Aha Mr Dickson, quick question - I've had a saver on the SNP @ 50-1 in East Dunbartonshire - is it worth doing so on Conservatives at 100-1 (Maxed out on Labour there).
I don't think its an SNP gain but essentially I'm laying the Lib Dems there...
Nope. SCON too short at 100/1 for that seat = waste of good cash. SNP way, way too long at 50/1. I tried to get 50 quid on them over at Paddy Power for East Dunbartonshire but they allowed me some stupid max stake of 28p or something. Totally derisory.
ICM say Lib Dems are on 1% in Scotland..... That is very funny.
I know somebody who won't find that remotely funny. In fact, he'll be along in a minute to do his standard impersonation of Mr Angry. Always worth a chortle.
Yes says he cowering.... and I do know that it is an unrepresentative sample but 1% and no MPs is funny albeit unlikely to happen.
When does the LD revival take place? In the 2nd half of this year or in the GE campaign next year?
An increase in the personal allowance, with no adjustment of the higher rate threshold, will benefit those with income between 10k - 100k. Higher rate taxpayers will benefit twice as much as basic rate taxpayers ( 40% to 20% on the increase). If you want everyone to have the same benefit you need to lower the higher rate threshold to compensate. Those earning more than 100k will lose from this as they do not benefit from the personal allowance (strictly the PA is taped at a rate of £1 to £2 of increased income giving the notorious 60% marginal tax rate).
Raising the higher rate threshold will benefit higher and additional rate tax payers (tax cut including millionaires) only.
The median and average income is at the basic rate not higher rate.
ICM say Lib Dems are on 1% in Scotland..... That is very funny.
I know somebody who won't find that remotely funny. In fact, he'll be along in a minute to do his standard impersonation of Mr Angry. Always worth a chortle.
Yes says he cowering.... and I do know that it is an unrepresentative sample but 1% and no MPs is funny albeit unlikely to happen.
When does the LD revival take place? In the 2nd half of this year or in the GE campaign next year?
More like the 2nd half of the next decade, if they are lucky.
If they are unlucky it could be the 2nd half of the next century.
When Scots vote YES the SLDs (or more likely a new liberal grouping) will start to perform very well in the new, sovereign parliament. At least 25% of the Scottish electorate are natural liberals.
An increase in the personal allowance, with no adjustment of the higher rate threshold, will benefit those with income between 10k - 100k. Higher rate taxpayers will benefit twice as much as basic rate taxpayers ( 40% to 20% on the increase). If you want everyone to have the same benefit you need to lower the higher rate threshold to compensate. Those earning more than 100k will lose from this as they do not benefit from the personal allowance (strictly the PA is taped at a rate of £1 to £2 of increased income giving the notorious 60% marginal tax rate).
Raising the higher rate threshold will benefit higher and additional rate tax payers (tax cut including millionaires) only.
The median and average income is at the basic rate not higher rate.
I too, cannot imagine a Tory cut in the 40% threshold. If it went with a rise in the 45p tax rate, then it could be salvageable, but that won't be politically possible because of the past. A real-terms freeze, maybe.
So no forgiveness and no possibility of redemption.
One childish error and you are damned for all eternity.
And a bit of a hostage to fortune - I assume that no UKIP senior team members have got any convictions for anything, ever?
It's such an awful tactic in an argument to extrapolate the very worst case scenario and present it as the norm, I thought you would have been better than that.
You've fallen into the old trap of channeling a Marxist lecturer at Brighton Uni because you are talking to a kipper
Forgiveness and redemption? Yes.
Damned for all eternity. No.
Ukip senior team members have convictions? maybe I don't know.
Judging from the responses on here, it seems to be a classic case of the partisan elite "not getting it". Thus a perfect issue for UKIP to make a big deal of.
Judging from the responses on here, it seems to be a classic case of the partisan elite "not getting it". Thus a perfect issue for UKIP to make a big deal of.
Yes. It is amazing what you can get people to defend merely by having a ukip supporter attacking it
Ukip saying policeman should have clean criminal records vs the rest saying it's ok to have convicted criminals policing the country
I don't pretend to know much about Scottish politics, but these posts would tend to suggest that the 4/6 on the SNP getting more than 6.5 seats in 2015 is worth taking..???
@rcs1000 The convictions included in the policy change were domestic violent, burglary and mugging.
Stop reading the tabloid hysteria and read the full quote!
Wilkinson said only “borderline cases” would be reconsidered: “Of course, an armed robber could not be a police officer nor could a murderer but we are looking at each case. It is about the severity of that case and the length of time that has elapsed since that case,” he said.
I don't pretend to know much about Scottish politics, but these posts would tend to suggest that the 4/6 on the SNP getting more than 6.5 seats in 2015 is worth taking..???
@rcs1000 The convictions included in the policy change were domestic violent, burglary and mugging.
Stop reading the tabloid hysteria and read the full quote!
Wilkinson said only “borderline cases” would be reconsidered: “Of course, an armed robber could not be a police officer nor could a murderer but we are looking at each case. It is about the severity of that case and the length of time that has elapsed since that case,” he said.
I'm waiting for the "what about those that committed crimes but weren't found out who became policemen" argument
Andrew Sullivan commented the other day about how he'd realised that Netanyahu is best seen as more like a Middle Eastern sectarian leader than a European Prime Minister. Given Netanyahu's various comments recently, that seemed very insightful.
@rcs1000 The convictions included in the policy change were domestic violent, burglary and mugging.
Stop reading the tabloid hysteria and read the full quote!
Wilkinson said only “borderline cases” would be reconsidered: “Of course, an armed robber could not be a police officer nor could a murderer but we are looking at each case. It is about the severity of that case and the length of time that has elapsed since that case,” he said.
I don't think someone guilty of perverting the course of justice should ever be allowed within a hundred miles of the police force.
Another thought on the Harriet tax business: it's more difficult for the reds than the blues because it plays into prejudice and underlying opinions, which are very deep-rooted. Usually they tell more against the Conservatives (essentially for being horrid), but people are very willing to believe, I would suggest, that Labour want to increase taxation.
Voting against a £26,000 limit on benefits was the kind of crackers decision which deepens the redness of Ed.
It does all beg the question: What is Harriet for? Does she have a purpose?
@rcs1000 The convictions included in the policy change were domestic violent, burglary and mugging.
Stop reading the tabloid hysteria and read the full quote!
Wilkinson said only “borderline cases” would be reconsidered: “Of course, an armed robber could not be a police officer nor could a murderer but we are looking at each case. It is about the severity of that case and the length of time that has elapsed since that case,” he said.
Given that the "beyond the pale" cases he suggested were armed robbery and murder I don't think it's tabloid hysteria at all. If you have burgled people's homes, mugged people or beaten up your partner, you should not be trusted to police other people, and to have the powers commensurate with doing that. This "tabloid hysteria" line is the classic one that is trotted out to dismiss people's legitimate disagreement with public policy. And there would be absolutely no need to relax the rules on this at all if they didn't arbitrarily ban non-Londoners from applying.
Another thought on the Harriet tax business: it's more difficult for the reds than the blues because it plays into prejudice and underlying opinions, which are very deep-rooted. Usually they tell more against the Conservatives (essentially for being horrid), but people are very willing to believe, I would suggest, that Labour want to increase taxation.
Voting against a £26,000 limit on benefits was the kind of crackers decision which deepens the redness of Ed.
It does all beg the question: What is Harriet for? Does she have a purpose?
It begs the question: What the hell is Labour's economic policy? Nobody knows - so they project.
An increase in the personal allowance, with no adjustment of the higher rate threshold, will benefit those with income between 10k - 100k. Higher rate taxpayers will benefit twice as much as basic rate taxpayers ( 40% to 20% on the increase). If you want everyone to have the same benefit you need to lower the higher rate threshold to compensate. Those earning more than 100k will lose from this as they do not benefit from the personal allowance (strictly the PA is taped at a rate of £1 to £2 of increased income giving the notorious 60% marginal tax rate).
Raising the higher rate threshold will benefit higher and additional rate tax payers (tax cut including millionaires) only.
The median and average income is at the basic rate not higher rate.
I too, cannot imagine a Tory cut in the 40% threshold. If it went with a rise in the 45p tax rate, then it could be salvageable, but that won't be politically possible because of the past. A real-terms freeze, maybe.
