"furnessvale" wrote in message
...
On Jan 1, 5:29 pm, Bruce wrote:
furnessvale wrote:
Presumably we should be truly thankful that the people of this
country are protected from unarmed men by their swift execution
without having to wait for the criminal justice system to put
them in
prison.

You have added an inability to read to your list of imperfections.

I bet you think that of anyone who points out your nonsense.

No, only people who can't read.

I have specifically stated that I don't condone "stitching up" but
that
doesn't mean I would shy away from getting a villain legitimately
banned from driving to curtail his criminal activities.

The trouble is that you, along with thousands of other police
officers, believe that you are entitled to say who is and who is not
a "villain" on the basis of what you think you know.

Perhaps, like thousands of other police officers, you need to be
forcibly reminded that your job is to uphold the law and the whole of
the judicial system, not to operate outside that system and dispense
summary justice as you see fit to people you define as "villains".

Still unable to read. Where have I stated a desire to operate
"outside the system"? My definition of a villain is, for example, a
known active burglar, who I have stopped for a motoring offence. Sad
to advise you that he will not be getting the on the spot caution a
little old lady may receive for the same offence, vindictive *******
aren't I.

Of course a large part of the problem is the very low average
intellectual ability of police officers that makes them so extremely
difficult to educate. It also means that many of the people who are
attracted to that career are fundamentally unsuited to the job.

Yawn. Wonder why you chose to keep flying that Whitehall desk all
those years?

George

Sensible policing to me. I like you definition.