Ok, its maybe not any different from any other city but today I happened to witness 2 junkies who not only looked as if they were doing a deal, but then proceeded to fill empty Irn Bru bottles with some sort of alcohol (on street drinking is barred here).
Exactly one corner away from them, there were 4 motorbike cops watching out for motoring offences, hidden round a corner which has one way access to it.
On the map here tinyurl.com/39o4j5h
junkies were on the right hand side lane just where the 2 blue vents are, and the cops were "hiding" on the next block up where the brown building is.
OK, the junkies have probably got loads of previous, whats another conviction to them other than a load of paperwork and hassle for the police. A lot easier to catch a motorist without a seatbelt, or phone to the ear?
|
No, you're absolutely right, people with alcohol in Irn Bru bottles are one of the primary scourges of our society.
Few people realise how many people are killed each year by people keeping alcohol in Irn Bru bottles.
Who knows what those cops were doing, whether they were looking out for motoring offences, or doing something else that you weren't aware of...but obviously they weren't tackling the very serious problem of "Booze in Irn-Bru Bottles".
|
>> And the drugs deal?
You mean, what you thought was a drug deal.
|
>> Few people realise how many people are killed each year by people keeping alcohol in Irn Bru bottles.
Seems like you're spot on! -->
2007, 753 murder victims. www.murderuk.com/misc_crime_stats.html
646 pedestrian's killed by motor vehicles in the same year. www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1208
Continuing the flippant commentary, i'd rather me council tax pennies went towards hassling the scum than the eedjits.
|
"I thought Bobby might be celebrating today:"
Poor show on the "thank you" banner I thought. Biggest donation in 15 years and the best they can manage to show their gratitude is 8 pieces of A4 paper on a piece of string.
|
...Poor show on the "thank you" banner I thought...
Good to see charity shops keeping expenses down.
They should use the other side of the sheets for letters.
|
No not our charity, unfortunately.
I bet they are desperate to trace him to get him to fill out a Gift Aid form!!
|
...I bet they are desperate to trace him to get him to fill out a Gift Aid form!!...
Good point.
Don't think they're going to, but what's it worth to them if they do find him?
|
...Another 25%....
Didn't realise it was that much.
Were I the charity, I would be using that line as an incentive for the guy to come forward.
Perhaps that's why they are keen to trace him, but don't want to say so.
|
There are various other rules and regs, one being that he needs to have paid that amount of tax to be able to gift aid it.
We are shortly going to be introducing Gift Aid on donated items to our charity shops - its a nightmare to set up but should be worth it in the long run!
|
I'd be interested to know how that works Bobby, we are currently asking for donations of anything for prizes for our Xmas Raffle (anybody?), would it work for that or not be worth it.
We already find some people are very wary of filling in the Gift Aid form anyway.
Isn't it currently 28p for every pound?
Pat
PS Do you want me to have a go at this lot for you Bobby, you know I always have to stick up for the underdog;)
|
Pat, not sure how it would work for donations of prizes, the whole gift aid area is very grey in places.
For a cash donation, they fill out a GA form and you can claim the extra 28% (made up of 25% tax and a 3% discretionary payment which is shortly being removed).
For donations to charity shops, the principle is that you donate goods to us to sell on your behalf, we need a system in place to be able to trace how much your stuff has raised, and then contact you to ask your permission to treat what was raised as a donation.
So you hand over a bag full of clothes, we barcode all your items linked to your unique id, we sell these through the till and we know at any point how much your donated items have raised. Then we get your authority to treat this as donated (and yes, you have the option of saying sorry, I want the money back!!)
We can then claim the additonal gift aid. So for a bag of clothes that raises £30, we get an extra £7.50. For a 3 piece suite that we sold for £200, thats an additional £50 and so on.
For your scenario of gifts for raffles I am not sure how you could get round the gift aid route. Possibly charge an entrance donation and they get a free raffle ticket with that?
Not sure, though I know a lot of visitor attractions nowadays mange to charge the admission as a donation and thus claim gift aid on it - in theory that means you should be able to get in for free as the entrance is a voluntary donation....
|
>> (and yes, you have the option of saying sorry, I want the money back!!)
