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

"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.

On Jan 2, 7:47*pm, furnessvale wrote:

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.

If they're a known active burglar, why aren't you arresting him for
burglary? Oh, not that sort of "known".

ian

furnessvale wrote:
Still unable to read.


Yes, I have noted that reading comprehension isn't your strong point.
Have you considered adult literacy classes.

(Probably won't understand any of that.)


Where have I stated a desire to operate
"outside the system"? My definition of a villain is, for example, a
known active burglar


The use of the word "villain" speaks volumes. The person is either a
convicted criminal, or isn't. But a sub-sector of the police who
have no respect for the law, and are prepared to operate outside it,
think they can replace the judge and jury, or three magistrates, and
just call people "villains" whenever they feel like it.

The fact that so many police see absolutely nothing wrong in this
demonstrates just how morally bankrupt some police forces are.


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.


A vindictive ******* and proud of it.






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


How many years would that be? Do tell, because I have forgotten.

On Jan 2, 8:02*pm, ian batten wrote:
On Jan 2, 7:47*pm, furnessvale wrote:

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.

If they're a known active burglar, why aren't you arresting him for
burglary? *Oh, not that sort of "known".

ian

I certainly will arrest him for burglary at every opportunity he just
won't get the benefit of the doubt given to the little old lady, or
are you suggesting that she should receive the same treatment as the
recidivist.

George

On Jan 2, 8:18*pm, Bruce wrote:
furnessvale wrote:
Still unable to read.

Yes, I have noted that reading comprehension isn't your strong point.
*Have you considered adult literacy classes.

(Probably won't understand any of that.)

Your wit is astounding!

Where have I stated a desire to operate
"outside the system"? *My definition of a villain is, for example, a
known active burglar

The use of the word "villain" speaks volumes. *The person is either a
convicted criminal, or isn't. *But a sub-sector of the police who
have no respect for the law, and are prepared to operate outside it,
think they can replace the judge and jury, or three magistrates, and
just call people "villains" whenever they feel like it.

The fact that so many police see absolutely nothing wrong in this
demonstrates just how morally bankrupt some police forces are.

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.

A vindictive ******* and proud of it.

You got it in one. You are not as thick as you try to make out are
you.

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

How many years would that be? *Do tell, because I have forgotten.

Dementia must be setting in.

Getting bored now. When your level of debate sinks to taking umbrage
with my use of the word villain, rather than "convicted burglar with
25 previous convictions and currently on bail for 6 more offences", it
is time to say goodbye (once again).

George

"SB" wrote in message

http://www.bbc.co.uk/search/news/?q=metal%20thefts

====

Scrap metal raids: Police seize tonnes of rail cable

There's even a new Matt cartoon on the subject:
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/02097/matt-030112-email_2097922a.jpg