Panda with issues...
Well-Known Member
Wow. That really is pretty surprising I have to say.
Being female in public is a crime
- Thread starter Wol
- Start date
Wow. That really is pretty surprising I have to say.
Panda with issues...
Well-Known Member
You see. I thought that would be the case too. I guess we can't actually understand the workings of a rapist's brain, which I can only assume is a good thing.
Peepee
In Cryo Sleep
Really I thought most knew that, I actually thought the percentage was higher tbh.
Xylak
New Member
Why is it disgusting to make people aware of the dangers of unbooked, unlicensed minicabs? This poster is one of a series of initiatives that have been launched jointly by TfL and the Metropolitan Police, along with the British Transport Police and the City of London Police, in response to an escalation of sexual assaults committed by thee drivers of these cabs. Doing anything else, and we would be accused of shirking our duty to the public (quite rightly).
I'm interested to hear what people think we should do instead of putting up these posters? (Don't just put 'catch the rapists' or I'll hit you with a flaming stick of death)
When I first made my comment I wasn't ware that CabWise was a TFL initiative and made the assumption that it was simply a cab service. I have since edited my post to explain that. There should be official logos on the poster to avoid such confusion.
I would question the effectiveness of such posters as the target audience are generally not in a state of mind to pay much attention to such things. Here's the scenario: You want to go home, you're outside in the cold, a car pulls up "Minicab for Sarah", "There's no Sarah here she must have gone", "You waiting for a cab?", "Yeah", "Get in - where you want to go?". That is not an uncommon scenario - hell, I've done it myself (not the "get in" bit, the grab-a-cab bit). Generally at that point you don't care who the cab driver is, you just want to go home.
As to your subsequent question... I really don't know.
It could be argued that one way might be "feet on the street". More beat police that patrol the areas where these minicabs are likely to operate (outside pubs/clubs late, I should think) who are vigilant enough to identify an unlicensed cab/taxi - along with more stringent, obvious identifiers for minicabs.
It's a shame that Police force budgets have been cut so much that they have to rely on Community Support Officers who have virtually no powers and less respect - I generally refer to them as little more than Government paid snitches. They are not the answer no matter how community spirited they are - you need real, old-fashioned beat coppers who know their patch and the people in it.
I also believe that a social mental shift away from the "they were asking for it" attitude, as well as thinking women who don't wear 3 layers of clothing and carry a stick are "fair game" for sex mentality, would go some way to reducing these types of assaults.
Ki!ler-Mk1
Active Member
I hope you dont really think that, thats [strike](no sorry, you're[/strike]) just horrible. While i accept that I do not understand their existance, i would not give them less respect.
Xylak
New Member
Unfortunately, yes it is what I think : http://www.policecommunitysupportofficer.com/welcome.html
They are not Police Officers but they walk a beat - sometimes with a regular PC - and basically report on things. They have no powers of arrest and very limited powers of intervention.
Our Police Force (sorry Service, now) does not have the resources for enough fully-trained proper officers. They command less respect because they have no powers. And by "respect" I don't mean as an individual but in their role. A "criminal" has little respect for Police and even less for a PCSO.
They are, almost by definition, simply reporters of crime - I feel their role is bordering on dystopian in nature in that they are neighbours-spying-on-neighbours supported by the government.
In fact, they are so useless they are not allowed to even save a boy from drowning : story.
If they cannot save a persons life, the role is unwarranted and does not deserve respect.
(saying that, for balance, here's a story of an off-duty PCSO who DID save someone: story)
Ki!ler-Mk1
Active Member
Wol
In Cryo Sleep
And I'm guessing thats why the layout of the original poster is quite eye catching....
Xylak
New Member
I say "unfortunately" because I find it sad and a little disturbing that we have to have these people - and that applies to a number of levels. We should have enough resources for 'proper coppers', in a decent society we should not NEED so many policemen and, I feel as I said before, it's a step towards a more dystopian society where governments try to control people more and more.