All the money raised can come back to me?
What stops me, i mean people, just offloading tat that still has some value that probably should go to a car boot sale but they could never be bothered with the hassle, so it sits up the loft or in a cupboard or whatever?
Question 2. Could you shift a 7 series with this seemingly hassle free scheme ;-)
|
In reality, not a lot! We act as agents to sell the goods so we have the right to keep an admin fee but this is where it gets messy because also, in theory we are holding your possessions to sell so you then get messy as to liability etc.
However the experience from lots of other charities who have already done this is that very few people ask for their money back.
And then there are various suggestions re notifying people - you are allowed to do so by email, your email can insist that they write in to another address (ie as inconvenient as possible), your email might get caught by spam (not our concern) etc etc
Also don't write out just before or after Christmas!
Have once sold a set of 5-series roofbars on ebay for the charity but as for a complete car..........
|
Thanks Bobby that's helpful.
It must be a sign of the times and Winter coming.
I spent most of yesterday dealing with requests for help and the coffers are getting low now.
There are some sad stories out there.
Pat
|
>> >> Few people realise how many people are killed each year by people keeping alcohol
>> in Irn Bru bottles.
>>
>> Seems like you're spot on! -->
>>
>> 2007, 753 murder victims. www.murderuk.com/misc_crime_stats.html
Yes, quite, the statistics don't actually show that they were all killed by people with alcohol in Irn-Bru bottles, but we all know the truth.
|
>> the statistics don't actually show that they were all killed by people with alcohol in Irn-Bru bottles, but we all know the truth.
Be fair though SS. A certain proportion may have died of heart attacks after witnessing these ratty-looking individuals apparently asking one another for an aspirin.
I feel Bobby may be happier if he doesn't look at the people he passes in the street. How will he feel for example if one of them lights a cigarette, or stops in a discreet corner for an - illegal of course - slash?
Tchah!
|
I was merely highlighting what I thought to be a very ironic situation and one which summed up policing issues today.
A crime, albeit in some people's eyes a minor one, was being committed in broad daylight by 2 guys knowing that there was very limited chance of them being caught and even if they were, they probably didn't care.
Meanwhile not 50 yards away a group of policemen were trying to find crimes being committed as these were easier to detect, quicker to process and no doubt, more profitable as well!
|
|
Bobby - do you think the police make money out of traffic offences?
|
www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23545518-police-use-1000-an-hour-helicopter-to-trap-speeding-drivers.do
Probably not :-)
Strathclyde police statement of accounts, 2009-2010. Revenue from "Traffic management" £2.8mil.
Doesn't give costs, but a panda car to get the officers on location, a radar gun, some envelopes & stamps... ?
|
>>Bobby - do you think the police make money out of traffic offences?
No
|
|
Bobby, I understand your overall point, but policing must address a range of issues. There must be countless examples of officers being in one place whilst a crime is committed in another. Oh to have a crystal ball. If your point is that the officers would be better deployed dealing with the drunks, then that's a perfectly valid viewpoint. It's equally valid when someone else wants another aspect of law enforcement delivered. To suggest that it's motivated by profit is frankly absurd. (''Meanwhile not 50 yards away a group of policemen were trying to find crimes being committed as these were easier to detect, quicker to process and no doubt, more profitable as well!''). Roads policing ( or 'traffic' as some prefer) is being reduced across the country and we've seen several contributors on here bemoaning the current position. Your priority may not be someone else's priority. regardless of what officers are directed to do, someone, somewhere, will criticise. I look forward to locally elected 'commissioners' to check policing activity. A lovely opportunity for whoever that person is to bring forward the views of the community. When officers respond to those views we can then look forward to the progress checks at whatever period is predetermined. It will soon become clear that officers have to be spread across a range of problems. Target one or two problems and the others will increase.
|
>> I was merely highlighting what I thought to be a very ironic situation and one
>> which summed up policing issues today.
I entirely agree with your sentiments. I see that the police don't. I am unsurprised.
|
|
So how does it sum up policing today Fotherington Thomas? My post answers the point and demonstrates my understanding. Clearly you don't. You're just adept at trolling from your armchair no doubt with no real experience to speak from. I understand Bobby and I don't doubt he understands me. Do you have anything constructive to add?
|
>> Do you have anything constructive to add?
