'No, leave it to us!' says Chief Plod, 'We take this kind of thing extremely seriously. For example, we took the rampant child abuse in Rotherham extremely seriously, it's just that we couldn't be bothered to actually do anything about it.' "Their success raises awkward questions for the police. Senior officers are openly damning of the risks vigilante groups pose to evidence gathering, as well as child safety and that of the public at large." So our finest would rather let children take their chances as they go to and fro to school, or play in the parks, than admit they're no (*)(*)(*)(*)ing good at protecting them. ''Serve and protect"? What a sick joke the police is this country are. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-37708233 "We are arresting hundreds of people every month," says Simon Bailey, a spokesman for the National Police Chiefs Council (NPCC), formerly Acpo." LIAR!
Apart from the fact that the police in England and Wales are being led by donkeys - yes they should work with vigilantes. The courts don't give a rat's arse who gets the evidence as long as it's admissible. The police would do well to ask for volunteers and then train them and work with them to get the evidence. That would mean more stings and the paedos would start thinking there's a far bigger chance of getting sprung with trained volunteers working with police. The brass and politicians would love it until the volunteers started asking for money for their work and it would end up in a (*)(*)(*)(*)fight. But until then yes, they should take them on board.
The Home Office would never allow it because it would be the ultimate admission the police can't handle the problem. Or more accurately, can't be bothered to?
Bit of a long bow about them not being bothered. Not too many coppers would say they're not bothered. The brass, well, they're political and will do the will of their masters and their masters are elected by the people so folks need to get cranky with their local Member.
How many times have you heard reported 'The police were informed but took no action'? Me? I hear it all the time. Also 'the brass' and their masters are often upto their necks in it themselves, so the police leave them alone. Need I say 'Savile', and 'Chilcot'? Oh I've just noticed you're in Oz so you won't know the background.
No worries I've been reading a bit about it. I know about Savile. I lived in the UK as a kid, my father would do his nut when Savile came on tv. Not that he knew anything, just that he hated his guts. Good judge of character he was. And apparently Ted Heath is now coming under review. You're right though. The rulers - not the Royal Family I mean -are right in it and protecting their own. The police chiefs who start out as plebs, get promoted and get the big job suddenly think they've been accepted into the upper class, especially when they get a knighthood. The rulers still think they're plebs, just useful that's all.
I think the Rotherham issue is a bit different from the subject of the article. Unfortunately people like this can impair evidence gathering and a subsequent conviction and they could potentially make it harder to catch paedophiles. Also "Serve and protect" isn't a motto used in any UK constabulary They probably are.
Wha'evah! Oh and I know Serve and Protect isn't the motto in the UK but it's what we pay them to do isn't it?????? FFS if you don't have something constructive to say then don't bloody say anything.
I was taught to not bother the uniform with things I could take care of myself. Self preservationist laws, anti-vigilantes, and such seem to further complicate the potential networking that should be in place that would help close the gap between "us" and "them", perhaps.