The Tories next step will be to combine income tax with national insurance. A 15%, 30%, 45% system would work, I'd have thought.
Judging from the responses on here, it seems to be a classic case of the partisan elite "not getting it". Thus a perfect issue for UKIP to make a big deal of.
Hmm.
Most of the debate has seemed a bit at cross purposes.
Most in favour have been directed at defending the status quo, vis, no absolute bans for minor convictions. It hasn't really focussed on exactly where to draw the line beyond that.
@isam I recommend anyone that doesn't understand cultural concerns on immigration to watch the BBC documentary from last night (second part is on tonight). There was a particularly sad bit when an elderly British couple that had been living in an area that had become majority Pakistani walked down the high street and pointed out how the traditional greengrocer, butcher, baker etc had all closed down. They were taken into the Pakistani shops that had replaced them and lamented how they wouldn't even know how to use the ingredients the place stocked, and how the only meat sold there was Halal meat, which they had ethical issues with. Even the Pakistani immigrants they'd be paired with admitted it was sad that this couple had lost their own culture from the area.
Judging from the responses on here, it seems to be a classic case of the partisan elite "not getting it". Thus a perfect issue for UKIP to make a big deal of.
Hmm.
Most of the debate has seemed a bit at cross purposes.
Most in favour have been directed at defending the status quo, vis, no absolute bans for minor convictions. It hasn't really focussed on exactly where to draw the line beyond that.
Isam I think wants that over-turned? Not sure.
The status quo is an absolute ban, I believe. It is a new policy proposal to change that.
@rcs1000 The convictions included in the policy change were domestic violent, burglary and mugging.
Stop reading the tabloid hysteria and read the full quote!
Wilkinson said only “borderline cases” would be reconsidered: “Of course, an armed robber could not be a police officer nor could a murderer but we are looking at each case. It is about the severity of that case and the length of time that has elapsed since that case,” he said.
Given that the "beyond the pale" cases he suggested were armed robbery and murder I don't think it's tabloid hysteria at all. If you have burgled people's homes, mugged people or beaten up your partner, you should not be trusted to police other people, and to have the powers commensurate with doing that. This "tabloid hysteria" line is the classic one that is trotted out to dismiss people's legitimate disagreement with public policy. And there would be absolutely no need to relax the rules on this at all if they didn't arbitrarily ban non-Londoners from applying.
You've already shown you don't know how sentencing works and how some of crimes can never be spent, so you're using straw crime arguments as it were.
Look at the sentencing guidelines for domestic abuse and tell me when they become spent?
@rcs1000 The convictions included in the policy change were domestic violent, burglary and mugging.
Stop reading the tabloid hysteria and read the full quote!
Wilkinson said only “borderline cases” would be reconsidered: “Of course, an armed robber could not be a police officer nor could a murderer but we are looking at each case. It is about the severity of that case and the length of time that has elapsed since that case,” he said.
Given that the "beyond the pale" cases he suggested were armed robbery and murder I don't think it's tabloid hysteria at all. If you have burgled people's homes, mugged people or beaten up your partner, you should not be trusted to police other people, and to have the powers commensurate with doing that. This "tabloid hysteria" line is the classic one that is trotted out to dismiss people's legitimate disagreement with public policy. And there would be absolutely no need to relax the rules on this at all if they didn't arbitrarily ban non-Londoners from applying.
You've already shown you don't know how sentencing works and how some of crimes can never be spent, so you're using straw crime arguments as it were.
Look at the sentencing guidelines for domestic abuse and tell me when they become spent?
I'm still catching up on the thread from earlier, so if you'd like to repeat the reasoning for me "not knowing how sentencing works and how some crimes can never be spent" I can respond.
If domestic violence convictions can never be spent, how do you explain this?
An increase in the personal allowance, with no adjustment of the higher rate threshold, will benefit those with income between 10k - 100k. Higher rate taxpayers will benefit twice as much as basic rate taxpayers ( 40% to 20% on the increase). If you want everyone to have the same benefit you need to lower the higher rate threshold to compensate. Those earning more than 100k will lose from this as they do not benefit from the personal allowance (strictly the PA is taped at a rate of £1 to £2 of increased income giving the notorious 60% marginal tax rate).
Raising the higher rate threshold will benefit higher and additional rate tax payers (tax cut including millionaires) only.
The median and average income is at the basic rate not higher rate.
I too, cannot imagine a Tory cut in the 40% threshold. If it went with a rise in the 45p tax rate, then it could be salvageable, but that won't be politically possible because of the past. A real-terms freeze, maybe.
The Tories next step will be to combine income tax with national insurance. A 15%, 30%, 45% system would work, I'd have thought.
Isn't it hard to do this, as NI is split into employers and employees.
If the employees NI is ditched, what is the justification for keeping the employers (except raising cash)? As it is seen as a tax on jobs, it would be a good one to ditch, but it will create a massive black hole in the finances of HMG. What is the point of only dropping employees NI?
@isam I recommend anyone that doesn't understand cultural concerns on immigration to watch the BBC documentary from last night (second part is on tonight). There was a particularly sad bit when an elderly British couple that had been living in an area that had become majority Pakistani walked down the high street and pointed out how the traditional greengrocer, butcher, baker etc had all closed down. They were taken into the Pakistani shops that had replaced them and lamented how they wouldn't even know how to use the ingredients the place stocked, and how the only meat sold there was Halal meat, which they had ethical issues with. Even the Pakistani immigrants they'd be paired with admitted it was sad that this couple had lost their own culture from the area.
That guy from Ilford is actually my mates uncle!
Yeah I've said it many times, it is a universal thing, nothing to with Britain/white skin etc
If it became economically advantageous for Europeans to work in the West Indies for lower wages than West Indians currently got, and all the shops became European, and the elderly West Indians were saddened by the change, I would make the same argument against tha
Gives a hint as to what to expect at the GE perhaps ?
Lib Dems tanking, Labour/Conservative going nowhere in particular and SNP going up nicely ?
Yes, that is broadly what I'd expect, assuming an IndyRef No. If it's a Yes, then we're in uncharted waters.
The only caveat is that the SNP requires a pretty chunky swing to win any new Scottish Westminster seats (in fact that is largely true of the other parties as well).
@rcs1000 The convictions included in the policy change were domestic violent, burglary and mugging.
Stop reading the tabloid hysteria and read the full quote!
Wilkinson said only “borderline cases” would be reconsidered: “Of course, an armed robber could not be a police officer nor could a murderer but we are looking at each case. It is about the severity of that case and the length of time that has elapsed since that case,” he said.
Given that the "beyond the pale" cases he suggested were armed robbery and murder I don't think it's tabloid hysteria at all. If you have burgled people's homes, mugged people or beaten up your partner, you should not be trusted to police other people, and to have the powers commensurate with doing that. This "tabloid hysteria" line is the classic one that is trotted out to dismiss people's legitimate disagreement with public policy. And there would be absolutely no need to relax the rules on this at all if they didn't arbitrarily ban non-Londoners from applying.
Surely this is up there with boss of Iceland Frozen Foods who, when asked if they'd tested for horse in the lasagne (or whatever) that had been made for them, said, no and they hadn't tested for hedgehog either which brought the wrath of the po-faced down on him. He had no reason to think any of his suppliers were lying to him when they said the lasagne was beef, and not a mixture of other animals and until something dodgy was unmasked, no-one else did either. Similarly the police chief was going to extremes to try and make a point and this was immediately seized upon. I'm certain that burglars etc wouldn't be considered, but being drunk and disorderly,or being involved in a fight at the age of 18 etc shouldn't automatically bar someone from becoming a copper at 25.
An increase in the personal allowance, with no adjustment of the higher rate threshold, will benefit those with income between 10k - 100k. Higher rate taxpayers will benefit twice as much as basic rate taxpayers ( 40% to 20% on the increase). If you want everyone to have the same benefit you need to lower the higher rate threshold to compensate. Those earning more than 100k will lose from this as they do not benefit from the personal allowance (strictly the PA is taped at a rate of £1 to £2 of increased income giving the notorious 60% marginal tax rate).
Raising the higher rate threshold will benefit higher and additional rate tax payers (tax cut including millionaires) only.
The median and average income is at the basic rate not higher rate.