Constructive?
bit.ly/dCCwLq - Comments by the Home Secretary
"Her comments follow a recent report by Sir Denis O'Connor, Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary in which he said the police had staged a "retreat from the streets" over the last 30 years."
Police have indeed "retreated from the streets" - just as intimated by the OP. Time for their organisation to be reformed, wholesale.
If your comments, and others we see from time to time here, are typical, then it's no wonder that the public attitude is as it is.
|
|
Hardly staging a retreat from the streets when we've brought in 'Neighbourhood policing' as per the last Government's direction - but no extra officers for this so they had to come from somewhere else. Arguably far too much time spent at local level in 'beat surgeries' and countless other trivial meetings, 'engaging' with the public (normally about dog poo and litter when we'd far rather be engaging with our known criminals) all as per the last Governments direction. I think we're rather good at doing what we're told, then we get the blame because it doesn't work. Criticism from the Home secretary is extremely difficult to understand. Officers spend time in stations supporting other players within the criminal justice system (mainly paperwork to the CPS and courts, to whom we are inextricably linked). To ease the paperwork burden and time spent inside requires wholesale review of other parts of the CJS. And shall we talk about targets and measurement?. All as per the last Govern.... As I said, do you have anything constructive to say, or any experience? I think you'll find that I'm not defending the police service, I'd welcome constructive change that benefitted the public. But when you're driven by ill thought out Government directives it's then very hard to understand a critical Government. In respect of your post you're simply quoting others. And what's 'typical' about my comments? Who else has echoed or repeated me in their post?. I challenge you to provide an answer. Unqualified statements like your last sentence are meaningless.
|
|
The only thing I'd disagree with Woodster is on the funding, there were NP funding pots galore in the good old days when there were seemingly bottomless pots of cash. It appears in some localities that street presence has been handed de-facto to the PCSOs (also massively funded from central government) - be interesting to see what happens to them when the current pot runs out in April 2011 - they have been integrated into Police Staff numbers by Forces who will have to "re-deploy" them into other roles (some hope) or make them redundant.
|
Policing 30 years ago in Glasgow
At that time I was in an office which was 4 storeys high at one end and 5 + basement further west.
Standing at window a suicide was seen. 999 - police + ambulance.
Police arrived, assessed and the ambulance away to await the van for the body.
Waiting, the police wasted no time in booking 10 cars in the lane for double yellow offences - productivity from Strathclyde Police 1980.
|
|
Pug - we still had/have to supply officers to NP. I think PCSO's will be one of the very difficult decisions dependant on the spending review on 20th. But point taken.
|
Before my move to the m/way, I had a shift of 8 bobbies to cover 500 square miles. This was reduced to 4 overnight to fill spaces in 'neighbourhood teams'. The NTs worked 9x5 mon-fri. They went to meetings, had biscuits with old people, made them feel all warm and cosy. What wasn't in their remit was to deal with crime. I suddenly had a 50% reduction in Officers to attend the same amount of incidents. The Public wanted 'bobbies on the beat'. That meant there were no response offciers when they got burgled at 2am or to attend the fights when the pubs and clubs turned out.
The comment about 'retreating from the streets' made all the Police Officers in the UK gasp in disbelief. How many times do we arrest the same imbecile, Each and every time he/she is released by the court to carry on their mayhem. Inspector Gagdget blog recently made an insightful comment:
"Sitting on the hill in the town centre, looking like a drunken, indifferent parent, is Ruraltown Magistrates Court. Any pretence of any function other than the free production of the counties largest revolving door has been long since abandoned. Hapless nylon tracksuited Swamp dwellers come here every few months for offences they can’t remember, and leave just as quickly. ‘Not Guilty’ until they learn that all the witnesses turned up, then a quick change of plea to a (bargained) lesser charge, and home for microwaved frozen chips and pizza."
Get 'em in prison and keep 'em there. I don't care if they come out rehabilitated. What I do know is that they're not destrying peoples lives while they are behind bars.
|
|
Are you paying attention Fotherington-Thomas?
|
...Get 'em in prison and keep 'em there...
