PDA

View Full Version : Another shooting of a female Police Officer


Jo Cover
14th Feb 2006, 16:02
Right, I and a few colleagues I have spoken with today have said isn't it about time that the police service did something positive to protect the policewomen and men who attempt to keep out streets safe?

The body armour provided to the rank and file officer, to the best of my knowledge, isn't ballistic armour, only stab proof. I know that the round fired went under the armour on this occasion but isnt it time that something positive was done to protect the officers?

Isn't it time that the police woke up to this and supplied the best kit available to the officers, to try and protect them from the increased use of firearms? Particularly as they don't want to arm the officers, which might, and I stress might be a deterent in itself?

What are others views?

Isn't it is time, what with the compensation culture as it is, it was turned against the bean counters, and made them accountable as they obviously have a hold on what eqpt is provided?


I would like to wish WPC Rachel Bown a full and speedy recovery.

tony draper
14th Feb 2006, 16:21
The best thing would be for the courts to make a example of the scum when they catch him, 99 years no chance of ever walking the streets again, and when the fecker is dead to be buried in the prison ground,s but one doubts if they will do that,they spend all their time thinking up reasons for not putting these criminals in prison or in ways of releasing them early.
:suspect:

Crepello
14th Feb 2006, 16:22
I would like to wish WPC Rachel Bown a full and speedy recovery.
Hear, hear.
I've spoken to officers (socially) from both sides of the debate - some would resign if guns were compulsory, others would pack a Desert Eagle if permitted. IMHO it'd be best to compromise, make training available to all and allow PCs to carry at their discretion.

Whenever this issue comes up, the anti-arming lobby accuse the pros of wanting US-style policing. This doesn't have to be the case. Look at the Netherlands for example, where all coppers have guns on their belts but they're very rarely drawn.

Sorry if this is a JetBlast cliche. Could be worse... could be speed cameras!

419
14th Feb 2006, 16:26
Personally, I think that anyone caught commiting (or intending to commit )a crime which involves any form of firearm should be locked up for a minimum of 20 years.

The police could be given the best possible protection, but I doubt if it would be practicable for them to wear it all the time they are on duty.

I'm sure that the laws and sentencing possibilities are already in place, it would just take a few judges to implement them.
.
I might be wrong, but I've got the feeling that this will be one of the few topics on jetblast which involve the police, on which all posters will agree.

con-pilot
14th Feb 2006, 16:55
I would like to hope so 419, I truly do, but I fear not.:(

Wedge
14th Feb 2006, 17:10
You are wrong, 419. It's something of a stretch to hope everyone here would agree that a mandatory 20 prison sentence for any firearms offence should be implemented.

I'm not even going to go into the arguments over whether prison is an effective deterrent at all, save to say that it very often is not.

The sentencing guidelines have been changed recently by the government, there is now a mandatory five year prison sentence for firearms offences. I'm not even a supporter of that. Passing laws like that may get the government a brief popularity boost, and fill the tabloid front pages for a day, but when you actually apply them, it becomes clear that mandatory sentences are rarely appropriate.

Judges have the intelligence, where they have a discretion to do so, to pass an appropriate sentence on the facts of the case, and they should be given the freedom to do so. As one barrister said to me recently, the net effect of this particular new guideline is that girlfriends who are asked by their boyfriend to look after a gun are going down for five years. Pointless, counterproductive and a complete waste of taxpayers' money.

I'm sure that the laws and sentencing possibilities are already in place, it would just take a few judges to implement them.

Judges, when passing sentence, have to have regard to the sentencing guidelines, and are also anxious to ensure that the sentences they pass don't go to the Court of Appeal. It's not possible for a judge just to start passing manifestly excessive sentences just because he/she feels it's right in the circumstances (unless they don't care about their professional reputation), they have to work within the guidelines, and if they have a discretion they must use it wisely.

Notwithstanding all of the above, this was an appalling crime and I hope the perpertrator is found and brought to justice, and a speedy recovery for the victim.

Ontariotech
14th Feb 2006, 17:51
As a police officer here in Ontario, Canada, I find it hard to believe that police officers in the UK are not issued ballistic vest's. And I find it harder to believe that in this day an age, all coppers in the UK are not issued with a sidearm. I may be slightly off here, but the UK does have armed response units. But to not arm each officer, in my view is asking for trouble. Maybe 20 years ago, to not arm your officers was they way to police the population.

But as society changes, so must your policing methods.

Saintsman
14th Feb 2006, 18:02
It wouldn't surprise me that there is only one type of body armour and they are designed for men. Women wearing them, particularly those with a large bust, would find them riding up and leaving their midrift exposed, somewhat defeating the object.

I agree with the sentiments above. Life without parole for anyone using a gun isn't too much to ask.

tony draper
14th Feb 2006, 18:06
I remember a series of documentries about the criminal gangs in London in the post war period , armed bank robbery became popular for a while,when the flying squad shot a few of them dead as they left the banks they quickly gave up on shooters.
Twenty years is not long enough a mid twenties criminal will be out in his/her fifties,we tend to live longer these days,unfortunatly so do the scum.
I agree with Mr Ontariotech,its way past the time our police officers were armed as a matter of course.

Jo Cover
14th Feb 2006, 18:46
I am gobsmacked... 7 or so replies and none from G CPTN spouting carp...
Have I spoke to soon?

I totally agree with the 20yr penalty for a crime involving firearms but what is it going to it take for the government to make the changes relevant to put these slimeballs away?

