From: Ret. on
Conor wrote:
> On 24/03/2010 10:05, Ret. wrote:
>> I never said that - but ID parade 'stooges' are simply selected,
>> according to certain physical traits (height, hair colour, age, etc)
>> off the streets or from colleges,
> You said it was random. That is not random.

What I meant was people are just approached in the street. I agree that
'random' was not the right word to use. It goes without saying that the
'stooges' are expected to look as much like the suspect as possible.

Often this proves problematic. Most ID suites are equipped with sets of
hats, gloves, spectacles, etc. If the suspect, for example, has a mohican
hair cut, it would be next to impossible to obtain sufficient stooges with
such a ridiculous hair do - and so everyone, including the suspect, would be
made to wear a hat.


From: Mike Scott on
Ret. wrote:
> They are imaginary because you are all making them up. They are fanciful
> because the number of coincidences and ludicrous situations that would
> have to come together to create them are ridiculous.

I think you're missing the point again.

Any one scenario might well be extremely implausible (read 'unlikely').
The total number of possible such scenarios is immense. The probability
of an undefined selection of them happening is likely to be significant.
Which implies a significant probability of a miscarriage of justice.

Mike Scott (unet2 <at> [deletethis]
Harlow Essex England
From: Ret. on
Conor wrote:
> On 24/03/2010 15:33, Cynic wrote:
>>> Just to add, Kev...
>>> How did Social Services find out about this incident?
>> If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.
>> Think of the children.
>> If it saves just one child it is worth it.
>> We need to prevent terrorism and abuse.
>> No right-thinking person could possibly object.
>> These measures are for our own good.
>> Blame the criminals for making it necessary.
>> It helps win the War on Drugs.
>> It helps win the War on Terrorism.
>> It helps win the War on Child Abuse.
>> It helps win the War on Obesity.
>> ... feral youths ... knife crime ... hooliganism ... yada yada
> Did you notice the lack of a response by Kev?

Unlike some, I have a life outside of usenet. My grand-daughter has been
around today and I hve been entertaining her.

I cannot comment upon your anecdotal tale because I don't know the full
story and I haven't heard the 'other side'.

I have never ever heard of such a thing happening in 30 years in the job.


From: Ret. on
Cynic wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 16:36:51 +0000, Conor <conor(a)> wrote:
>>>> Just to add, Kev...
>>>> How did Social Services find out about this incident?
>> Did you notice the lack of a response by Kev?
> He possibly doesn't know because the policy may not have been in force
> when he was a copper.
> It is nowadays policy that any incident in which (in the opinion of
> the officer) a child was put at risk is reported to a special unit on
> which social services is represented. That unit will decide what
> followup, if any, is required.
> A car with a child passenger that the officer believes was being
> driven carelessly or dangerously would probably qualify.

OK - I was not aware of that. I retired in 2001.

Of course, if the police and social services don't do anything about
children suspected of being at risk - then they are crucified. When they
do - they are accused of being heavy-handed.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. It's one of the first lessons you
learn as a police officer: No matter what you will be wrong.



From: Cynic on
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 19:15:14 -0000, "Brimstone"
<brimstone(a)> wrote:

>> Guess what would happen if a local police chief decided not to
>> prosecute canabis smokers after the Home Secretary had announced a
>> crackdown on drug users? Or decided that government targets were
>> irrelevant and refused to meet them?

>Oh good grief, you really are as naive as Kev.

Or perhaps you are.

At the end of the day, the entire function of the police is to enforce
the law.

Which boils down to forcing the people to do what the government tells
them to do or not do, no matter how you dress it up.

Whether the police are or are not a part of the government is a moot
point, because they exist as one of the main *tools* of the
government, and are as much under its control (direct and indirect) as
the soldering iron on my workbench is under my control.