I too, cannot imagine a Tory cut in the 40% threshold. If it went with a rise in the 45p tax rate, then it could be salvageable, but that won't be politically possible because of the past. A real-terms freeze, maybe.
The Tories next step will be to combine income tax with national insurance. A 15%, 30%, 45% system would work, I'd have thought.
Isn't it hard to do this, as NI is split into employers and employees.
If the employees NI is ditched, what is the justification for keeping the employers (except raising cash)? As it is seen as a tax on jobs, it would be a good one to ditch, but it will create a massive black hole in the finances of HMG. What is the point of only dropping employees NI?
I can't see why this would be that hard to do.
You can rebrand Employer Contributions as something else - and then roll Employee NI into the regular tax rates. This does have the effect of transferring some of the burden on to pensioners who still pay tax. Which might be the only reason for not making it happen - even though it does make a lot of sense.
@rcs1000 The convictions included in the policy change were domestic violent, burglary and mugging.
Stop reading the tabloid hysteria and read the full quote!
Wilkinson said only “borderline cases” would be reconsidered: “Of course, an armed robber could not be a police officer nor could a murderer but we are looking at each case. It is about the severity of that case and the length of time that has elapsed since that case,” he said.
That quote is not really very reassuring. I don't think anyone who has issues around honesty should be a police officer. Often in a case it's a case of the officer's word against the suspect. It is ESSENTIAL that that officer is honest and if he has a conviction, however minor, of dishonesty, how - really - can he be trusted? How does it look to the suspect or the young black man picked up by such an officer? Or to a jury?
We have too many cases at the moment where policemen have, not to put too fine a point on it, lied and thought they'd got away with it until the CCTV evidence was found. We have to start with the basic assumption that people who go into the police force are not proven liars. If they are, they will need to have their second chance in some other role.
LIAMT on a previous thread said that there may be a case of ignoring, say, someone being drunk and disorderly when they were 15. I wouldn' t have an issue with that if there is nothing else.
But there is a big difference between that sort of youthful misdemeanour and armed robbery and a whole load of criminal offences in between which make one unfit to be a police officer.
Really, it is not too much to ask that in public office the default assumption should be utter probity by those who hold that office and particularly in those who uphold the rule of law.
We moan about the loss of trust in our institutions. Is it any wonder that this is happening if we behave as if honesty and integrity were, somehow. optional extras instead of the sine qua non.
@rcs1000 The convictions included in the policy change were domestic violent, burglary and mugging.
Stop reading the tabloid hysteria and read the full quote!
Wilkinson said only “borderline cases” would be reconsidered: “Of course, an armed robber could not be a police officer nor could a murderer but we are looking at each case. It is about the severity of that case and the length of time that has elapsed since that case,” he said.
Given that the "beyond the pale" cases he suggested were armed robbery and murder I don't think it's tabloid hysteria at all. If you have burgled people's homes, mugged people or beaten up your partner, you should not be trusted to police other people, and to have the powers commensurate with doing that. This "tabloid hysteria" line is the classic one that is trotted out to dismiss people's legitimate disagreement with public policy. And there would be absolutely no need to relax the rules on this at all if they didn't arbitrarily ban non-Londoners from applying.
Surely this is up there with boss of Iceland Frozen Foods who, when asked if they'd tested for horse in the lasagne (or whatever) that had been made for them, said, no and they hadn't tested for hedgehog either which brought the wrath of the po-faced down on him. He had no reason to think any of his suppliers were lying to him when they said the lasagne was beef, and not a mixture of other animals and until something dodgy was unmasked, no-one else did either. Similarly the police chief was going to extremes to try and make a point and this was immediately seized upon. I'm certain that burglars etc wouldn't be considered, but being drunk and disorderly,or being involved in a fight at the age of 18 etc shouldn't automatically bar someone from becoming a copper at 25.
Why are you certain that burglars wouldn't be considered, if they're already serving in other police forces? As Sean pointed out below, one senior police officer was promoted despite issuing death threats to his wife.
If the Met wants to start letting criminals in, then it is the Met's responsibility to show precisely what type of criminals they will bring in. They can't just say "oh, it won't be murderers" vaguely, and expect us all to be reassured.
So no forgiveness and no possibility of redemption.
One childish error and you are damned for all eternity.
And a bit of a hostage to fortune - I assume that no UKIP senior team members have got any convictions for anything, ever?
It's such an awful tactic in an argument to extrapolate the very worst case scenario and present it as the norm, I thought you would have been better than that.
You've fallen into the old trap of channeling a Marxist lecturer at Brighton Uni because you are talking to a kipper
Forgiveness and redemption? Yes.
Damned for all eternity. No.
Ukip senior team members have convictions? maybe I don't know.
Known criminals employed as policemen. No
What is a "known criminal"?
If you are saying that someone who has ever committed a crime cannot be a policeman - which is what I am thinking you are - then there is no scope for redemption.
For me it's obvious: look at it on a case by case basis and make a decision based on the crime, how long ago it was, and the nature (e.g. anything involving integrity should be a automatic strike)
@rcs1000 The convictions included in the policy change were domestic violent, burglary and mugging.
Stop reading the tabloid hysteria and read the full quote!
Wilkinson said only “borderline cases” would be reconsidered: “Of course, an armed robber could not be a police officer nor could a murderer but we are looking at each case. It is about the severity of that case and the length of time that has elapsed since that case,” he said.
Given that the "beyond the pale" cases he suggested were armed robbery and murder I don't think it's tabloid hysteria at all. If you have burgled people's homes, mugged people or beaten up your partner, you should not be trusted to police other people, and to have the powers commensurate with doing that. This "tabloid hysteria" line is the classic one that is trotted out to dismiss people's legitimate disagreement with public policy. And there would be absolutely no need to relax the rules on this at all if they didn't arbitrarily ban non-Londoners from applying.
Surely this is up there with boss of Iceland Frozen Foods who, when asked if they'd tested for horse in the lasagne (or whatever) that had been made for them, said, no and they hadn't tested for hedgehog either which brought the wrath of the po-faced down on him. He had no reason to think any of his suppliers were lying to him when they said the lasagne was beef, and not a mixture of other animals and until something dodgy was unmasked, no-one else did either. Similarly the police chief was going to extremes to try and make a point and this was immediately seized upon. I'm certain that burglars etc wouldn't be considered, but being drunk and disorderly,or being involved in a fight at the age of 18 etc shouldn't automatically bar someone from becoming a copper at 25.
Why are you certain that burglars wouldn't be considered, if they're already serving in other police forces? As Sean pointed out below, one senior police officer was promoted despite issuing death threats to his wife.
If the Met wants to start letting criminals in, then it is the Met's responsibility to show precisely what type of criminals they will bring in. They can't just say "oh, it won't be murderers" vaguely, and expect us all to be reassured.
Is that so? Presumably the burglary was at a very low level.
Gives a hint as to what to expect at the GE perhaps ?
Lib Dems tanking, Labour/Conservative going nowhere in particular and SNP going up nicely ?
Yes, that is broadly what I'd expect, assuming an IndyRef No. If it's a Yes, then we're in uncharted waters.
The only caveat is that the SNP requires a pretty chunky swing to win any new Scottish Westminster seats (in fact that is largely true of the other parties as well).
Yes vote might mean some of those safe SLAB seats become vulnerable ?
So no forgiveness and no possibility of redemption.
One childish error and you are damned for all eternity.
And a bit of a hostage to fortune - I assume that no UKIP senior team members have got any convictions for anything, ever?
It's such an awful tactic in an argument to extrapolate the very worst case scenario and present it as the norm, I thought you would have been better than that.
You've fallen into the old trap of channeling a Marxist lecturer at Brighton Uni because you are talking to a kipper
Forgiveness and redemption? Yes.
Damned for all eternity. No.
Ukip senior team members have convictions? maybe I don't know.
Known criminals employed as policemen. No
What is a "known criminal"?
If you are saying that someone who has ever committed a crime cannot be a policeman - which is what I am thinking you are - then there is no scope for redemption.
For me it's obvious: look at it on a case by case basis and make a decision based on the crime, how long ago it was, and the nature (e.g. anything involving integrity should be a automatic strike)
Of course there is a case for redemption. Just not as police officers. If a person who has abused child can't work alone with children again, is that "no redemption"?
Off topic, but whilst driving through parts of Hertfordshire today I had the misfortune to listen to Radio 5, 3 MPs talking about employment, inflation and wages.