What is it going to take before the police are given ballistic body armour as a matter of course?

I can't see any changes being made in a hurry but, if the accountants who are holding the funds needed to enable the officers to be correctly dressed and protected (wherever possible), were made directly accountable, if the death or injury was found to be caused due to the lack of suitable PPE, don't you think that the badly needed equiptment would soon be purchased and with the front line officers faster than you can say Bean Counter?

As for arming all officers, I'm not so sure... Look at another recent thread on here, It appears that some police officers can't even drive correctly, what do you think it would be like if they were carrying a gun??

tony draper
14th Feb 2006, 18:59
I don't know why whenever arming our police comes up the USA situation is mentioned,and I think that is more down to Hollywood than reallity, just about every police force in the world is armed including the Scandinavian countries they all seem to manage ok.

ShyTorque
14th Feb 2006, 19:49
A friend's beat, this particular one.

From my own experience in a previous life, firearms are quite common place in this particular area.

Bring back capital punishment for shooting a police officer? :hmm:

Ontariotech
14th Feb 2006, 20:07
In my opinion, the rule of law has the final say. And to not give the officers responsible for law enforcement, the tools needed to have the final say, is again, in my opinion, asking for trouble.

No, I am not meaning police officers become executioners. Just that police officers, are the sharp end of the courts and government, who with their power to enact and change laws, both have the final say.

eal401
14th Feb 2006, 20:26
Personally, I think that anyone caught commiting (or intending to commit )a crime which involves any form of firearm should be locked up for a minimum of 20 years.
I'll give that a :ok:

click
14th Feb 2006, 20:35
:ok: Me too, and after the 20 years, ship 'em back to where they came from:E

Final 3 Greens
14th Feb 2006, 20:43
Bring back capital punishment for shooting a police officer?

Why not bring back capital punishment for anyone deliberately shooting anyone?

Those of us who have handled weapons are only too aware that they are potentially lethal and the very act of shooting someone is severely putting that person's life at risk. Shooting to wound someone is a movie concept.

Although not all who are shot die, the shooter must assume that s/he is applying lethal force.

reynoldsno1
14th Feb 2006, 21:18
just about every police force in the world is armed

Most news sources always seem to quote that the UK & NZ are the only two places left where the police are normally unarmed.....

bjcc
14th Feb 2006, 21:20
I seem to recall there is mandatory minimum sentence for all offences involving the use of firearms, but memory dulls on the subject.

As for body armour, can't speak for Notts Pol, My body armour issued in 1997 was supposed to be ballistic restistant. Not that I really wanted to try it out.

We had the option, stab or balistic protection. I chose the balistic because of where I worked. If I'd been at some other stations I would have gone down another route.

What we were issued with was individually fitted. My girlfriend of the time was, well, shall we say, well stacked. Hers didn't ride up, unless I was involved.

Sadly, whatever officers are issued with, there will always be unprotected parts of the body, and being shot in any of them will cause a serious injury. In any event, even balistic vests don't protect that well. Being hit by something travelling at very high speed will always cause some form of injury, and it is not unheard off for a police officer to die in spite of the protective vest.

The answer? Who knows. It's been debated, by Politicians and public and in Police station canteens for years. Nothing much gets done, by anyone.

One the one hand, the perception is it's unacceptable to the public for all officers to be armed.

On the other hand there should be a proper protection. Every time a police officer is shot, or murdered, I believe we get one step closer to armed police.

DG101
14th Feb 2006, 21:52
We used to send miscreants to Australia for a stretch, but it would appear that locale has become a bit too comfortable in recent times. How about a minimum stretch of 20 years in the Malvinas? Solve two problems - the exports and the Argies could entertain each other.

tony draper
14th Feb 2006, 22:00
I admire the cousins in this respect,watched a documentry tother night about the search for a serial rapist and murderer,he had operated in a few states,he was eventually caught and tried in one state and given a sentence of 29 years,however he was also tried in another state and given a sentence of 130 years, he has to do the 29 years first of course, if we don't have the bottle to hang the feckers thats the way to do it.
Bring in the three time loser law in this country three crimes of violence and you never get out,one thing is certain draconian measures are needed here now.

FL69
15th Feb 2006, 00:00
My girlfriend is a PC for Surry Police and this story frightens the hell out of me. IMO UK police have progressively lost powers to deal with the situations they face day in day out in their job. Re-arming? May help, who knows. I personally think that abolishing the shite PC crap that disables a good officer from doing their job properly would be a good start.

Buster Hyman
15th Feb 2006, 00:47
ship 'em back to where they came from

What? To Liverpool?

Seriously though, unarmed Police is a quaint, romantic concept that belongs with the honour system. Wonderful when it's working, but shite when it aint!

Too many tools out on the streets drugged up beyond reason now. Negotiating with this type of individual seems a waste of time in some circumstances. If you happen to have an Alsatian handy, that's fine, otherwise a carefully aimed sidearm can slow them down...a bit.:ugh:

BlueWolf
15th Feb 2006, 00:57
The NZ Police are not openly armed. However, every plain-clothes officer "will" be carrying a Glock ;) as will everyone of Sergeant and above. Standard issue weapon is a rifle (Remington .223 bolt action), though most officers so issued don't carry them in their cars most of the time. Rural officers will have a gun safe in the boot which will be occupied at all times.
Further to that, every car on patrol at night, and most during the day - especially if there is a sergeant on board - will have at least one Glock in the glovebox.

