WESTFIELD RAILWAY AND BUSES

[Richard]

seahermit I believe it was one of the Kray twins who threatened to kill anyone who said a bad word about his mother!

As for Chris working in the CID and in Hastings in the 80's - there were probably always plenty of 'customers' and with less Police in uniform these days minor crimes are ignored that would have been pursued 30 or 40 years ago?

[Chris Page]

Absolutely right, Richard. I would hate to be a CID officer now and unable to investigate crimes, that although minor in nature by today's standards, still mean a lot to householders when they have their property stolen or their houses broken into. I retired in 1993 before things started getting really bad and am rather ashamed at the service now being offered to the public by Sussex Police, even though they have lots to deal with to-day that we never had. I suppose every generation says that about the generation before them. I remember my Dad, who was a Police Constable in Tunbridge Wells for 27 years, saying the same about Brighton Police when I joined in 1963!

[seahermit]

There's something about Richard .. I could see him being a brutal assassin if really provoked .. you can never be too sure of people!!

I should imagine Chris's father would be appalled by the modern culture in police forces. I do think there has been a departure from morality and integrity. And the disregarding of minor crimes is really stupid. Crime is crime. Youths who think that petty crime is ok and tolerated stay with the crime road and go on to commit bigger ones. That's the crux of the crime upsurge.

[Richard]

seahermit must be all-agog now with a Police Force Detective (Chris) and a Lawyer (ColinL) both retired, to grapple with.
Police have to find the evidence that can stand up to scrutiny in the due process of the law.
Lawyers can play with the information provided and use clever tactics to influence a jury.
And there is also the question of whether criminal or civil law is the more appropriate vehicle for prosecution.
And how a State-led criminal trial and failure to prosecute, owing to various circumstances, can later result in a private prosecution resulting in prosecution.
Commonly 'double jeopardy' prevents a person from being tried again for the same crime.

confused.com?

[seahermit]

Some would say that, if Chris sticks around, he is unlikely to be left-wing, so may neatly balance out the obsessive leftist stance of the other one!

Police are finding all sorts of excuses as to why some prosecutions are not pursued - difficulty of gathering hard evidence, complexity of cases etc. The truth is that the sheer volume of crime, aided by the mushrooming of fraud and scamming on the internet, is currently overwhelming. Only a radical, new and very focused approach will turn the tide.

Double jeopardy is no longer a sure safeguard for criminals - the law has been changed to some extent and there have already been some cases where crimes have been revisited and prosecutions secured.

[Richard]

A sensible reply seahermit.
From my experience the Police don't like to get involved in what can be seen as minor criminal offences if they can possibly help it.
Many complaints raised by the public are deemed a civil matter.
Maybe too much paperwork or the sheer abundance of petty crime.
Shop-lifting and opportunistic house-entering by petty thieves is rife in Hastings (as elsewhere) and the criminals seem to have more leeway and know what they can get away with.
Priory Meadow has its own security agents and so do Morrisons and M&S.
The Police are rarely involved, or seen on the streets.
Unlike fines for motoring offences, many items of petty-crime are just a drain of precious resources.
The 'street-criminals' plead poverty and can't be punished meaningfully, whereas motorists committing minor offences are a guaranteed source of revenue and can more easily be pursued for payment.
On-the-spot fines by the Police have been tried for 'street-crimes' but seem to have lost ground somehow.
So, it's perhaps about limited Police resources and an inability to recover associated costs and so 'allowing' crime to pay.