The unexplained conundrum of why unemployment can plummet and wages can lag behind prices.
It is very simple - The unintended consequence of the minimum wage.
This well intentioned legislation provides employers with (shock horror) a minimum wage to offer, rather than employees with a minimum to earn. The result is that there is no competition between employers to pitch wages at a level to attract staff at the bottom end of the scale, this competition would traditionally push up wages at the bottom as employment rates rose. Now employers have a government lowest offer factored in. It is worse for the low paid (as opposed to the lowest), as those who used to be a few steps above the lowest pay rates are now also benchmarked to the minimum, depressing wages for those on the £7.00 to £12.00 ph pay rates. Add in the willingness of the government (Labour in particular) to subsidise low pay with benefits and tax credits and you have the reason(s) wages are not rising.
What is a "known criminal"? If you are saying that someone who has ever committed a crime cannot be a policeman - which is what I am thinking you are - then there is no scope for redemption. For me it's obvious: look at it on a case by case basis and make a decision based on the crime, how long ago it was, and the nature (e.g. anything involving integrity should be a automatic strike)
Someone convicted of a criminal offence. Anyone who committed a crime which carried a custodial sentence should be disallowed from being a policeman
If in doubt, no thanks. Get another job, simple as that. It's not a big deal
"It was always my dream to be a policeman, but they wouldn't have me just because I used to be a crackhead/bashed up my girlfriend"
What is a "known criminal"? If you are saying that someone who has ever committed a crime cannot be a policeman - which is what I am thinking you are - then there is no scope for redemption. For me it's obvious: look at it on a case by case basis and make a decision based on the crime, how long ago it was, and the nature (e.g. anything involving integrity should be a automatic strike)
Someone convicted of a criminal offence. Anyone who committed a crime which carried a custodial sentence should be disallowed from being a policeman
If in doubt, no thanks. Get another job, simple as that. It's not a big deal
"It was always my dream to be a policeman, but they wouldn't have me just because I used to be a crackhead/bashed up my girlfriend"
Ahhhhh
Was done for possession of drugs once while a student?
the traditional greengrocer, butcher, baker etc had all closed down.
I have every sympathy with these people, but how many high streets in Britain still have these shops, anywhere?
Most greengrocers, butchers and bakers were beggared decades ago. And not by muslims, but by supermarkets. Same goes for pubs.
To be fair, I watched the programme, and ended up thinking the British people should adapt a bit more than they were
Not so much the old folk, but the unemployed youngster from Romford for sure
It seemed to stereotype best of the immigrants (always happy/prepared to share a room and wardrobe. with a mate in a house of 20/ work. All the hours for minimum wage) with the worst of the English (bit dopey/refuse to adapt)
To be fair I'd love to be 20 and share a house with 2 dozen other 20somethings,what a crack!
So no forgiveness and no possibility of redemption.
One childish error and you are damned for all eternity.
And a bit of a hostage to fortune - I assume that no UKIP senior team members have got any convictions for anything, ever?
It's such an awful tactic in an argument to extrapolate the very worst case scenario and present it as the norm, I thought you would have been better than that.
You've fallen into the old trap of channeling a Marxist lecturer at Brighton Uni because you are talking to a kipper
Forgiveness and redemption? Yes.
Damned for all eternity. No.
Ukip senior team members have convictions? maybe I don't know.
Known criminals employed as policemen. No
What is a "known criminal"?
If you are saying that someone who has ever committed a crime cannot be a policeman - which is what I am thinking you are - then there is no scope for redemption.
For me it's obvious: look at it on a case by case basis and make a decision based on the crime, how long ago it was, and the nature (e.g. anything involving integrity should be a automatic strike)
Charles: It's not the job of the police force to provide an arena for redemption. It's there to uphold the rule of law, catch criminals, keep us safe.
But the main point is this: pretty much every criminal conviction (though I've provided one exception below) involves issues of integrity.
And since the police force is there to uphold the rule of law, it seems odd that they should think that people who have broken the law are the right people to employ.
@rcs1000 The convictions included in the policy change were domestic violent, burglary and mugging.
Stop reading the tabloid hysteria and read the full quote!
Wilkinson said only “borderline cases” would be reconsidered: “Of course, an armed robber could not be a police officer nor could a murderer but we are looking at each case. It is about the severity of that case and the length of time that has elapsed since that case,” he said.
Given that the "beyond the pale" cases he suggested were armed robbery and murder I don't think it's tabloid hysteria at all. If you have burgled people's homes, mugged people or beaten up your partner, you should not be trusted to police other people, and to have the powers commensurate with doing that. This "tabloid hysteria" line is the classic one that is trotted out to dismiss people's legitimate disagreement with public policy. And there would be absolutely no need to relax the rules on this at all if they didn't arbitrarily ban non-Londoners from applying.
Surely this is up there with boss of Iceland Frozen Foods who, when asked if they'd tested for horse in the lasagne (or whatever) that had been made for them, said, no and they hadn't tested for hedgehog either which brought the wrath of the po-faced down on him. He had no reason to think any of his suppliers were lying to him when they said the lasagne was beef, and not a mixture of other animals and until something dodgy was unmasked, no-one else did either. Similarly the police chief was going to extremes to try and make a point and this was immediately seized upon. I'm certain that burglars etc wouldn't be considered, but being drunk and disorderly,or being involved in a fight at the age of 18 etc shouldn't automatically bar someone from becoming a copper at 25.
Why are you certain that burglars wouldn't be considered, if they're already serving in other police forces? As Sean pointed out below, one senior police officer was promoted despite issuing death threats to his wife.
If the Met wants to start letting criminals in, then it is the Met's responsibility to show precisely what type of criminals they will bring in. They can't just say "oh, it won't be murderers" vaguely, and expect us all to be reassured.
Is that so? Presumably the burglary was at a very low level.
@rcs1000 The convictions included in the policy change were domestic violent, burglary and mugging.
Stop reading the tabloid hysteria and read the full quote!
Wilkinson said only “borderline cases” would be reconsidered: “Of course, an armed robber could not be a police officer nor could a murderer but we are looking at each case. It is about the severity of that case and the length of time that has elapsed since that case,” he said.
Given that the "beyond the pale" cases he suggested were armed robbery and murder I don't think it's tabloid hysteria at all. If you have burgled people's homes, mugged people or beaten up your partner, you should not be trusted to police other people, and to have the powers commensurate with doing that. This "tabloid hysteria" line is the classic one that is trotted out to dismiss people's legitimate disagreement with public policy. And there would be absolutely no need to relax the rules on this at all if they didn't arbitrarily ban non-Londoners from applying.
You've already shown you don't know how sentencing works and how some of crimes can never be spent, so you're using straw crime arguments as it were.
Look at the sentencing guidelines for domestic abuse and tell me when they become spent?
I'm still catching up on the thread from earlier, so if you'd like to repeat the reasoning for me "not knowing how sentencing works and how some crimes can never be spent" I can respond.
If domestic violence convictions can never be spent, how do you explain this?
What is a "known criminal"? If you are saying that someone who has ever committed a crime cannot be a policeman - which is what I am thinking you are - then there is no scope for redemption. For me it's obvious: look at it on a case by case basis and make a decision based on the crime, how long ago it was, and the nature (e.g. anything involving integrity should be a automatic strike)
Someone convicted of a criminal offence. Anyone who committed a crime which carried a custodial sentence should be disallowed from being a policeman
If in doubt, no thanks. Get another job, simple as that. It's not a big deal
"It was always my dream to be a policeman, but they wouldn't have me just because I used to be a crackhead/bashed up my girlfriend"
What is a "known criminal"? If you are saying that someone who has ever committed a crime cannot be a policeman - which is what I am thinking you are - then there is no scope for redemption. For me it's obvious: look at it on a case by case basis and make a decision based on the crime, how long ago it was, and the nature (e.g. anything involving integrity should be a automatic strike)
Someone convicted of a criminal offence. Anyone who committed a crime which carried a custodial sentence should be disallowed from being a policeman
If in doubt, no thanks. Get another job, simple as that. It's not a big deal
"It was always my dream to be a policeman, but they wouldn't have me just because I used to be a crackhead/bashed up my girlfriend"
Ahhhhh
What about anyone with a non custodial/suspended sentence?