So NZ has a de-facto armed Police force. I think it's inevitable that they will have to be openly, routinely armed in the not very distant future, and I think this will be a good thing. Tempering that is the fact that the Traffic division will get them too. A more narrow-minded, anal-retentive, nasty, callous, officious bunch of spiky things one would be hard-pressed to find anywhere, and I'd hate to see them given firearms.

Good luck to your lady officer.

tony draper
15th Feb 2006, 00:58
Bollix the sidearm give the chaps a nice short barreled 12 gauge pump.
Better still there are ten thousand trained Ghurkas out of work in nepal,give them citizenship and have them patrol our streets,they certainly have more right to be here than most of the shite conning their way in.

FL69
15th Feb 2006, 00:58
What? To Liverpool?
Seriously though, unarmed Police is a quaint, romantic concept that belongs with the honour system. Wonderful when it's working, but shite when it aint!
Too many tools out on the streets drugged up beyond reason now. Negotiating with this type of individual seems a waste of time in some circumstances. If you happen to have an Alsatian handy, that's fine, otherwise a carefully aimed sidearm can slow them down...a bit.:ugh:

Fact is the average P.O. cannot defend himself, fears making an arrest, and avoids conflict.

Eg. the missus's colleage, a fellow PC, arrested a 16 year old for riding his non-street legal 50cc dirtbike on the road after warning him 5 times. The 16 year old struggled during his arrest, and has bruising on his wrists. The PC now has a huge complaint against him and fears arresting youngsters for fear of destroying his career. Sickening. :suspect:

FL69
15th Feb 2006, 00:59
Bollix the sidearm give the chaps a nice short barreled 12 gauge pump.
Better still give em tactical nukes its gonna take summat like that to clean up the UK now.
:E

Mr Draper actually has a few good ideas!

Buster Hyman
15th Feb 2006, 01:35
Rural officers will have a gun safe in the boot which will be occupied at all times.

I've gotta ask...who's in the boot with the gun?:confused:

unclenelli
15th Feb 2006, 01:51
When will the judiciary and tree-hugging human rights [email protected] in this country finally realise the following facts:

A criminal has NO RIGHT to carry a firearm, NO RIGHT to be in your house, NO RIGHT to vandalise your car, NO RIGHT to rape a woman, NO RIGHT to incite terrorism etc etc.

In short a criminal has NO RIGHTS - no right to freedom, no right to not share a cell with 30 other hairy @rsed sisters (see Shawshank), no right to appeal, no right to parole, no right to pay more for a lawyer than the CPS, no right to get out early for good behaviour.

They have removed themselves from the confines of the law, and therefore cannot expect to use the law to make life easier for them.

The above ideas apply equally to all, not just (but I'll use them as examples anyway) Lotto Rapist, Lotto Lout, Tony Martin Burglars, etc etc.

Let's see an end to people getting prosecuted for assault by breaking the nail of a burglar in your own bedroom at 3am, while the burglar gets a ticking off. Let's see an end to murderers finding a legal loophole and getting reduced to manslaughter, then getting out in 2 years for good behaviour.

People complain about prison overcrowding - tough! Pack the [email protected]@rds to the roof if you have to to get them all in.

[rant=off]

FL69
15th Feb 2006, 01:55
When will the judiciary and tree-hugging human rights [email protected] in this country finally realise the following facts:
A criminal has NO RIGHT to carry a firearm, NO RIGHT to be in your house, NO RIGHT to vandalise your car, NO RIGHT to rape a woman, NO RIGHT to incite terrorism etc etc.
In short a criminal has NO RIGHTS - no right to freedom, no right to not share a cell with 30 other hairy @rsed sisters (see Shawshank), no right to appeal, no right to parole, no right to pay more for a lawyer than the CPS, no right to get out early for good behaviour.
They have removed themselves from the confines of the law, and therefore cannot expect to use the law to make life easier for them.
The above ideas apply equally to all, not just (but I'll use them as examples anyway) Lotto Rapist, Lotto Lout, Tony Martin Burglars, etc etc.
Let's see an end to people getting prosecuted for assault by breaking the nail of a burglar in your own bedroom at 3am, while the burglar gets a ticking off. Let's see an end to murderers finding a legal loophole and getting reduced to manslaughter, then getting out in 2 years for good behaviour.
People complain about prison overcrowding - tough! Pack the [email protected]@rds to the roof if you have to to get them all in.
[rant=off]

I agree with what you say however you state "Let's see an end to people getting prosecuted for assault by breaking the nail of a burglar in your own bedroom at 3am"

Then bizzarely mention Tony Martin as a criminal.

Firstly gain consistency in your arguement, then gain respect in it.

unclenelli
15th Feb 2006, 02:11
I didn't mention Tomy Martin, I mentioned the "Tony Martin Burlgars". The pikeys in Bleak House deserved all they got!

But Tony Martin did have an illegal firearm and should have been prosecuted for that, not for defending his property.

I've heard of other stories where someone hit an escaping burglar and when the police turned up at the house, they arrested the owner because he admitted assaulting the now absent burglar.

What grips my sh1t is the surviving pikey claiming legal aid to defend himself when he got caught claiming benefits while working and also dealing drugs (and raking it in)

FL69
15th Feb 2006, 02:18
Okay a misreading of your post, however Tony Martin used a firearm that is legal to hold in the UK even though not in the way he did, however I also have no sympathy for the murdered burglar, he did truly get what he deserved.

And the second pikeys stop idiotically getting recognised as a race as opposed to a bunch of thieving tax dodging raping gits, the better!

