David Nutter wrote:
> On 2006-11-22, Sniper8052(L96A1) <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>The problem, as I see it, is that the civil liberties brigade actually
>>do far more harm in our society than they do good. This tool, like the
>>ID card, has a potential for reducing crime and increasing public safety
>>but instead of focussing on that they moan about the erosion of the
>>liberties - restricting the powers of police officers to police
>>effectively - and then go on about the police being unable to do
>>anything to control crime and public disorder.
>
>
> I think you are confusing two issues: the desire of police officers to do
> their job without excessive bureaucracy and the desire of society to limit
> police powers to reduce the impact of abuse, whether by individual
> corruption or the invidious effects of particular laws (e.g. stop and
> search).
There is not now, nor has there ever been a general police power to stop
and search. This power to search MUST be exercised on grounds that
would be reasonable to an impartial third party. Whilst I have only
been a police officer for 14 years and was in the services at the time
of the Brixton riots (I think - 1981/2) I think I am right in that.
The continued use of the term Stop and Search is misleading and
devisive. It is used by the press and others who wish to raise distrust
of the service by being deliberatly emotive and provocative.
While these two concerns may overlap in some cases, they are not
> the same. My facile interpretation: the police want certain laws largely for
> their convenience (e.g. 90 days detention) whereas wider society wishes to
> be safe from overbearing policing and both want to control criminality.
Wider society?
Do you mean Mr and Mrs Average?
I can tell you, in my experience, what Mr+Mrs Average, with their two
children and dog want. They want to be able to live their lives and
raise their children in safety, with an efficient police, fire, health
and social service and without the fear of being subjected to threats
from groups of any faction. In my experience Mr+Mrs Average don't give
a fig about how that comes about, just that it does.
I agree that both parties, the public and criminal/suspects, must have
adequate protection. I do not see that Mr+Mrs Average want the
laws/powers that could protect the majority to be rendered ineffective
or impossible to administer by the vocal minority of do-good activists
who have their own, unelected, knife to grind. If they feel they are so
right then they should get elected to parliament.
We as a group decry BHit and their ilk as being unrepresentative of the
majority cycling group. Why should Mr+Mrs Average be subject to a lobby
group surplanting their elected groups authority to pass and administer
legislature?
>
> In this case, the police apparently want a handy way to check drivers'
> identities to save time and paperwork. Even assuming the fingerprinting
> technology works properly a significant number of drivers will not be on the
> fingerprint database (at least at first) and so will still need to be taken
> to the station or trusted to produce their documents later. So, why not just
> legislate to require the carrying of licence and insurance documents, as
> happens in other European countries? That would solve the specific problem
> here without requiring any gadgetry.
I do not know but I would make a suggestion that once we have a national
ID scheme the system will be used to help ensure that the person
presenting the card is the person it proports to represent. Whilst not
foolproof it makes copying the card more difficult.
>
> No, I think the agenda here is something different. Given the history of the
> DNA database, I think these devices are to be used as a convenient method of
> snaffling lots of fingerprints into the database initially without explicit
> legal authority. Such a collection is undoubtedly considered mighty useful
> in some quarters but I personally believe the costs to be too high to
> proceed, especially in such an underhand manner.
I doubt that, a significant amount of information has to be entered into
the database to have the prints acceptable. Also one fingerprint is not
a large amount of use in abstract identification of offenders where as
checking a residual fingerprint against a known set/subset is.
>
>
>>It's these do-gooders that have created the society we live in today and
>>have swung the pendulum of justice away from the victim so that the
>>criminal can laugh in our face.
>
>
> It appears that you consider that the judicial system should be a
> state-sponsored vengeance machine rather than a system for harm
> minimisation. Worrying, coming from a cop.
I have very strict views on policing and how it should be done. I have
stated my view on many occasions but it boils down to,
'Keeping a straight bat and playing the game...'
Justice is not always about punishing the offender. Justice, in its
abstract form, is about the adminisration of the wishes of society to
live free from fear of whatever criminal activity the offender has
commited. It is the confusion between protecting society and punishing
the offender that many do not grasp.
>... our remaining liberties are the only thing we can use to protect
> ourselves from being tyrannised, whether by criminals or an overbearing
> state. All other desirable societal structures are built on these, whether
> governance/policing by consent or any meaningful concept of equitable
> justice. If you weaken them to facilitate vengeful chastisement of minor
> wrongdoers you risk the very basis of the society you puport to protect.
I do not advocate vengeful chastisement and I never have. Ever. I
advocate a strong system of laws, administered fairly, governed by legal
restraints and passed by our elected representatives.
If you weaken the ability of the law to be administered then you harm
society. In my book "...the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the
few" but the few must be legaly protected within that system.
All to often though, in my opinion, the vocal few seek not to provide a
legal safety but to destroy the purpose of the law and its
administration for whatever reason.
If I felt that I could not work freely and fairly I would not be a
police officer. I did not spend 13 years of my life serving my country
to supress the freedoms I risked my life to preserve.
Sniper8052