You're being more open minded than the police recruiters.
What is a "known criminal"? If you are saying that someone who has ever committed a crime cannot be a policeman - which is what I am thinking you are - then there is no scope for redemption. For me it's obvious: look at it on a case by case basis and make a decision based on the crime, how long ago it was, and the nature (e.g. anything involving integrity should be a automatic strike)
Someone convicted of a criminal offence. Anyone who committed a crime which carried a custodial sentence should be disallowed from being a policeman
If in doubt, no thanks. Get another job, simple as that. It's not a big deal
"It was always my dream to be a policeman, but they wouldn't have me just because I used to be a crackhead/bashed up my girlfriend"
Ahhhhh
Was done for possession of drugs once while a student?
Am sure more than a few of us have been there. The police are the only group that are empowered to use state sanctioned violence on the public. Any previous involving violence should absolutely be a red line.
Was done for possession of drugs once while a student?
The former Director of Public Prosecutions, Lord MacDonald of River Glaven QC was convicted on his own plea of sending 0.1 g of cannabis through the post, and fined £75, while a student at Oxford.
I don't pretend to know much about Scottish politics, but these posts would tend to suggest that the 4/6 on the SNP getting more than 6.5 seats in 2015 is worth taking..???
Yes it is. IMO, anyway.
Quite hard to predict public reaction is the outcome is "No" - probably depends on the margin, but it's easy to imagine both an SNP surge and an SNP slump. I wouldn't put any money on it myself this side of Xmas.
What is a "known criminal"? If you are saying that someone who has ever committed a crime cannot be a policeman - which is what I am thinking you are - then there is no scope for redemption. For me it's obvious: look at it on a case by case basis and make a decision based on the crime, how long ago it was, and the nature (e.g. anything involving integrity should be a automatic strike)
Someone convicted of a criminal offence. Anyone who committed a crime which carried a custodial sentence should be disallowed from being a policeman
If in doubt, no thanks. Get another job, simple as that. It's not a big deal
"It was always my dream to be a policeman, but they wouldn't have me just because I used to be a crackhead/bashed up my girlfriend"
What is a "known criminal"? If you are saying that someone who has ever committed a crime cannot be a policeman - which is what I am thinking you are - then there is no scope for redemption. For me it's obvious: look at it on a case by case basis and make a decision based on the crime, how long ago it was, and the nature (e.g. anything involving integrity should be a automatic strike)
Someone convicted of a criminal offence. Anyone who committed a crime which carried a custodial sentence should be disallowed from being a policeman
If in doubt, no thanks. Get another job, simple as that. It's not a big deal
"It was always my dream to be a policeman, but they wouldn't have me just because I used to be a crackhead/bashed up my girlfriend"
Ahhhhh
What about anyone with a non custodial/suspended sentence?
You're being more open minded than the police recruiters.
My mistake
All policemen should have a squeaky clean, unblemished criminal record
Was done for possession of drugs once while a student?
The former Director of Public Prosecutions, Lord MacDonald of River Glaven QC was convicted on his own plea of sending 0.1 g of cannabis through the post, and fined £75, while a student at Oxford.
0.1g? Sheesh, that's harsh! For the less au fait PBers, an average joint has about 0.4g in.
@rcs1000 The convictions included in the policy change were domestic violent, burglary and mugging.
Stop reading the tabloid hysteria and read the full quote!
Wilkinson said only “borderline cases” would be reconsidered: “Of course, an armed robber could not be a police officer nor could a murderer but we are looking at each case. It is about the severity of that case and the length of time that has elapsed since that case,” he said.
That quote is not really very reassuring. I don't think anyone who has issues around honesty should be a police officer. Often in a case it's a case of the officer's word against the suspect. It is ESSENTIAL that that officer is honest and if he has a conviction, however minor, of dishonesty, how - really - can he be trusted? How does it look to the suspect or the young black man picked up by such an officer? Or to a jury?
We have too many cases at the moment where policemen have, not to put too fine a point on it, lied and thought they'd got away with it until the CCTV evidence was found. We have to start with the basic assumption that people who go into the police force are not proven liars. If they are, they will need to have their second chance in some other role.
LIAMT on a previous thread said that there may be a case of ignoring, say, someone being drunk and disorderly when they were 15. I wouldn' t have an issue with that if there is nothing else.
But there is a big difference between that sort of youthful misdemeanour and armed robbery and a whole load of criminal offences in between which make one unfit to be a police officer.
Really, it is not too much to ask that in public office the default assumption should be utter probity by those who hold that office and particularly in those who uphold the rule of law.
We moan about the loss of trust in our institutions. Is it any wonder that this is happening if we behave as if honesty and integrity were, somehow. optional extras instead of the sine qua non.
Generally speaking, a conviction for armed robbery leads to a sentence, that will never be spent, so they'd be ineligible to become police officers under new proposed selection criteria.
As someone who in the past has worked with people with criminals, I know they aren't all recidivists, but they get tarred with the same brush.
One of the proudest achievements of this government is to reduce the time frame for sentences to be spent.
I take the view if someone can spend years proving they have shown do have a good character, then society should reward them and partake in society (I mean this to low level crimes, there are crimes that society should never forget such as sexual crimes)
Quite hard to predict public reaction is the outcome is "No" - probably depends on the margin, but it's easy to imagine both an SNP surge and an SNP slump. I wouldn't put any money on it myself this side of Xmas.
It's a hunch, of course, but I think Scots will want to give the SNP a consolation prize for 'standing up for Scotland' even if they regretfully decide that it's too risky to vote Yes - and I think they will think that, given that the Yes side have been so feeble in answering basic questions on the currency, EU, etc. Also Scottish Labour seem to have somewhat lost their way. All in all, I think the net effect will be as Pulpstar suggested: a net LibDem to SNP swing with the others broadly static.
BTW I'd like to ask your help on a minor question about the House of Commons - I'll send you a message via Vanilla if that's OK.
The drawback of UKIPs recent success is that all the other parties, if PB is representative, will veer massively to the left just to argue against them
Is that what fuelled the loony left of the 80s? Hatred of thatcher pushing normally moderate people to extreme positions?
0.1g? Sheesh, that's harsh! For the less au fait PBers, an average joint has about 0.4g in.
It is fair to say that he is fully rehabilitated, notwithstanding his dodgy political views, viz. support for the Liberal Democrats.
Did you see PMQs today?
You would have loved Jack Straw's contribution.
Jack Straw who was Foreign Secretary when Lord Goldsmith gave his Iraq war advice
Jack Straw (Lab, Blackburn) asked “what possessed” Mr Cameron to sack Dominic Grieve as Attorney General, in which role one has to be “ready to speak legal truth to power”.
On the bbc regional news in London at half six there will be a report on the detective who was leaned on to thwart the prosecution of Stephen Lawrence's murderers and paedophile politicians
@rcs1000 The convictions included in the policy change were domestic violent, burglary and mugging.
Generally speaking, a conviction for armed robbery leads to a sentence, that will never be spent, so they'd be ineligible to become police officers under new proposed selection criteria.
As someone who in the past has worked with people with criminals, I know they aren't all recidivists, but they get tarred with the same brush.
One of the proudest achievements of this government is to reduce the time frame for sentences to be spent.
I take the view if someone can spend years proving they have shown do have a good character, then society should reward them and partake in society (I mean this to low level crimes, there are crimes that society should never forget such as sexual crimes)
I too work with criminals and the police. I too believe that people who learn from their mistakes, even criminal ones, and do good should partake in society.
But I take the view that people who have been convicted of crimes of dishonesty are not, however much charitable or other good work they have done, suitable to be police officers, where honesty, probity and integrity are essential.
An institution, such as the police which over the years has been rocked over the years by a stream of allegations of impropriety (from possible corruption - in the Lawrence case - to selling of confidential information to the press via perverting the course of justice / fitting people up / hitting innocent bystanders - cf Tomlinson etc) should seek to improve its public standing by ensuring that its staff are people of the highest integrity so that it can say - with a straight face - and be believed by the public: "Trust us".
Lowering its standards on who it lets into the force is not the way to do it, in my opinion. The most important thing any institution can do to improve its standing is to hire the best people it can. And "best" means people with the right character to do the job. Character matters far more than skills, experience.