And... relax... :)

henry crun
15th Feb 2006, 02:49
FL69: Yours was the next post, so why did you find it necessary to quote the entire post by unclenelli ?

Anyone reading the thread would have not forgotten what was just one post above your reply, including unclenelli. :confused:

BlueWolf
15th Feb 2006, 05:04
Wouldn't it just have been simpler to stamp Tony Martin's backdated licence application, give him a medal, and get on with something else?

I mean if you're going to send a message, shouldn't it convey what you actually feel?

Just a thought.

Wedge
15th Feb 2006, 06:50
unclenelli - In short a criminal has NO RIGHTS

If you were to be convicted tomorrow of Death by Dangerous Driving, an offence for which you have only to be reckless to become a criminal, I presume you would be very happy to waive your right of appeal, your right to parole, and your 'right to pay more for a lawyer than the CPS' (whatever that means); and you'd be happy to be packed in the prison 'to the roof'.

I'm assuming you'd be happy to waive those rights, because you say explicitly that criminals have no rights.

Capt.KAOS
15th Feb 2006, 09:38
Re the use of body armour, PC Brown was was hit in the lower abdomen below her protective body armour. Not sure if any armour would have prevented the injuries?

As for police officers carrying any kind of weapon being it a Glock or a Super Bazooka, I'm not sure these weapons would have prevented this unfortunate incident. Being a police officer does implicate a certain level of danger. Not sure if a trainee was the right person to be in the front line in "Assassination City"...

tony draper
15th Feb 2006, 10:21
Tell you the truth one is a bit supprised the fluffies still allow our Armed Forces to bare arms and carry live ammunition, be issuing them with paint ball guns soon I suppose.
:uhoh:

XXTSGR
15th Feb 2006, 10:33
No problem at all with allowing them bare arms. I quite like a short-sleeved shirt myself. :}

flybhx
15th Feb 2006, 10:38
Not sure if a trainee was the right person to be in the front line in "Assassination City"...

At her stage of service the officer is as qualified as any other front line officer. The two year probation is to assess if they will make the grade.

Jo Cover
15th Feb 2006, 11:06
From my original post...

''The body armour provided to the rank and file officer, to the best of my knowledge, isn't ballistic armour, only stab proof. I know that the round fired went under the armour on this occasion but isnt it time that something positive was done to protect the officers?''

This comment was meant to highlight that there were different types of jacket on the market, some stab proof, some ballistic some both. The stab is actually the cheaper option surprise surprise. This was a comment, made in general terms to say,

When will the accountants supply the funds to give our unarmed officers, the best possible chance of survival, in todays gun and knife culture by providing the best kit available?

and,

If they don't think it is worth the money, make them personally liable if they don't then supply the very best kit available to protect the unarmed, then prosecute the accountants for neglect, as seems to be the current trend in other areas of industry, if it can be proved that the equiptment provided wasn't up to scratch.


I suspect that the level of equiptment provided might just increase...

fireflybob
15th Feb 2006, 11:08
Sorry but as a law abiding citizen of Nottingham I think its time to get tough with these guys.
Bring back the death penalty for anyone who shoots a policeman/policewoman.
Much of the burglary is fuelled by the drugs issue. My solution? Announce a 3 month amnesty where any illegal substances can be handed in without fear of prosecution.
After three months anyone found in possession or pushing drugs to be shot on site.

bjcc
15th Feb 2006, 11:43
The issue of her being a 'Trainee' is a little misleading.

A Police officer joins and goes to a training school for whatever the period of time it is now (When I joined it was 15 weeks). At the end of which they are posted to a Police station for the remainder of their first 2 years service which is know as Probabtion.

During which time, after famil with the area, and now some extra training, they can and do patrol alone, and can are are sent to anything. Yes, in theory they are still training, but they will still be learning until the day they retire.

At the end of the 2 year probabtion, they are either assessed as good and efficent constables, in which case they stay, or not, in which case they go, or have extra training.

The fact is that irrespective of her being a probationer, this could happen to any police officer.

Binoculars
15th Feb 2006, 12:04
Much of the burglary is fuelled by the drugs issue. My solution? Announce a 3 month amnesty where any illegal substances can be handed in without fear of prosecution.
After three months anyone found in possession or pushing drugs to be shot on site.


Well, if that isn't one of the funniest things I've ever heard on Pprune! Do we perhaps, fireflybob, have a definition of drugs? Please tell me that you honestly believe that in your solution, (the final solution perhaps?) anybody found in possession of a joint should be shot "on site" (where else could he be shot?). Then I'll realise what an intellectual giant I am arguing with and shall withdraw.

Capt.KAOS
15th Feb 2006, 13:17
flybhx, bjcc; thanks for the information. I was wondering because she was in the company of an experienced male collegue who wasn't hit and apparently operating in a dangerous area.

MMEMatty
15th Feb 2006, 13:19
What about a compromise, like Tazers / Stun Guns etc?

Surely that would appeal to the more liberal (myself included) among us, whilst not removing the head of some guy who happened to be walking behind said crim at the wrong time?

Matt

P.s. someone i know in the police force says that there are 20,000 Glock 9mm pistols in an army stores somewhere earmarked for the (civilian) police at some point soon. Apparantly its just down to when Tony and the Home Sec rubber stamp it.

bjcc
15th Feb 2006, 13:21
Capt.KAOS

It's not unusal for police to patrol alone, nor in pairs. It depends on a few thing really. It could be he was a tutor constable, puppy walking her (probably not though, given that she was near the end of her probation), or it could be they just decided to go walkies together, or were a car crew of a double manned vehicle.