I have occasionally heard a judge tell a prolific offender he is being locked up because: "The public deserve a break from your offending."
Refreshingly honest.
There is a hard core of lowish-level criminals who will only stop offending when they are good and ready.
The best - and cheapest - course is to keep them locked up for as much of the intervening period as we can.
|
I am a bit of a halfway between FT and Woodster.
I have already explained my thoughts and why I called this a "snapshot", it was literally a few seconds in one day but behind that, lies a whole huge story.
I had quite a few experiences with thieves in my previous job and the frustration on our part catching the same ones time and time again is nothing compared to that of the coppers who had to process them. I know a court officer in the local court who deals with the scum of the earth on a daily basis and knows them all by name as they are so regular.
We need to sort out our legal system, we need to make it quicker and more efficient. We need to pass some rule that excludes prisoners from Human Rights legislation. Get them out into the streets in chain gangs fixing potholes or cleaning streets or whatever.
I used to be very sympathetic to junkies and to shoplifters, they were doing it to fund a habit or to survive etc but now I am of the opinion stated above, lock them up and that sets them off our street. Give them cold turkey or whatever cause very little else seems to help them.
Why can it take so long to process people , literally months if not into the years for crimes committed? Why does the junkie scum who gets his handouts from the state, his methadone from the state, then get the state to pay his legal fees?
I work not far from the 2 courts in Glasgow and every day you see panda cars, traffic cars and CID cars parked up for hours at a time obviously called as witnesses. You see all the Reliance vans shepherding people in from courts all over the country in for an appearance and then back to court again. Why can they not set up a permanent video link from each prison? That would save loads of money?
And I do not know how the legal aid system works for lawyers but am pretty sure that to many of them, it is their very own Bank of England printing press. I know of one lawyer who fought for prisoners human rights to prevent them from having to "slop out" and as a result they all got payments of £2500 or thereabouts. And he no doubt got a huge payout for his work. This payout was actually subsequently quoted in a report on the sudden increase of drug prices in Glasgow as many of these scum were given £2500 in their hand.
On a slightly different note, we now have bobbies on the beat in our community, and occasionally on bikes. Great as this may seem, they would be no use whatosever to respond to a crime being reported a mile or two away.
|
>> We need to pass some rule that excludes prisoners from Human Rights legislation.
Prisoners are the people who need Human Rights legislation most.
|
>>Prisoners are the people who need Human Rights legislation most.
Can you explain that sweeping statement?
|
>> Can you explain that sweeping statement?
This has been studied and learned from in a lot of depth.
(The entire spectrum of) Prisoner types being what they are, when collectively put in a situation with no respect for human rights achieves the opposite of the intention (graduated punishment) when incarcerating.
The most severe offenders (worst crimes, longest terms) by their nature, tend to assume the best standing in prison society, they become irreproachable while they assault and rape the minor offenders who do not have the ability to claim a higher standing.
So while it's easy to focus on the petty thief who's guaranteed a good going over on the inside, it's more important to look at the serial rapist who's nature ensures he will be king of his peers and live a life of relative luxury inside.
In effect, you are rewarding the most brutal offenders with more than they could achieve outside prison, in exchange for only their freedom to roam.
Whether they're released again is neither here nor there, at no point are the most in need of punishment & reform, punished or reformed. Meanwhile the weakest have their right to be a human denied.
You could argue that society's responsibility to the crims stops at the prison gates, which is sustainable only if the prisoners are never to be readmitted to "society". All that does is defer the problem for a couple of generations until everyone exists on the land beyond law and order side of the fence.
|
>> >>Prisoners are the people who need Human Rights legislation most.
>>
>> Can you explain that sweeping statement?
Not really all that sweeping. I simply meant that detention by the state is a severe power; those exercising it should be held accountable for it's use. The rights granted by the ECHR and imported into the Human Rights Act are pretty straightforward and few would realistically argue against them. Banging up islamists becuase we don't like cut of their jib but lack the real evidence to charge them is a case in point.