In the end what matters is what someone will do when no-one's looking, when there isn't a boss to tell you, when you don't have a policy manual to read, when you do what your instincts tell you - and you want to ensure that those instincts, that professional judgment, that moral compass, if you will, is an honest one.
Were I Head of the Met that's what I would be looking for not worrying about whether people live more than 10 miles from London.
Generally speaking, a conviction for armed robbery leads to a sentence, that will never be spent, so they'd be ineligible to become police officers under new proposed selection criteria.
As someone who in the past has worked with people with criminals, I know they aren't all recidivists, but they get tarred with the same brush.
One of the proudest achievements of this government is to reduce the time frame for sentences to be spent.
I take the view if someone can spend years proving they have shown do have a good character, then society should reward them and partake in society (I mean this to low level crimes, there are crimes that society should never forget such as sexual crimes)
Using spent convictions (within the meaning of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974) as the test is, I'm afraid, a fanciful exercise in respect of applications to work with the police. There are various positions, professions, employment, offices and works specified in the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975 (as amended), including the police.
"It was always my dream to be a policeman, but they wouldn't have me just because I used to be a crackhead/bashed up my girlfriend"
Ahhhhh
Was done for possession of drugs once while a student?
Rodney trotter?!
Isn't that just a caution?
Yeah... If push came to shove I'd say hard luck.
There was an involved complaint in the Guardian (I know, I know) by someone who'd been misled (she said) about her ticket on the trains somewhere in Yorkshire and ended up with a conviction for travelling without a ticket. While that doesn't merit a custodial sentence, there seem to have been quite a few people done for that and given the complexity of some train fares, surely that wouldn't be enough to bar anyone for being a police officer. It did, in fact, bar the correspondent from the job to which she'd just been appointed. She said.
@rcs1000 The convictions included in the policy change were domestic violent, burglary and mugging.
G)
I too work with criminals and the police. I too believe that people who learn from their mistakes, even criminal ones, and do good should partake in society.
But I take the view that people who have been convicted of crimes of dishonesty are not, however much charitable or other good work they have done, suitable to be police officers, where honesty, probity and integrity are essential.
An institution, such as the police which over the years has been rocked over the years by a stream of allegations of impropriety (from possible corruption - in the Lawrence case - to selling of confidential information to the press via perverting the course of justice / fitting people up / hitting innocent bystanders - cf Tomlinson etc) should seek to improve its public standing by ensuring that its staff are people of the highest integrity so that it can say - with a straight face - and be believed by the public: "Trust us".
Lowering its standards on who it lets into the force is not the way to do it, in my opinion. The most important thing any institution can do to improve its standing is to hire the best people it can. And "best" means people with the right character to do the job. Character matters far more than skills, experience.
In the end what matters is what someone will do when no-one's looking, when there isn't a boss to tell you, when you don't have a policy manual to read, when you do what your instincts tell you - and you want to ensure that those instincts, that professional judgment, that moral compass, if you will, is an honest one.
Were I Head of the Met that's what I would be looking for not worrying about whether people live more than 10 miles from London.
I agree with your final sentence, and other bits of your post.
I take the view that an offence committed by someone when they were 19, there character has changed sufficiently if by the time they are 26 and had impeccable character since then.
"It was always my dream to be a policeman, but they wouldn't have me just because I used to be a crackhead/bashed up my girlfriend"
Ahhhhh
Was done for possession of drugs once while a student?
Rodney trotter?!
Isn't that just a caution?
Yeah... If push came to shove I'd say hard luck.
There was an involved complaint in the Guardian (I know, I know) by someone who'd been misled (she said) about her ticket on the trains somewhere in Yorkshire and ended up with a conviction for travelling without a ticket. While that doesn't merit a custodial sentence, there seem to have been quite a few people done for that and given the complexity of some train fares, surely that wouldn't be enough to bar anyone for being a police officer. It did, in fact, bar the correspondent from the job to which she'd just been appointed. She said.
In principle, there is a difference between an honest mistake and a deliberate dishonest fraud. How to tell that difference?
There was some unnamed banker who got caught fiddling his fares for a long period, but wasn't prosecuted. Nonetheless there were calls for the banking regulator to take action against him. If that is the standard for bankers why shouldn't it be the same for police officers?
There was an involved complaint in the Guardian (I know, I know) by someone who'd been misled (she said) about her ticket on the trains somewhere in Yorkshire and ended up with a conviction for travelling without a ticket. While that doesn't merit a custodial sentence, there seem to have been quite a few people done for that and given the complexity of some train fares, surely that wouldn't be enough to bar anyone for being a police officer. It did, in fact, bar the correspondent from the job to which she'd just been appointed. She said.
You may be conflating civil and criminal liability. If you travel without a valid ticket, and do so thinking you have a valid ticket because of the complexity of the fare structure, the railway company may recover the fare owed by you. You would, however, be innocent of any criminal offence. You can only be convicted of an offence under section 5(3) of the Regulation of Railway Act 1889, if you intend to avoid payment of the whole or part of the fare. It is therefore an offence of dishonesty, and ought to preclude a person from employment in numerous professions.
@rcs1000 The convictions included in the policy change were domestic violent, burglary and mugging.
G)
But I take the view that people who have been convicted of crimes of dishonesty are not, however much charitable or other good work they have done, suitable to be police officers, where honesty, probity and integrity are essential.
An institution, such as the police which over the years has been rocked over the years by a stream of allegations of impropriety (from possible corruption - in the Lawrence case - to selling of confidential information to the press via perverting the course of justice / fitting people up / hitting innocent bystanders - cf Tomlinson etc) should seek to improve its public standing by ensuring that its staff are people of the highest integrity so that it can say - with a straight face - and be believed by the public: "Trust us".
Lowering its standards on who it lets into the force is not the way to do it, in my opinion. The most important thing any institution can do to improve its standing is to hire the best people it can. And "best" means people with the right character to do the job. Character matters far more than skills, experience.
In the end what matters is what someone will do when no-one's looking, when there isn't a boss to tell you, when you don't have a policy manual to read, when you do what your instincts tell you - and you want to ensure that those instincts, that professional judgment, that moral compass, if you will, is an honest one.
Were I Head of the Met that's what I would be looking for not worrying about whether people live more than 10 miles from London.
I agree with your final sentence, and other bits of your post.
I take the view that an offence committed by someone when they were 19, there character has changed sufficiently if by the time they are 26 and had impeccable character since then.
Based on my experience, 7 years is nothing and I'm rather more cynical. I have seen far too many cases where senior people have used exactly your rationale, have ignored apparently youthful or minor "mistakes" and then have been shocked when that person - despite apparently behaving well in the intervening years - goes on to commit far more serious crimes. It's one reason why for the last two years I have been banging the drum about hiring / honesty / not ignoring small signs of dishonesty because of what they tell you about the person etc.
There are some risks you can run. This is not one I would run in the police force.
What type of tax does Harriet want me to pay more of?
A fair tax. In her opinion of course..
When you are as privileged as the Dromey-Harman clan, you don't need to worry about such things about how much tax you have to pay. You just cover it from the public purse anyway...
"It was always my dream to be a policeman, but they wouldn't have me just because I used to be a crackhead/bashed up my girlfriend"
Ahhhhh
Was done for possession of drugs once while a student?
Rodney trotter?!
Isn't that just a caution?
Yeah... If push came to shove I'd say hard luck.
There was an involved complaint in the Guardian (I know, I know) by someone who'd been misled (she said) about her ticket on the trains somewhere in Yorkshire and ended up with a conviction for travelling without a ticket. While that doesn't merit a custodial sentence, there seem to have been quite a few people done for that and given the complexity of some train fares, surely that wouldn't be enough to bar anyone for being a police officer. It did, in fact, bar the correspondent from the job to which she'd just been appointed. She said.
In principle, there is a difference between an honest mistake and a deliberate dishonest fraud. How to tell that difference?
There was some unnamed banker who got caught fiddling his fares for a long period, but wasn't prosecuted. Nonetheless there were calls for the banking regulator to take action against him. If that is the standard for bankers why shouldn't it be the same for police officers?
It is quite common for employee pharmacists who fall foul of some quite complicated incentive schemes to be dismissed by the multiple by which they are employed and then reported to the General Pharmaceutical Council. They are then found guilty of dishonesty and suspended from practice. The union's having a go at the practice.