As for how he didn't get hit, just lucky I guess.

MMEmatty

There are 120,000 + police officers in England and Wales. I don't think 20,000 glocks are going to go far....

Binoculars
15th Feb 2006, 13:24
You probably have a point in there somewhere, Mike Jenvey; I just don't see what it is. Do you want to import Indonesia's legal system holus bolus? Singapore's perhaps? Iran?

There are few in Australia who have any sympathy for the Bali Nine, as they have been tagged. The anti-capital punishment crusaders must be seen to maintain their views no matter where the offence occurs or what the laws are in that place. Fair enough. But it's a half-hearted defence; they know they are opposing the views of a massive majority who think, with admirable common sense, that anybody stupid enough to do the crime has to do the time.

That is rather different, I'd suggest, from the estimable fireflybob's position which apparently embraces all illegal substances. Maybe he doesn't have kids. Maybe if he does, he would have no objection to one of them being shot "on site" for smoking a joint. Who knows? Perhaps he will provide us with an answer.

got caught
15th Feb 2006, 14:25
In short a criminal has NO RIGHTS

Not sure if I agree with this statement, it's what seperates us from the animals :hmm:

However, I've doubt that when, and if the perpetrator is caught and tried, the big wigs in the courts will, again, let the rest of us down, by passing a sentence unreflective of the crime.
:O

Anyway, I'm glad to hear that PC Bown is making a good recovery, I hope its speedy and uneventful.

G-CPTN
15th Feb 2006, 15:09
Surely the problem is gun ownership? As a licence is required to own a gun, the Police only have to visit all those with gun-licences and see which ones have been recently fired?
Soon they will have ID cards for all these miscreants (!) and it will be a simple task to match those that have gun licences and 'search' (using GPS) for the location of the ID card bearers.
That's the way it's supposed to work, isn't it?

CherokeeDriver
15th Feb 2006, 15:27
As ever I am deeply saddened when one of our fine Police officers is injured or killed in the course of their duty. Lets face it being a Police officer at the end of the day is just a job ( a very worthwile one before anyone has a go!) that simply pays a salary / mortgage. Same as you or I go to work.

I can't help thinking (and I await the flames to start) that one option we should consider is to allow all citizens to carry concealed firearms as long as they are licensed / trained. (Think of PPL type training and exams) The whole "respect" agenda that Tony B.Liar is pushing would have a massive boost, and I suspect that petty crime including burglary and road rage would all but disappear. If we are honest I suspect the only people that will actually get shot are those up to no good anyway, but lets face it there would be a lot of worried "crims" out there.....

I wish the young WPC involved in this incident a speedy recovery, and I hope we as a society can address and sensibly deal with this ever more serious issue. btw - I am not a "gun nut" or a member of the NRA.

Wedge
15th Feb 2006, 18:13
I can't help thinking...that one option we should consider is to allow all citizens to carry concealed firearms as long as they are licensed / trained.

And I can't help remembering that Michael Ryan (he of the Hungerford massacre) was licensed and trained to use firearms.

Arming the Police is one thing (and I'm not one of those who argues that it would lead straight to the American gun-loving lunacy and annual gun deaths in the tens ot thousands, I accept that almost all European Police forces are armed and have relatively low rates of gun crime); but arming citizens is another matter altogether, and I'm completely opposed. I note that even VP Cheney is unable to avoid causing serious injury to a friend (albeit a lawyer) on an organised hunt. :hmm:

Note also that (and I'm working from memory so correct me if I'm wrong) at the last poll the large majority of UK Police Officers voted that they did not wish to carry firearms.

As for fireflybob's idea - 'Shoot those in possession of drugs on sight'. I think it's a great idea. All those homeless and mentally ill smackheads on the streets of London should be under the ground anyway, they're not benefitting us normal people in any way and have no right to be on God's clean earth. And as Binos points out, we'd also be able to wipe out a large proportion of wealthy public school teenagers for getting caught smoking a joint round the back of the bike sheds (even the 3rd in line to the throne would have to be shot, terrible shame that). I suspect there might be legal problems, though. Those bloody human rights lawyers would start bleating about their Article 2 'Right to Life' yadda yadda yadda :rolleyes:

air pig
15th Feb 2006, 18:36
Following the shootings at Dunblaine and Hungerford, the Conservative and Labour administrations legislated to remove access to firearms by the public. Hasn't anyone told the criminals, oops forgot their weapons are not registered and there whereabouts and security are known about or
legislated for.

Individuals persuant to a criminal act who discharge a firearm should equal life imprisionment with hard labour without parole, if anyone is murdered, then executuion is the only option. The last option is unforunately the weakness of the UK system which does not allow the public a meaningful debate about judicial execution as it would be outlawed by the fundementally undemocratic EU.

If the deterants above where implemented then I suspect firearm crime would fall.

I sincerely hope the WPC involved PC Bown, gets weel soon and returns to work if only to show some of the scum that they cannot be allowed to win.

Krystal n chips
15th Feb 2006, 18:49
if anyone is murdered, then executuion is the only option. The last option is unforunately the weakness of the UK system which does not allow the public a meaningful debate about judicial execution as it would be outlawed by the fundementally undemocratic EU.

.

