On 22 Aug, 08:48, "nightjar" .me.uk>
wrote:
>> On 21 Aug, 22:41, "nightjar" .me.uk>
>> wrote:
>>> "Doug"
riseup.net> wrote in message>
>
>>>> Tell me about it. They frequently hover over peaceful protesters too.
>
>>> And the ones you support too. It helps them spot developing trouble much
>>> earlier and to direct ground forces into the area to control it.
>
>> Yeah. Pre-emptive policing. Tell me about it! Treat everyone as
>> serious criminals until the police are sure they are innocent....
>
> How else to be sure there are enough Police around to deal with serious
> outbreaks of criminal activity when they happen? If all protests were really
> peaceful, we might get back to the marches I remember from 50 years ago,
> where the Police were there as much to control traffic as to escort the
> protesters. The whole atmosphere was very cordial.
>
It has never been cordial where peaceful demonstrators are in constant
fear of arrest or worse.
The police have more than adequate communications and at
demonstrations can bring reinforcements in very quickly and yet they
often choose to dominate such peaceful demonstrations by virtually
outnumbering them and intimidating the demonstrators.
There is often a compromise though where the demonstration is first
cleared with the police and stewards are appointed but this means that
the police are in charge and determine the route etc. Demonstrators
also suffer the indignity of being led by a phalanx of cops in front
of and often hiding their banners.
>
>>>> The police seem to have so much staff and money to waste on
>>>> disproportionate responses. You would think that with so much CCTV on
>>>> the ground they could track people without the need for helicopters.
>
>>> One of the criticisms of CCTV is that they don't stop crime - they simply
>>> move it to areas that are not covered.
>
>> Towns are pretty well covered.
>
> In many, but not all, towns, the shopping areas are well covered.
> Residential areas rarely are.
>
Give it time.
>
>>>> I suppose it gives them a big thrill though.
>
>>> As the pilots are almost invariaby ex-military (they are also civilians,
>>> not
>>> Police) it is probably pretty tame stuff to them.
>
>> I meant the ones in the cars and the police passengers in the
>> helicopters.
>
>> As for the 'exciting' car chases they often start out as something
>> minor and are escalated by being chased.
>
> After one or two like that resulted in accidents, there was a change in
> policy and the Police are now under instructions to back off if it looks as
> if the pursuit is likely to get out of hand. That is also one reason for a
> growing use of aircraft.
>
No more 'car chase' TV then?
>
>> Not that criminal motorists
>> should not be caught but maybe less dangerous and less expensive
>> methods should be tried, like recording the reg number and later
>> visiting the owner perhaps?
>
> To say what? We've recovered the burnt-out shell of your stolen car. We
> could have caught the culprits and recovered the car with minimal damage
> with a stinger had we known where they were going, but Doug's Law means we
> can no longer follow stolen cars.
>
The car is insured isn't it, or ought to be. I find it incredible that
motorists leave their expensive possessions lying about on public
streets 24/7 and yet don't expect them to get stolen. It is an open
invitation to thieves.
>
>> I think the cops enjoy the thrill of speed and that is why they do it
>> and put the public in danger.
>
> The ones I know are only too well aware that they are the ones who are most
> at danger.
>
Which is thrilling.