Just because the powers-that-be say it's good for you, doesn't mean it's true.
I'd like to hear what Taffy thinks of PCSOs (although, Taffy, I would understand why you wouldn't give your thoughts on a public forum if you chose not to).
PS: thanks - I find adding supporting evidence reduces the number of "oh yeah? Prove it" comments
Ki!ler-Mk1
Active Member
Might is right.
Taffy
New Member
I would rather not
However, I will say that they are a resource, and that it's better to have somebody out there than nobody. The system we employ in the Met (although I won't go into details for obvious reasons) with regards to PCSO's means that they aren't out there alone, and we can get to them quickly if they put up for support on the radio.Xylak, I can understand your opinion, but I think linking to those PCSO's who didn't jump in to save that kid isn't a fair case for saying 'PCSOs are a waste'. That's a personal decision that they have made, and isn't a blanket rule for all of them. I'm not defending their actions (personally, I would have gone in without hesitation), but at the end of the day nobody can force them to jump in, the same that nobody can forcibly stop them from doing so.
Xylak
New Member
I would rather not
Xylak, I can understand your opinion, but I think linking to those PCSO's who didn't jump in to save that kid isn't a fair case for saying 'PCSOs are a waste'. That's a personal decision that they have made, and isn't a blanket rule for all of them. I'm not defending their actions (personally, I would have gone in without hesitation), but at the end of the day nobody can force them to jump in, the same that nobody can forcibly stop them from doing so.
Thanks for the response Taffy, I do fully understand why you wouldn't give any details on a public forum.
And no, I'm not saying ALL PCSOs are the same - it obviously is up the the individual as to how they act in a given situation and I used the one of the poor kid who drowned as an extreme example.
I do think, however, that the PCSO role should not exist and that enough resources should be in place to have REAL policemen in their place (and I'm fairly sure you wouldn't disagree with that one).
How much better would it be if a uniformed officer could intervene immediately should a situation arise rather than these pseudo-cops who cannot technically get involved?
(this is a rhetorical question as the answer should be blindingly obvious)
It really is a poor reflection on our society where we actually NEED so many police anyway. To me, that's the bottom line. But that's a whole other topic that won't be solved here
/ please, no comments on "well, that's just the way it is" because that's not the way it has to be - unless we really aren't as civilised as we think we are or may pretend to be.
// btw, the actual answer to most of our social problems is "education" - glad to be of service. Next!
I've really not been keeping up on the thread so apologies if I wander beyond bounds too much.
Just wanted to pick up on a thread raised here, though:
I see where you're coming from on this, I think. Just to read back: surely it's better to have a fully funded police force where all officers are fully trained and empowered to take all action under the law.
I think, though, that there's a role for people who are not "empowered" to still assist in policing. I italicise that because, as I understand it, policing is somewhat different to law enforcement. In fact, at one time, policing (after a fashion) was done by members of the community simply intervening and only involving the police if something serious was involved. These days, that sort of community policing doesn't seem to work and, I suspect, is discouraged on grounds of putting members of the public in danger.
The PCSO now helps fulfill that old role as a sort of mediator and first line of defence. I'd argue that a mediator can be helpful in all sorts of circumstances and if we're asking for their dedicated time and attention on that then we should be recompensing them appropriately for it. Thus, it's a job, be it part time or whatever, even though it's not putting a fully trained and empowered police officer on the ground.
That said, I do wonder whether the high visibility of police, whether PCSO's or otherwise, isn't just a byproduct of Labour government meddling in police priorities. Some senior police officers of the time stated that they felt that focusing on street crime through high visibility policing was a misallocation of resources and that more serious problems should be receiving funding instead.
Just wanted to pick up on a thread raised here, though:
I see where you're coming from on this, I think. Just to read back: surely it's better to have a fully funded police force where all officers are fully trained and empowered to take all action under the law.