There's just one small, teensy weeny flaw to this proposal----it's a term that goes along the lines of " Beyond reasonable doubt" --an inconvenience I know at times, but it does prevent the rather hollow "oops, sorry about that, the state cocked up and you were innocent after all " statements that emanate forth from time to time. Sorry to be pedantic on this minor point.

unclenelli
15th Feb 2006, 19:23
'right to pay more for a lawyer than the CPS' (whatever that means);

I'm talking about footballers who get paid more per week and the majority of the country get per year and the lawyer (whose name I forget) who is well reknowned for legal loopholes and has an almost 100% success rate for getting speeding and other motoring offences thrown out - I think the entire Manchester United team have used him! as well as other footballers. They would quite happily pay him 100k+ rather than get a 6month ban. Even 6mths of taxis probably wouldn't reach 100k!

Or Barrymore, whose overpaid lawyer advised him to say "No Comment" to every question.

tony draper
15th Feb 2006, 20:43
I think a good option when we bring back hanging would be to hang the failed defence lawyer along with his/her client.
:E

G-CPTN
15th Feb 2006, 21:25
That would mean that unsuccesful lawyers (that allowed murderers to be convicted) would be wiped-out, leaving only those who COULD get murderers and the like off. Better to hang the SUCCESSFUL ones,

air pig
15th Feb 2006, 22:41
To KnC

Guilt can only be determined in a court of law following investigation, due process, and a trial by one's peers. Diplock (Judge only) Court's may be a target of political interference. If found guilty then the sentence should be imposed.

In the UK one assumes hopefully that the process is honest in such cases, I leave out certain fraud trial's in this case. Did you really think a well known Liverpool comedian would go down for TAX evasion at the Crown Court in Liverpool, in front of a Liverpool jury, even when the money was found at his home under the bed.

The shooting of a police officer in the execution of their duty is a heinous act against people who are protecting us, the citizen and therefore should either forfeit their own life or their liberty until they die in prision. I personally do not mind which, it is just the former is to be brutally honest more cost effective in the long term.

The only other criminals who should have the same sentences are child murders/rapists.

Accuse me of being intolerent, then I plead guilty. Accuse me of having views that huugy buggy social workers and human rights lawyers would find abbhorant, then I also plead guilty.

tony draper
15th Feb 2006, 23:12
One thing is a racing cert,were they ever to bring back hanging for the murder of police officers/traffic wardens/ park keepers members of HM armed forces ect, going about their duty, there would be a small amendment at the bottom adding Member of Parliament to the list.
:cool:

Jo Cover
15th Feb 2006, 23:24
G CPTN... Tell me, in which world do you live? Is it nice there during the summer months or cold like other parts of THIS world...

quote

''Surely the problem is gun ownership? As a licence is required to own a gun, the Police only have to visit all those with gun-licences and see which ones have been recently fired?
Soon they will have ID cards for all these miscreants (!) and it will be a simple task to match those that have gun licences and 'search' (using GPS) for the location of the ID card bearers.
That's the way it's supposed to work, isn't it?''


How many of these criminals do you think actually have a firearms license or a shotgun certificate?

Do you think that if any actually do, (and I doubt that very much!) do you think the weapons used to mow down the public or any one else that get in their way are actually licensed?

Our survey says thats going to be a big NO!

You really do come out with some stupid comments in some of your posts but this one beats them all.

Thanks for giving us a laugh! :mad: :mad:

Krystal n chips
16th Feb 2006, 08:48
[QUOTE=air pig]
Guilt can only be determined in a court of law following investigation, due process, and a trial by one's peers. Diplock (Judge only) Court's may be a target of political interference. If found guilty then the sentence should be imposed.
In the UK one assumes hopefully that the process is honest in such cases, I leave out certain fraud trial's in this case. Did you really think a well known Liverpool comedian would go down for TAX evasion at the Crown Court in Liverpool, in front of a Liverpool jury, even when the money was found at his home under the bed.
QUOTE]

Air pig. Your response rather substantiates my views does it not ?---albeit inadverantly I agree. However, let me say this. First, despite being a Guardian reader, I do not exactly qualify for the "huggy fluffy" brigade. Murder a Police Officer--or even assault one and you get no sympathy from me.

My concerns about capital punishment are these--albeit a brief summation.
In today's society, we are all subjected to an intense media influence---in many forms. It would be near impossible for an member of a jury not to be influenced I suggest even before they heard the case in Court. Next comes the issue of the Police. Despite their best intentions ( please note this is not a criticism or inference here--rather a case of stating the obvious I hope ) they would be under intense public and internal pressure to obtain an arrest and conviction. Problem is that they are human beings and therefore fallible, possibly even more so with the emotions involved. After that comes the witness's of course---just how accurate are, and would they be, in these instances---again, they are not immune from the media influence. Expert witness's----hmmm ? there have been one or two rather discredited ones of late have there not, so, despite the fact that I am sure many are accurate in their observations and chosen fields---again, how many would be objective or even subjective enough to remain detached from external influences?.

There have been several recent high profile miscarriages of justice which, had capital punishment been in place would have resulted in the "oops" etc. as in my first post. Being hopeful ( as you put it )therefore is not an option I suggest. Being cast iron is and therein lies the flaw and one of my reasons as to why I am opposed to capital punishment. What to do with those whom it can be proved are guilty ?. Life means life and in spartan conditions.

PS. I totally agree with your views on a certain fraud trail btw---not to mention the Guiness trial which also generated the odd anomaly--or three !.

G-CPTN
16th Feb 2006, 09:31
G CPTN... Tell me, in which world do you live? Is it nice there during the summer months or cold like other parts of THIS world...

