Armed police

Status
Not open for further replies.
BRASH said:
Ah, f*** me!! Have you been on the pedantic pills today;)
Click to expand...

Nothing pedantic about questioning his apparent psychic abilities ;)
 
ST4 said:
I have not applied but without a job offer to go and an unspent conviction I wouldn't get a residency visa.

And quite right too. I wouldn't let me in with that record/no job offer.
Click to expand...
I take it the unspent conviction isn't your motoring one then? Don't think motoring convictions would stop you living there.
 
Bobsyeruncle said:
I take it the unspent conviction isn't your motoring one then? Don't think motoring convictions would stop you living there.
Click to expand...

Its unspent (for another 4 years IIRC), and is a sec 2 dangerous driving (not speeding) depsite the offence being totally linked to the speed I was travelling at the time.

I'm not sure if they would reject my application if I submitted one, but I heard of someone with a similar one (might have been causing death by dangerous driving whilst DUI) not getting a VISA.

In such a motoring based country, I do not hold it against them. Would you want someone considered "dangerous" by the UK driving in your country. Plus you need to have a certain number of assets etc (ok there IIRC) and a firm job offer (decent job too IIRC). I've not applied for a job in the states but part of me would love to upsticks and move to the states. It's their country, their rules. I'd need to look into it but an unspent sec 2 will raise eyebrows
 
Last edited:
ST4 said:
In such a motoring based country, I do not hold it against them. Would you want someone considered "dangerous" by the UK driving in your country. Plus you need to have a certain number of assets etc (ok there IIRC) and a firm job offer (decent job too IIRC). I've not applied for a job in the states but part of me would love to upsticks and move to the states. It's their country, their rules. I'd need to look into it but an unspent sec 2 will raise eyebrows
Click to expand...

I'd hate to work in the states, I'm not partial to two weeks off a year holiday or fat stupid people :LOL:
 
  • Like
Reactions: BBR
POAH said:
I'd hate to work in the states, I'm not partial to two weeks off a year holiday or fat stupid people :LOL:
Click to expand...

Stereo types...dangerous thing.

As a country you have a hugely diverse scenery (I am big on outdoor photography), climate. It's got it all. Food is great from what I see, living costs cheap, taxation low. Just take decent health insurance you are laughing.

Re holidays, depends on the opportunity you apply for.
 
POAH said:
I'd hate to work in the states, I'm not partial to two weeks off a year holiday or fat stupid people :LOL:
Click to expand...

To be fair I've lived there...that's bit of a stereotype.
 
POAH said:
depends where you go plus I'd not like to work in a lab full of cliquey Chinese people either (not a stereotype)
Click to expand...

Fair do's on the second point.
 
ST4 said:
Stereo types...dangerous thing.

As a country you have a hugely diverse scenery (I am big on outdoor photography), climate. It's got it all. Food is great from what I see, living costs cheap, taxation low. Just take decent health insurance you are laughing.

Re holidays, depends on the opportunity you apply for.
Click to expand...
Living costs are not cheap unless you have a good salary.
When I was in Florida a few years back, I was chatting to some locals about how cheap things were compared to the UK, but they said it wasn't a cheap place to live, as average earnings were low.
 
ST4 said:
So long as I paid, and paid well, who I work with bothers me little. That's just me. Aside, I thought you were pro immigration and all that jazz.
Click to expand...


nope, needs to be cut. far too many eastern Europeans selling the big issue in Glasgow for starters. go be unemployed in your own country
 
Bobsyeruncle said:
Living costs are not cheap unless you have a good salary.
When I was in Florida a few years back, I was chatting to some locals about how cheap things were compared to the UK, but they said it wasn't a cheap place to live, as average earnings were low.
Click to expand...

I doubt they'd let in someone who wasn't going in on a good salary and if the post couldn't be filled by a US national 1st. As it should be. IMHO.
 
Depending where you live you can also wind up paying three different income taxes..federal, state and local. Same with sales tax.
 
I know there are some martial arts experts here so maybe they can comment. If somebody attacks you with an axe are you safer

(1) stepping backwards to draw a gun or
(2) stepping forwards to use a taser, truncheon or boot

My gut feel is option 2.
 
Are the Police all martial arts experts with the skill and confidence to step in> Doubt it. I always thought stepping away from danger was the best option, giving yourself time and space to assess the situation and then make a dynamic risk assessment on your next move.
 