A lot of ludicrous things are claimed as human rights and well publicised by the tabloid press. Sometimes those in authority, whether through ignorance or fear concede them. But that's not an argument for throwing the convention away.
|
>> We need to sort out our legal system
There's nothing wrong with our legal system at all, except that it has to adhere to a large body of legislation which is not principally formulated here. The punishment should undoubtably fit the crime - but the more complex imposed rules are, the more get-outs there are, and the less understanding of it there is. We should ditch swathes of "stuff" that's been imposed on us by foreign powers, and have an end to it.
|
so basically we should return to home rule home governance
see simples
and i agree
in 47 letters...........
|
FT I would disagree with you on our legal system.
How about the amount of time it takes to bring prosecution? Why do sheriffs/ judges impose bail on convicts who are up for breaking bail conditions? Why when people have previous convictions running into 3 figures are they allowed "one last chance", etc etc?
Why do we have so many repeat offenders?
|
>> How about the amount of time it takes to bring prosecution?
Because of the backlog, due to the amount of crimes being committed
>> Why do sheriffs/ judges impose bail on convicts who are up for breaking bail conditions?
Because the prisons are full, due to the 1st point.
..Why when people have previous convictions running into 3 figures are they allowed "one last chance", etc etc?
due to both points above
>> Why do we have so many repeat offenders?
Because in some cases, the standard of living is better inside, than outside.
I for one haven't played table-tennis for years, I have to pay for - and cook my own dinner etc...
|
Bobby, good to have you back in the discussion. Your final sentence (On a slightly different note, we now have bobbies on the beat in our community, and occasionally on bikes. Great as this may seem, they would be no use whatosever to respond to a crime being reported a mile or two away.) This sums up one of the difficulties faced in modern policing. Forced by the last government to divert officers to 'neighbourhood policing' is all well and good, but then we have less officers to respond to the never ending stream of urgent calls. Consequently we end up pleasing no-one, or at best delivering half a job. people are attached to the notion of feeling reassured by seeing officers walking the beat, but is it what they really need in this day and age, or indeed is it a luxury in the light of current volume and type of crimes along with financial constraints?
There is always the school of thought that says no modern government actually wants more police officers. You might then expect more arrests and more court appearances, adding to the workloads placed upon the courts, CPS, probation service and prisons. Added expense at one ends equals added expense throughout the system. It might be cheaper to accept a level of crime within what is essentially a well-off society. Encouraging individuals and businesses to play their part in policing (check the police reform act) is far cheaper. Just a thought.
|
Very simple, if there was a radical new solution. When I come to power this is how it will go.
Anyone convicted of a first offence will be fined and required to compensate the victim
Anyone convicted for the second time will be fined , required to compensate the victim and publicly whipped.
Anyone convicted of three crimes or of a first offence of murder or rape will be shot on a daily basis by firing squad on national TV. The last few moments of The One Show would be an ideal slot.
It would only take a week or so of that to significantly reduce crime indefinitely.
You would know where you stood and you wouldn't need prisons other than to hold those awaiting trial if they were considered dangerous.
So there.
|
>> shot on a daily basis by firing squad on national TV.
You'd shoot them again and again, day after day?
>> The last few
>> moments of The One Show would be an ideal slot.
I'm unsure what the "One Show" is, but it's probably one that I'd shoot the entire staff of.
|
No, there would be a fresh supply of examples for a day or two. It'd soon dry up though and could probably be reduced to a weekly then a monthly and finally an annual event.
Eventually there would be little or no crime.
Vote for me !
|
...So there...
I would introduce the death penalty for stealing an apple and every offence deemed more serious than that.
"You can't kill someone for stealing an apple," people would say.
But of course I wouldn't have to, every apple would be safe from theft.
|
In the middle ages you could be hanged for stealing a sheep. They were only worth fourpence, but fourpence was fourpence in those days.
Or poaching one of the King's conies (rabbits). Off with their heads!
I think there should be hanging, drawing and quartering for those cheeky enough to address me on any subject without being invited to do so.
In fact anyone who looks a bit weird, or looks at anyone else in a 'funny' way, should probably be executed on the spot. It would be bad for the economy in one way, but good in another.
|
A snapshot of Glasgow policing today - SteelSpark