How many of these criminals do you think actually have a firearms license or a shotgun certificate?

Do you think that if any actually do, (and I doubt that very much!) do you think the weapons used to mow down the public or any one else that get in their way are actually licensed?

Our survey says thats going to be a big NO!

You really do come out with some stupid comments in some of your posts but this one beats them all.

Thanks for giving us a laugh! :mad: :mad:


Stating the bloody obvious whilst holding my tongue in my cheek is my way of provoking a response. Of COURSE I realise that the villians don't licence their firearms, so what was the point in tightening the law on legal weapons?

As with most regulations (including parking), unless the law is enforced it is useless. Ban bombs I say and then there'll be no more terrorist activity! Make freedom of speech illegal . . .:ok:

fireflybob
16th Feb 2006, 10:11
Well if we want to get technical we could argue that alcohol and caffeine are drugs.
My suggestion to shoot in sight all those in possession was flippant rather than serious but the intention was to highlight the fact that, as a society, we need to take some sort of serious ACTION to restore law and order.
We have pandered far too long to the softly-softly approach. As has been said above our police force is there to protect us - how can they do that effectively if their hands are tied behind their backs all the time?

Oh by the way, yes I do have kids (two sons) and I would expect them to face the full force of the law should they commit an offence!

tony draper
16th Feb 2006, 10:45
Keep telling you folks we do not have freedom of speech in this country ,the only place in the entire UK one is free to stand up and say what they please withou fear of the law is the floor of House of Commons,true we have more freedon of speech than many ,but the list of things we are not allowed talk about let alone say without fear of having our collars felt grows ever longer,and even if what you say does not transgress the law our society is being socialy engineered in a true Orwellian fashion to make certain words or subjects impossible to utter without being howled down by the mindfecked masses.

Wedge
16th Feb 2006, 13:18
but the list of things we are not allowed talk about let alone say without fear of having our collars felt grows ever longer

I'm always confused when you say that Drapes (and you say it a lot).

It appears to me you have a forum here where you can say anything you like (with certain restrictions), and broadcast it to a wide audience. That's why you're here isn't it, because this website allows you to say the things you want to say? What more do you want? Unless there are things you would like to say but feel you can't? :confused:

We have Freedom of Speech in this country, in so far as it possible in a modern Western democracy. Freedom of Speech is not sacrosanct, you can't say what you like with impunity if it crosses the line of what is legally acceptable. (Incitement to racial hatred etc).

Unless you are suggesting that Mr Hamza should not have been tried and convicted for incitement to murder? I'd be surprised if you are suggesting that. ;)

tony draper
16th Feb 2006, 14:05
How long would you have remained at large had you held regular indoors or street meetings advocating killing Muslims?,not bloody nine years I'll be bound,not even nine hours ,your feet would not have touched.
The present climate gives letters of marque to say whatever they like, without fear or let to anyone who does not have more than fifty years wort of ancesters bones in ground,the police dare not act against them arresting someone with a brown or black skin can mean the end of a career.
What this country is suffering from is malignant political correctness.

air pig
16th Feb 2006, 14:54
Even worse news PC Bown was taken back to the operating theatre at luchtime for more surgery. This is not good news but as she is both young and fit she has a good chance of recovery even though it might be long and difficult.

One can only hope the Notts police catch the scum responsible

Good luck and God bless.

:sad: :sad: :sad: :sad: :sad: :sad: :sad:

KnC fortunately neither of us are sat by her bedside or awaiting her return from theatre.

air pig
16th Feb 2006, 15:55
She has according to Sky news returned to ICU from the operating theatre.

Full Emergency
16th Feb 2006, 16:18
Most news sources always seem to quote that the UK & NZ are the only two places left where the police are normally unarmed.....

This is true. The UK and NZ are the only two countries in the world that do not carry firearms routinely.

FE

Full Emergency
16th Feb 2006, 16:19
Further to that, I hope they catch the person responsible quickly and a speedy recovery to PC BOWN.

Prayers sent for both her, her family and fellow officers.

FE

ExSimGuy
16th Feb 2006, 17:02
Slight "thread wobble" here . . .

Penalties - Here in Audi Sarabia, there is the death penalty for drugs, murder, rape. You don't hear too much about it, but I can assure you that the crime rate is relatively low, and there are few re-offenders:\

Having said that, things here are not as good as they used to be. When I first came here, almost 20 years ago, you could leave your wallet lying in full view and unattended in a public place for an hour, and come back and it would be untouched. (a habit which I have to try to forget when back in UK!)

Nowadays, it's definitely a risk, and unattended mobile phones get pinched frequently, and a mate had his car window smashed and his laptop stolen from the rear seat.

Still safer here than many places though - as long as the cops don't get their guns out - I don't trust some of them to know where the safety is!

G-CPTN
16th Feb 2006, 17:17
Do they still chop-off thieves' appendages and stone adulterers?

Rick Storm
16th Feb 2006, 17:28
I bet old Ronnie Biggs wishes he was a criminal in the 21st century, beats me why this guy is still inside. Murderers have done less 'bird' than him.

G-CPTN
16th Feb 2006, 17:33
Didn't Ronnie negotiate a suspended sentence?

Binoculars
17th Feb 2006, 00:52
When I first came here, almost 20 years ago, you could leave your wallet lying in full view and unattended in a public place for an hour, and come back and it would be untouched.

There's a lot more westerners there these days, ESG. :hmm:

ExSimGuy
17th Feb 2006, 03:33
Sadly, Binos, that's not the case - there's less Westerners these days.