JonathanRyan said:
I know there are some martial arts experts here so maybe they can comment. If somebody attacks you with an axe are you safer

(1) stepping backwards to draw a gun or
(2) stepping forwards to use a taser, truncheon or boot

My gut feel is option 2.
Click to expand...

Step towards. Into the crook of their arm while turning your back to them.
 
"Police being armed should be a decision for the police and the police alone. "

I think this is incorrect, as the police are there as representatives of the public, who employ them. The police may put forward for debate the pros and cons of being armed, but it should never be their decision which forms a general ongoing policy. Specific, urgent rare events may require a fast decision for that event only, which would be understandable, but this should be in exceptional situations.

A while back I went to a UK airport to find police with sub machine guns just standing about. Although they are there to help, despite that I found it intimidating and uncomfortable. It causes me to think of how it is no longer legal to protest near parliament and of how physically harmless things like union marches are videoed by multiple police cameramen, so that office workers feel intimidated just for walking with their union colleagues to express a viewpoint. Of how undercover police have infiltrated fairly harmless groups and started relationships with women, having kids, then dumping them and vanishing back to the original families they have been secretly cheating on. Of how despite not being frequently armed, innocent people have already been shot and killed. I as a member of the public, wish to remain in charge of the police, not have the police however initially well intentioned, have charge of everyday people. We are supposed to have police by consent, not by intimidation in the UK.

I have much sympathy for the police in some circumstances where they may need to be temporarily be issued with a weapon, but I certainly dont want harmless protests etc being monitored as a normal every day act by armed police, wheeling water canon 'just in case' (where I can see the future heading at this rate) where even people who are harmless feel intimidated just for daring to have a point of view in a public place.

I also fear that if police become armed as standard, more criminals will become armed and the risk to the general population and from more guns just 'lying about' in the houses of both 'cops and robbers' becomes greater - panicky criminals shooting if cornered, kids getting killed from playing with that gun left out at home or whose hiding place they have found.

Sometimes its better to have a risk factor, than for the population to be suffocated to death as a nation and as individuals in the cotton wool of 'for your own good'.
 
Last edited:
MidnightUK said:
"Police being armed should be a decision for the police and the police alone. "

I think this is incorrect, as the police are there as representatives of the public, who employ them. The police may put forward for debate the pros and cons of being armed, but it should never be their decision which forms a general ongoing policy. Specific, urgent rare events may require a fast decision for that event only, which would be understandable, but this should be in exceptional situations.

A while back I went to a UK airport to find police with sub machine guns just standing about. Although they are there to help, despite that I found it intimidating and uncomfortable. It causes me to think of how it is no longer legal to protest near parliament and of how physically harmless things like union marches are videoed by multiple police cameramen, so that office workers feel intimidated just for walking with their union colleagues to express a viewpoint. Of how undercover police have infiltrated fairly harmless groups and started relationships with women, having kids, then dumping them and vanishing back to the original families they have been secretly cheating on. Of how despite not being frequently armed, innocent people have already been shot and killed. I as a member of the public, wish to remain in charge of the police, not have the police however initially well intentioned, have charge of everyday people. We are supposed to have police by consent, not by intimidation in the UK.

I have much sympathy for the police in some circumstances where they may need to be temporarily be issued with a weapon, but I certainly dont want harmless protests etc being monitored as a normal every day act by armed police, wheeling water canon 'just in case' (where I can see the future heading at this rate) where even people who are harmless feel intimidated just for daring to have a point of view in a public place.

I also fear that if police become armed as standard, more criminals will become armed and the risk to the general population and from more guns just 'lying about' in the houses of both 'cops and robbers' becomes greater - panicky criminals shooting if cornered, kids getting killed from playing with that gun left out at home or whose hiding place they have found.

Sometimes its better to have a risk factor, than for the population to be suffocated to death as a nation and as individuals in the cotton wool of 'for your own good'.
Click to expand...
Don't disagree with a lot of what you're saying, but just because the police are publicly funded doesn't mean we employ them, or are in charge of them.
 
MidnightUK said:
"Police being armed should be a decision for the police and the police alone. "

I think this is incorrect, as the police are there as representatives of the public, who employ them. The police may put forward for debate the pros and cons of being armed, but it should never be their decision which forms a general ongoing policy. Specific, urgent rare events may require a fast decision for that event only, which would be understandable, but this should be in exceptional situations.