What is a "known criminal"? If you are saying that someone who has ever committed a crime cannot be a policeman - which is what I am thinking you are - then there is no scope for redemption. For me it's obvious: look at it on a case by case basis and make a decision based on the crime, how long ago it was, and the nature (e.g. anything involving integrity should be a automatic strike)
Someone convicted of a criminal offence. Anyone who committed a crime which carried a custodial sentence should be disallowed from being a policeman
If in doubt, no thanks. Get another job, simple as that. It's not a big deal
"It was always my dream to be a policeman, but they wouldn't have me just because I used to be a crackhead/bashed up my girlfriend"
Ahhhhh
So someone gets locked up for 6months at 16 for getting involved in a bar fight. Then spends 12 years as an upstanding member of society. Can't join the police force at 29.
So someone gets locked up for 6months at 16 for getting involved in a bar fight. Then spends 12 years as an upstanding member of society. Can't join the police force at 29.
You would have to have committed a pretty serious offence of violence to warrant a custodial sentence of six months aged 16, if you had no previous convictions. The maximum custodial sentence for an adult convicted of common assault or assault by beating is six months. It is utterly reasonable that such a person should be precluded from working for the police for life.
There was an involved complaint in the Guardian (I know, I know) by someone who'd been misled (she said) about her ticket on the trains somewhere in Yorkshire and ended up with a conviction for travelling without a ticket. While that doesn't merit a custodial sentence, there seem to have been quite a few people done for that and given the complexity of some train fares, surely that wouldn't be enough to bar anyone for being a police officer. It did, in fact, bar the correspondent from the job to which she'd just been appointed. She said.
You may be conflating civil and criminal liability. If you travel without a valid ticket, and do so thinking you have a valid ticket because of the complexity of the fare structure, the railway company may recover the fare owed by you. You would, however, be innocent of any criminal offence. You can only be convicted of an offence under section 5(3) of the Regulation of Railway Act 1889, if you intend to avoid payment of the whole or part of the fare. It is therefore an offence of dishonesty, and ought to preclude a person from employment in numerous professions.
I gather, and I don't recall the exact details, that the fact that the correspondent travelled was held to be intent. There's a long-running series of discussions in the Guardian over problems with ticketing. The failure to prosecute the Sussex(?) banker was inflammatory, although most of the complaints seem to come from Yorkshire.
Anyone else get the increasingly bizarre. Labour emails ?
" The arrivals of my two children were two of the happiest moments of my life (the births themselves aside!). It's memories like these that keep me fighting to protect the NHS and the values it represents. "
How do mothers abroad manage to give birth without the NHS ?
What is a "known criminal"? If you are saying that someone who has ever committed a crime cannot be a policeman - which is what I am thinking you are - then there is no scope for redemption. For me it's obvious: look at it on a case by case basis and make a decision based on the crime, how long ago it was, and the nature (e.g. anything involving integrity should be a automatic strike)
Someone convicted of a criminal offence. Anyone who committed a crime which carried a custodial sentence should be disallowed from being a policeman
If in doubt, no thanks. Get another job, simple as that. It's not a big deal
"It was always my dream to be a policeman, but they wouldn't have me just because I used to be a crackhead/bashed up my girlfriend"
Ahhhhh
So someone gets locked up for 6months at 16 for getting involved in a bar fight. Then spends 12 years as an upstanding member of society. Can't join the police force at 29.
You have a child with a mental illness, one of the symptoms of which is that when they get distressed they commit acts of self harm and, occasionally, attack others. They are restrained by a couple of police officers and in the course of that and as a result end up dead. You discover that one of the police officers served 6 months in prison for a crime of violence. How do you feel? How is any inquiry supposed to determine whether that police officer did or did not use excessive force?
Let's get real here. The police force are in a very privileged position since they can detain people and, as someone else said below, use state-sanctioned violence against the citizen. It is entirely reasonable for the citizen to expect that force to have the highest standards for those wanting to become police officers. Sentimentality about redemption or charity towards people turning over a new leaf etc should not trump that. I'm bemused that people should think otherwise.
The police are there to uphold the rule of law not act as a charity, for God's sake!
Anyone else get the increasingly bizarre. Labour emails ?
" The arrivals of my two children were two of the happiest moments of my life (the births themselves aside!). It's memories like these that keep me fighting to protect the NHS and the values it represents. "
How do mothers abroad manage to give birth without the NHS ?
Anecdote alert: My French cousin was appalled to discover - when she lived here for a short while and had her 2nd child - the sort of care the NHS provides women giving birth here. She made sure she went back to France for the birth.
Anyone else get the increasingly bizarre. Labour emails ?
" The arrivals of my two children were two of the happiest moments of my life (the births themselves aside!). It's memories like these that keep me fighting to protect the NHS and the values it represents. "
How do mothers abroad manage to give birth without the NHS ?
The same way, just that more of them and their children die in the process.
Most greengrocers, butchers and bakers were beggared decades ago. And not by muslims, but by supermarkets.
Lol!
You'll get nowhere with that kind of obvious sense, not with the anti-immigrant mob in full flow.
True - but for the fact that in the film the butcher had not disappeared altogether but been replaced by a halal one etc which the couple did not want to use because they had ethical objections. So the change affected them personally and for the worse, even though overall it may have been for the better for the community. That is the point you miss: any change has both good and less good consequences.
And your general point about supermarkets is of course true.
Comments
One childish error and you are damned for all eternity.
And a bit of a hostage to fortune - I assume that no UKIP senior team members have got any convictions for anything, ever?
http://tinyurl.com/pf8oux4
When does the LD revival take place? In the 2nd half of this year or in the GE campaign next year?
Raising the higher rate threshold will benefit higher and additional rate tax payers (tax cut including millionaires) only.
The median and average income is at the basic rate not higher rate.
If they are unlucky it could be the 2nd half of the next century.
When Scots vote YES the SLDs (or more likely a new liberal grouping) will start to perform very well in the new, sovereign parliament. At least 25% of the Scottish electorate are natural liberals.
Does that Baxterization mean UKIP are going to win Orkney & Shetland?
You've fallen into the old trap of channeling a Marxist lecturer at Brighton Uni because you are talking to a kipper
Forgiveness and redemption? Yes.
Damned for all eternity. No.
Ukip senior team members have convictions? maybe I don't know.
Known criminals employed as policemen. No
LD (Carmichael) 62%
Lab 11%
SNP 11%
Con 11%
UKIP 6%
... although it is worth noting the outstandingly good INDEPENDENTS performances in the 2011 Holyrood election in Orkney:
LD 36%
Ind (James Stockan) 25%
SNP 25%
Con 8%
Lab 6%
... and in Shetland:
LD 48%
IND (Billy Fox) 30%
SNP 12%
Lab 7%
Con 4%
Judging from the responses on here, it seems to be a classic case of the partisan elite "not getting it". Thus a perfect issue for UKIP to make a big deal of.
Ukip saying policeman should have clean criminal records vs the rest saying it's ok to have convicted criminals policing the country
I'll take that all day long
Wilkinson said only “borderline cases” would be reconsidered: “Of course, an armed robber could not be a police officer nor could a murderer but we are looking at each case. It is about the severity of that case and the length of time that has elapsed since that case,” he said.
Çant be long
Andrew Sullivan commented the other day about how he'd realised that Netanyahu is best seen as more like a Middle Eastern sectarian leader than a European Prime Minister. Given Netanyahu's various comments recently, that seemed very insightful.
Most of the debate has seemed a bit at cross purposes.
Most in favour have been directed at defending the status quo, vis, no absolute bans for minor convictions. It hasn't really focussed on exactly where to draw the line beyond that.
Isam I think wants that over-turned? Not sure.
Gives a hint as to what to expect at the GE perhaps ?
Lib Dems tanking, Labour/Conservative going nowhere in particular and SNP going up nicely ?
I suppose a no vote followed by a big swing to the SNP for 2015 could really shake up Westminster politics.
Look at the sentencing guidelines for domestic abuse and tell me when they become spent?
If domestic violence convictions can never be spent, how do you explain this?
http://metro.co.uk/2014/07/15/petty-crooks-to-join-police-minor-offences-to-be-ignored-4798282/
More than 900 police officers and community support officers across England and Wales had criminal records, 2012 figures showed.
The convictions included supplying cannabis, domestic violence, robbery and burglary.