In recent cases of thievery that I know of (and that's a very small "statistical sample") it has been locals and "Asians" who were responsible.

As for the stonings - I'm not sure, but haven't heard of any. And appendages - I think it still applies, but is rarely carried out.

But anyway - the weather here is a lot better than in Sussex or New York at the moment!

Full Emergency
17th Feb 2006, 08:38
Didn't Ronnie negotiate a suspended sentence?

I don't think so. As far as I am aware, he is still inside.

FE

Jo Cover
17th Feb 2006, 12:23
Rick, everyone forgets that Biggs escaped from prison in I believe 1965 and then spent well over 35 years on the run in Australia, Spain and Brazil. He was re-captured in 2001 and is doing time for his part in the robbery. His initial sentence was 30 years, I can't recall if this was increased due to his escape or wheather the whole sentance had to be carried out instead. So far he has done less than ten years.

He is currently in Belmarsh Prison with my brother.




My brother is a screw!:ok:

Rollingthunder
17th Feb 2006, 12:32
Well the coppers have identified a suspect. Slim Jamacan bloke who thoroughly looks the part as all mug shots seem to. Find him, try him, lock him up for thirty years and then deport his ancient stupid ass.

All suspects are innocent until proven guilty

ExSimGuy
17th Feb 2006, 13:10
. . . and they've got him:ok:

Nabbed this afternoon at LHR, presumably trying to escape back to Jamaica.

Now I suppose it's going to be twelve months or so before his lawyers (paid for by the British Taxpayer at a cost of maybe 250,000) let the case get to court and, if guilty, he gets 5 years, with 2 off for "good behaviour"
:mad:

G-CPTN
17th Feb 2006, 13:24
On a point of order, having 'cleared customs' what country was the guy in?
If the 'plane had taken off, would he have been in 'international waters'?
Wonder if he was 'carrying'?

Gainesy
17th Feb 2006, 15:05
If I heard it correctly, he was arrested after boarding the aircraft at T3.

ExSimGuy
17th Feb 2006, 18:41
Don't give a flying toss if the aircraft was on short finals at Kingston Jamaica!

Now we have to see . . .

if the scrote gets 2 counts of attempted murder, one of GBH, and a judge that will hand down the maximum (assuming, of course, that he's found guilty) and, as Rolling thunder suggests, deport him when he finally gets out of Pentonville and let him try to scrounge a pension in Jamaca. (Hey, if Oz can get rid of their "time-served offenders" this way, why can't we! "one in, one out" :E)

or if he's a "poor unfortunate with a hard upbringing in a one-parent family coz his pappy never married his mammy and left as soon as she was pregnant for the 5th time by different guys" and he gets away with "resisting arrest" and "discharging a firearm in a public pace", resulting in 3 years, 2 years of it suspended, and a year's probation :mad:

I try to be a practicing Christian, and I'm supposed to have pity and forgiveness, but scum like this make it very hard for me:(

360 degree mason
18th Feb 2006, 06:25
Hotep.

He hasn't even been tried yet, and you are already screaming 'send him back'.

why? :confused:

Jo Cover
18th Feb 2006, 07:33
Lets not turn this into another racial slanging match. :ok:

Paterbrat
18th Feb 2006, 14:06
Racial slanging mach :confused: why on earth should this latest police shooting be remotely considered racial.:hmm:

bjcc
18th Feb 2006, 14:26
G-CPTN

You don't clear customs on the way out.

What 'country' he is in depends on the registration of the aircraft. Once on it though, the captain can have him removed and ask police to assist him in doing that. Once he is removed, at the captains request, he can be arrested as he has returned to the UK.

G-CPTN
18th Feb 2006, 16:13
That's interesting, bjcc. Thanks. Does that mean that the Captain's permission is required before the Police can intervene? Otherwise, can the Captain refuse the Police access? Obviously once outside the territorial limit 'boarding' would be difficult (compared to a ship). Do foreign Airlines enjoy 'diplomatic immunity'?

bjcc
18th Feb 2006, 22:42
G-CPTN

If UK registered, then no, police don't need the captains permission in those circumstances. Provided the doors are open. If the aircraft was on the move, then as I recall we could ask (or demand) mit came back to stand. The alternative being ring the tower, and ask them to refuse it permission to go any further. If all else fails, a Police car in front tends to bring matters to a halt.

Most airlines are very good about it. Had a child abduction once, the aircraft was airborne, and had been for about 20 mins. The airline offered toirecall it.

Aircraft from other contries are a slighly more complex issue.

A forgien airline is technically th terrotery of the country it is registered in. And as such, except in a few cases there is no right to enter. But most wouldn't want the bad publicity if they refused.. If the worst comes to the worst, again, a police car behind it before it pushes back, and oh, blast, its broken and can't be moved, works wonders. So the Captain of a well known american airline once found out, again in a child abduction matter. He changed his mind.

There is an ammendemnt to the Civil Aviation Act, which gives UK police jursitiction over crimes committed on aircraft not registered in the UK. But. there are lots of complex issues round it.

As to if this falls into that, don't know, I would guess no, but could be wrong. But again, can you imagine the bad publicity if an airline did refuse to off load a pax who was wanted for murder?

One more issue doesn't concern airlines, and may not apply, whichis immigration. As I recall a forgien national who misbehaves in the first 24 (or maybe 48) hours can be deported instantly. I presume thats an international thing, so in theory immigation at his destination could immidiatly deport him.