Monday, 20 February 2012

Crime Initiative?

HQ says, "Too many drugs and too many knives. Get pro-active, get informants and get some prisoners".

Pc stops and searches a known suspect in a prominent area of criminal activity in their part of the city. A flick knife is found on the suspect which is, by its very nature and definition, an offensive weapon under S1 Prevention of Crime Act, 1953. No drugs found.

Pc says, `You will get 3 months inside for this, guaranteed, but I'm after drugs and I know you're not a big player and I want the big players. Your choices are as follows; 1. You do a little job for me and let me know a few of the who, where and when and we'll consider this knife a verbal warning just between the two of us. I will confiscate the knife. 2. You abuse my generosity and after a few weeks have given me nothing and carry on as normal, so I then search you again, cancel the verbal warning and arrest you when I find the knife on you again - and this time no verbal warning, you go down for 3 months`.  3. You abuse my generosity and never grace this area with your face again. You win because I won't have arrested you, but I half win because you are off my patch`. (I know I have the knife as well, but you'll have got another one anyway - so much for amnesties)

What is wrong with the above?

9 comments:

CI-Roller Dude said...

The problem I see is, there are too many words and too many choices...since most criminal drug users also have ADD and are retards, the suspect in this case more than likely forgot what he was stopped for by the time the PC got to the end of his speech.
If the PC is going to try and make a snitch, build some rapport first. Make him like you first

Hogdayafternoon said...

CI-RD: I agree with your assessment of the calibre of these wasters. The speil wasn't literal/word for word but the options were meant to be.

The deliberate mistake was that in this day and age he'd never in a month of Sundays ever go down for three months, so whatever the officer wanted to try and do was a total waste of time.

Blue Eyes said...

2) is a bit naughty isn't it? Wouldn't it be called an inducement or something?

TonyF said...

Blimy, your Polish underclass speak English that well?

Hogdayafternoon said...

Blue: Risky by modern standards I agree. I'd like to see the police given the authoriy to suspend a prosecution, by creating a different sort of caution category in such cases ie this particular caution is an admission of guilt but the penalty is suspended.

TonyF: Classy where you live then ;)

Anonymous said...

I suppose you technically left out vast procedures and form-filling to set up an informant Hog. I'd guess that trying to cultivate informants is doomed by the unlikelihood of the cop being on the same beat for long enough. I'd have given this sweetie my business plan speech on undermining the opposition and growing his business with us scratching each others backs. 6 months later I'd nick him and tell him he'd have to do a little time for his own protection. By then I'd hope to know enough about him from what he grassed to catch him in substantial possession. Amazing what these clowns say about themselves whilst stitching others! Never went for roller's love-trust option, or threaten jail time. Wanted them to hate me enough for the threat of me not being all over their life to count as a blessing.(ACO)

Blue Eyes said...

A kind of double or quits system?

I like the idea of it.

Hogdayafternoon said...

ACO: That was my chosen option. Oh how we were trained and mentored. If it ain't hurting, it ain't working.....Pity we can't be trusted anymore.

Hogdayafternoon said...

Blue: I really think that would work, with some developing.