I think, though, that there's a role for people who are not "empowered" to still assist in policing. I italicise that because, as I understand it, policing is somewhat different to law enforcement. In fact, at one time, policing (after a fashion) was done by members of the community simply intervening and only involving the police if something serious was involved. These days, that sort of community policing doesn't seem to work and, I suspect, is discouraged on grounds of putting members of the public in danger.
The PCSO now helps fulfill that old role as a sort of mediator and first line of defence. I'd argue that a mediator can be helpful in all sorts of circumstances and if we're asking for their dedicated time and attention on that then we should be recompensing them appropriately for it. Thus, it's a job, be it part time or whatever, even though it's not putting a fully trained and empowered police officer on the ground.
That said, I do wonder whether the high visibility of police, whether PCSO's or otherwise, isn't just a byproduct of Labour government meddling in police priorities. Some senior police officers of the time stated that they felt that focusing on street crime through high visibility policing was a misallocation of resources and that more serious problems should be receiving funding instead.
Xylak
New Member
Yes, Ronin, that's pretty much where I'm coming from.
However I would argue that the PCSO isn't a mediator or a first line of defence as their intervention powers are non-existent but, at the risk of using the phrase again, I see where you're coming from - and with Taffy on that they can be helpful in certain situations.
To me, the fact that they have no legal powers of arrest or intervention is why they command less respect than a properly trained policeman.
To go back to the "unlicensed minicab" example from earlier, a PCSO would not have the power to stop and question (and possibly detain) a person he suspected of operating as such whereas a policeman would. The PCSO would have to report his suspicions in which time the suspect could have driven off - possibly with a fare - and would be long gone by the time the proper police arrived.
I fully agree that there is a need for civilian support personnel in the Police Force in a variety of roles but that walking the streets being part of a visible deterrent should not be one.
And a great final point you made too
We need to fix the root of social problems before they become problems - not once they ARE a problem.
// damn but I'm loving this bit of the debate right now
However I would argue that the PCSO isn't a mediator or a first line of defence as their intervention powers are non-existent but, at the risk of using the phrase again, I see where you're coming from - and with Taffy on that they can be helpful in certain situations.
To me, the fact that they have no legal powers of arrest or intervention is why they command less respect than a properly trained policeman.
To go back to the "unlicensed minicab" example from earlier, a PCSO would not have the power to stop and question (and possibly detain) a person he suspected of operating as such whereas a policeman would. The PCSO would have to report his suspicions in which time the suspect could have driven off - possibly with a fare - and would be long gone by the time the proper police arrived.
I fully agree that there is a need for civilian support personnel in the Police Force in a variety of roles but that walking the streets being part of a visible deterrent should not be one.
And a great final point you made too
We need to fix the root of social problems before they become problems - not once they ARE a problem.
// damn but I'm loving this bit of the debate right now
Ki!ler-Mk1
Active Member
For the most part doing the right thing will be rewarded in kind.
Though as i am sure you'll point out, if someone burgles your house, threaten them so they attack you BEFORE killing/maiming them. Dont run after them after they flee and then maim them.
He could photograph or write down the make and numberplate though.
Dr Drae
In Cryo Sleep
But surely the whole point is the prevention of crime? Apprehension of misconduct in society is all well and good, and I completely respect the work that is done for us, but the main focus always needs to be stopping it happening in the first place; Which is what I believe the campaign poster was aimed at.
Coincidentally sums it up.
Xylak
New Member
And by the time the fake numberplate has been identified they have driven off to who-knows-where.
Photographs never stopped a crime. And besides, any conscientious citizen could do the same.
Not quite sure what your point is here. Are you attempting the "Chewbacca" defence argument?
Ki!ler-Mk1
Active Member
I was agreeing with you
[mod]As mentioned a few times already in this thread, personal attacks aren't tolerated... --D[/mod]
[mod]As mentioned a few times already in this thread, personal attacks aren't tolerated... --D[/mod]
Xylak
New Member
Ah, right, sorry. The sentence didn't make much sense to me - hence my attempt at injecting some humour
/Also curious as to the reason for the Mod. No personal attack quoted or implied.