A while back I went to a UK airport to find police with sub machine guns just standing about. Although they are there to help, despite that I found it intimidating and uncomfortable. It causes me to think of how it is no longer legal to protest near parliament and of how physically harmless things like union marches are videoed by multiple police cameramen, so that office workers feel intimidated just for walking with their union colleagues to express a viewpoint. Of how undercover police have infiltrated fairly harmless groups and started relationships with women, having kids, then dumping them and vanishing back to the original families they have been secretly cheating on. Of how despite not being frequently armed, innocent people have already been shot and killed. I as a member of the public, wish to remain in charge of the police, not have the police however initially well intentioned, have charge of everyday people. We are supposed to have police by consent, not by intimidation in the UK.

I have much sympathy for the police in some circumstances where they may need to be temporarily be issued with a weapon, but I certainly dont want harmless protests etc being monitored as a normal every day act by armed police, wheeling water canon 'just in case' (where I can see the future heading at this rate) where even people who are harmless feel intimidated just for daring to have a point of view in a public place.

I also fear that if police become armed as standard, more criminals will become armed and the risk to the general population and from more guns just 'lying about' in the houses of both 'cops and robbers' becomes greater - panicky criminals shooting if cornered, kids getting killed from playing with that gun left out at home or whose hiding place they have found.

Sometimes its better to have a risk factor, than for the population to be suffocated to death as a nation and as individuals in the cotton wool of 'for your own good'.
Click to expand...

Excellent post; however the police operate under the purview of the crown, not the public.
And those armed airport police are supposed to intimidate and discomfort.
 
"Don't disagree with a lot of what you're saying, but just because the police are publicly funded doesn't mean we employ them, or are in charge of them. "

Then something is going very very wrong and needs to be corrected urgently. I pay taxes, as do huge numbers of the UK public and pensioners have paid in trustingly for decades before retirement.

I pay taxes to enable services to be provided for me, via the counsellors and politicians I have elected and via the council and government structures put in place to facilitate this process. Part of those taxes go to pay for the police force and personnel. I am therefore,quite clearly the employer of the police via my agents (counsellors, MPs, police chiefs). Just as any chief executive hires managers.

If somehow the public (people such as myself) are no longer the employers of the police, then the police have gone renegade and need to be enlightened or brought back in line. However I do not believe they have gone 'wild', merely that many of the tax payers have come to believe and follow what the politicians hope to make us believe - ie that we are here to be ruled by by others instead of represented by them. It is the attempted theft of power.
 
"he police operate under the purview of the crown, not the public"

The area I live in now has an elected head of the police force.
 
"And those armed airport police are supposed to intimidate and discomfort. "

Yes, the terrorists. So how strange I and the people I was with (of various political views) all felt afraid ourselves, not of the terrorists, but of the police presence. Perhaps it is because as a child our nearby city and many others were blown up by the IRA causing loss of life and buildings. One friend was 1 street away from being caught in a blast in London. People were afraid, very afraid. But loosing freedom and rights was seemingly more important than being herded about by politicians who spread fear to gain control. Its not even so much the present time that is bad, but the path of submission and intimidation that we are heading down, lead as much by greedy politicians with business interests as by terrorists. I fear most the future where we are all 'safe' but cannot protest or complain about anything and every thought is monitored. Oh wait, every thought is monitored and recorded for years even now... even this discussion on TP.

I have to sign off now to collect someone, please excuse my departure.
 
MidnightUK said:
If somehow the public (people such as myself) are no longer the employers of the police, then the police have gone renegade and need to be enlightened or brought back in line.
Click to expand...

It's not a case of no longer, it's a case of never were.

MidnightUK said:
Yes, the terrorists. So how strange I and the people I was with (of various political views) all felt afraid ourselves, not of the terrorists, but of the police presence.
Click to expand...

And how exactly are those police officers supposed to know that you yourself are not a terrorist? They don't all look like Bin Laden or have TERRORIST tattooed on their forehead, so if you're a little nervous around them, I for one couldn't care less.
 
MidnightUK said:
Oh wait, every thought is monitored and recorded for years even now... even this discussion on TP.

I have to sign off now to collect my tinfoil hat.
Click to expand...

Corrected that for you.
 
Why would an armed police officer make you feel afraid?

If that's the case then the problem is with you not the police officer
 
mjScall said:
Why would an armed police officer make you feel afraid?

If that's the case then the problem is with you not the police officer
Click to expand...

Am I the only one gets nervy when a cop car is behind me? Think it's human nature.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top