If the employees NI is ditched, what is the justification for keeping the employers (except raising cash)? As it is seen as a tax on jobs, it would be a good one to ditch, but it will create a massive black hole in the finances of HMG. What is the point of only dropping employees NI?
Yeah I've said it many times, it is a universal thing, nothing to with Britain/white skin etc
If it became economically advantageous for Europeans to work in the West Indies for lower wages than West Indians currently got, and all the shops became European, and the elderly West Indians were saddened by the change, I would make the same argument against tha
The only caveat is that the SNP requires a pretty chunky swing to win any new Scottish Westminster seats (in fact that is largely true of the other parties as well).
Similarly the police chief was going to extremes to try and make a point and this was immediately seized upon. I'm certain that burglars etc wouldn't be considered, but being drunk and disorderly,or being involved in a fight at the age of 18 etc shouldn't automatically bar someone from becoming a copper at 25.
You can rebrand Employer Contributions as something else - and then roll Employee NI into the regular tax rates. This does have the effect of transferring some of the burden on to pensioners who still pay tax. Which might be the only reason for not making it happen - even though it does make a lot of sense.
We have too many cases at the moment where policemen have, not to put too fine a point on it, lied and thought they'd got away with it until the CCTV evidence was found. We have to start with the basic assumption that people who go into the police force are not proven liars. If they are, they will need to have their second chance in some other role.
LIAMT on a previous thread said that there may be a case of ignoring, say, someone being drunk and disorderly when they were 15. I wouldn' t have an issue with that if there is nothing else.
But there is a big difference between that sort of youthful misdemeanour and armed robbery and a whole load of criminal offences in between which make one unfit to be a police officer.
Really, it is not too much to ask that in public office the default assumption should be utter probity by those who hold that office and particularly in those who uphold the rule of law.
We moan about the loss of trust in our institutions. Is it any wonder that this is happening if we behave as if honesty and integrity were, somehow. optional extras instead of the sine qua non.
If the Met wants to start letting criminals in, then it is the Met's responsibility to show precisely what type of criminals they will bring in. They can't just say "oh, it won't be murderers" vaguely, and expect us all to be reassured.
If you are saying that someone who has ever committed a crime cannot be a policeman - which is what I am thinking you are - then there is no scope for redemption.
For me it's obvious: look at it on a case by case basis and make a decision based on the crime, how long ago it was, and the nature (e.g. anything involving integrity should be a automatic strike)
I have every sympathy with these people, but how many high streets in Britain still have these shops, anywhere?
Most greengrocers, butchers and bakers were beggared decades ago. And not by muslims, but by supermarkets. Same goes for pubs.
I don't know where the precise numbers are. I was relying on media reports that just state it's the case.
On for a Ton +6.5 SNP seats anyway
The unexplained conundrum of why unemployment can plummet and wages can lag behind prices.
It is very simple - The unintended consequence of the minimum wage.
This well intentioned legislation provides employers with (shock horror) a minimum wage to offer, rather than employees with a minimum to earn. The result is that there is no competition between employers to pitch wages at a level to attract staff at the bottom end of the scale, this competition would traditionally push up wages at the bottom as employment rates rose. Now employers have a government lowest offer factored in. It is worse for the low paid (as opposed to the lowest), as those who used to be a few steps above the lowest pay rates are now also benchmarked to the minimum, depressing wages for those on the £7.00 to £12.00 ph pay rates. Add in the willingness of the government (Labour in particular) to subsidise low pay with benefits and tax credits and you have the reason(s) wages are not rising.
If in doubt, no thanks. Get another job, simple as that. It's not a big deal
"It was always my dream to be a policeman, but they wouldn't have me just because I used to be a crackhead/bashed up my girlfriend"
Ahhhhh
I'd have thought a no vote could also be bad for labour. Whilst the Scots might reject independence, they might not want business as usual, either.
Not so much the old folk, but the unemployed youngster from Romford for sure
It seemed to stereotype best of the immigrants (always happy/prepared to share a room and wardrobe. with a mate in a house of 20/ work. All the hours for minimum wage) with the worst of the English (bit dopey/refuse to adapt)
To be fair I'd love to be 20 and share a house with 2 dozen other 20somethings,what a crack!
But the main point is this: pretty much every criminal conviction (though I've provided one exception below) involves issues of integrity.
And since the police force is there to uphold the rule of law, it seems odd that they should think that people who have broken the law are the right people to employ.
I posted a similar link earlier on, and said most of them should be fired for any crimes committed during their times as officers.
You're being more open minded than the police recruiters.
The police are the only group that are empowered to use state sanctioned violence on the public.
Any previous involving violence should absolutely be a red line.
Isn't that just a caution?
Yeah... If push came to shove I'd say hard luck.
All policemen should have a squeaky clean, unblemished criminal record
For the less au fait PBers, an average joint has about 0.4g in.
As someone who in the past has worked with people with criminals, I know they aren't all recidivists, but they get tarred with the same brush.
One of the proudest achievements of this government is to reduce the time frame for sentences to be spent.
I take the view if someone can spend years proving they have shown do have a good character, then society should reward them and partake in society (I mean this to low level crimes, there are crimes that society should never forget such as sexual crimes)
So you'll you be First Lord of the Treasury in 2036?
BTW I'd like to ask your help on a minor question about the House of Commons - I'll send you a message via Vanilla if that's OK.
Is that what fuelled the loony left of the 80s? Hatred of thatcher pushing normally moderate people to extreme positions?
You would have loved Jack Straw's contribution.
Jack Straw who was Foreign Secretary when Lord Goldsmith gave his Iraq war advice
Jack Straw (Lab, Blackburn) asked “what possessed” Mr Cameron to sack Dominic Grieve as Attorney General, in which role one has to be “ready to speak legal truth to power”.
http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2014/07/andrew-gimsons-pmqs-sketch-cameron-the-martinet-cracks-down-hard-on-indiscipline.html
But I take the view that people who have been convicted of crimes of dishonesty are not, however much charitable or other good work they have done, suitable to be police officers, where honesty, probity and integrity are essential.
An institution, such as the police which over the years has been rocked over the years by a stream of allegations of impropriety (from possible corruption - in the Lawrence case - to selling of confidential information to the press via perverting the course of justice / fitting people up / hitting innocent bystanders - cf Tomlinson etc) should seek to improve its public standing by ensuring that its staff are people of the highest integrity so that it can say - with a straight face - and be believed by the public: "Trust us".
Lowering its standards on who it lets into the force is not the way to do it, in my opinion. The most important thing any institution can do to improve its standing is to hire the best people it can. And "best" means people with the right character to do the job. Character matters far more than skills, experience.
In the end what matters is what someone will do when no-one's looking, when there isn't a boss to tell you, when you don't have a policy manual to read, when you do what your instincts tell you - and you want to ensure that those instincts, that professional judgment, that moral compass, if you will, is an honest one.
Were I Head of the Met that's what I would be looking for not worrying about whether people live more than 10 miles from London.
It did, in fact, bar the correspondent from the job to which she'd just been appointed. She said.
I take the view that an offence committed by someone when they were 19, there character has changed sufficiently if by the time they are 26 and had impeccable character since then.
There was some unnamed banker who got caught fiddling his fares for a long period, but wasn't prosecuted. Nonetheless there were calls for the banking regulator to take action against him. If that is the standard for bankers why shouldn't it be the same for police officers?
There are some risks you can run. This is not one I would run in the police force.
There's a long-running series of discussions in the Guardian over problems with ticketing. The failure to prosecute the Sussex(?) banker was inflammatory, although most of the complaints seem to come from Yorkshire.
" The arrivals of my two children were two of the happiest moments of my life (the births themselves aside!). It's memories like these that keep me fighting to protect the NHS and the values it represents. "
How do mothers abroad manage to give birth without the NHS ?
Let's get real here. The police force are in a very privileged position since they can detain people and, as someone else said below, use state-sanctioned violence against the citizen. It is entirely reasonable for the citizen to expect that force to have the highest standards for those wanting to become police officers. Sentimentality about redemption or charity towards people turning over a new leaf etc should not trump that. I'm bemused that people should think otherwise.
The police are there to uphold the rule of law not act as a charity, for God's sake!
You'll get nowhere with that kind of obvious sense, not with the anti-immigrant mob in full flow.
And your general point about supermarkets is of course true.