calling you names or telling you to f off, then that ain't going to happen, well not with me anyway, you can continue spouting your unsubstantiated opinionated drivel on here for all to read and make their own conclusions, as you seem to think everyone comes here to read your posts. 

I don't think I've ever abused you. I may have been direct and pugnacious but I don't think that counts as abuse. You say you are not going to abuse me and then in the next breath state that I post
unsubstantiated opinionated drivel. That may be interpreted by some as abuse and a bit contradictory.

I don't think everyone comes on here to read my posts. Some do but some do not. I was asked a question by Billy about the silent majority. I gave a logical answer. I did not make the claim you assert. However it is obvious that some of my threads and some of the threads I post in do get a lot of views. I'm only stating fact and nothing more.

[IC1967]

And , I don't need modifying, I do believe there are honest law abiding never put a foot wrong coppers.

It must be nice living in your world. If only it were the real world. I'm afraid I have to disagree with that statement as would 99.99% of the rest of the population.

[IDM]

Please can you advise me on what authority you speak for 99.99% of the population? 

And I never said you abused me, I asked if you were hoping to get an abusive reaction from me, ie calling you something nasty etc.

As for choice of words, I suggested other words could be used, I am not going to publish a thesaurus here.  Also "unsubstantiated" clearly does apply to you, as you continue to make claims on behalf of others.

If you are going to argue a point, please give facts and evidence, not just opinion.

I am reminded of a Black Adder quote "you twist and turn, like a twisty turny thing".

Anyway, no doubt you'll come up with some clever reposte to whatever I post.  If it makes you feel better always to have the final say, so be it, I couldn't care less.

[IC1967]

You've obviously got your knickers in a twist (and I really don't know why). However I'm going to let you have the last word as I'm a bit confused as to what your point is and where you are coming from. Sorted.

[donnyproletarian]

If I want an unbiased opinion I would rather get it off Wikipedia. There are too many lefties on this forum for me to trust anything they say.

Look, it's very simple. The miners started it and the police finished it. There was wrongdoing on both sides. On balance the rough justice that has prevailed with no-one on either side being convicted will do for me.

Let's not waste any more public money dragging the reputation of the police through the mud for something that happened many years ago. It's time to move on and get behind our boys in blue.

Getting behind the boys in blue is your prerogative and whatever turns you on .As for being a leftie , okay it a fair cop (pardon the pun) but take a reality check and a chill pill.The police role is to implement the rule of law as passed through the democratic process we call parliament.In the case of the miners strike  the political impartiality of the police was brought into question in curtailing the legal rights of  law abiding citizens exercising there democratic rights  to move around the country freely to appeal for solidarity and defend there communities.The other issue of course is the dubious practices which individual police certainly breached there professional codes of conduct.A scene in maltby springs  to mind  when an old lady looked outside her window and saw  4 men kicking a man on the floor.Her automatic response was to call for the police.However, when she realisd the 4 men were police this was no longer a viable option.Ask yourself the question what would happen if a nurse or teacher assaulted there patients or pupils.It is this sense of injustice that needs to be addressed if people are to move on and have confidence in the police not the cover up job that the state is still pursuing .
We need to move on but not forget as history teaches us that the police can be used as political footballs outside there remit.Ask any police how happy they are mopping up the crime left by the thatcher legacy in terms of drugs and crime.There workload has been trebled.At the end of the day police are workers in uniform providing a public service .Many of them are affiliated to Unison in recognition of this fact as as there terms and conditions have been affected Yes we need the police but there job is to protect communities not help smash them

[donnyproletarian]

If I want an unbiased opinion I would rather get it off Wikipedia. There are too many lefties on this forum for me to trust anything they say.

Look, it's very simple. The miners started it and the police finished it. There was wrongdoing on both sides. On balance the rough justice that has prevailed with no-one on either side being convicted will do for me.

Two points:  first of all, and I repeat myself, BST's initial comments were about the police lying in court NOT about either the police or miners being to blame. 

Secondly, why not trust folks on the forum?  I fail to see how you can pre-judge someone just because you disagree about something online?  If they have something worthy of argument, that can be verified, you can verify it!  When you read/quote Wiki do you check all the source references at the bottom of the page?  For example the Wiki entry for "total football" used to refer to DRFC as an exponent of this, but no longer does.  Therefore the information on Wiki changes, so is it trustworthy?  Not without verifying the info it isn't!  Even more so when some of the information is opinions or different perspectives.

History is written by the victors

[IC1967]

Donnyproletarian, you talk some sense, but I have to disagree with you on some points. I won't bother going into what I disagree with as people who have read what I've previously posted will be able to work it out from what I've previously said.

However there is one issue that I would take issue with. It is the same one that lefties constantly don't mention. The miners were partly to blame for what went on!!!

I'd have a lot more respect for leftie views if they were a bit more balanced.

[donnyproletarian]

The only thing the miners were guilty of is getting of there knees to fight back for there communities.The same motivation that sent them to war .Then they were described as the salt of the earth later to be replaced by the enemy within .The paradox my righty friend and the irony of the situation is that the strike was in essence a conservative one to preserve a way of life , not a group of bolshevicks planning a socialist revolution .

[IC1967]

The miners started it!!!