There are a number of police who are as crooked as any criminal, and they are far more dangerous because they have the shield of being 'the law' and so, with it, have blinkered people like your magistrate friend on their side.

Persoanlly, I wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them.

You should print that, and next time you have need for the police, hand copies of it to those who come to your aid. Except of course you won't.

Personally, whilst there are crooks in any walk of life you care to name, I find most people including coppers are actually on the face of it decent folk just trying to get through life as best they can just like me, and I start by giving anyone the benefit of the doubt. Well obviously not Wakefield fans, but you understand the general point.

.....Believe that all you like, I have personal experience of something which blows your vision of our lovely, hard working police out of the water.

Correct!

To be fair to the jury, the defence used, that she did commit the crime but was coerced by a control freak husband, would be very difficult to prove, as would be the argument by the prosecution that she willingly comitted the crime. At the end of the day Pryce and Huhne are the only ones who know the truth. I know the defence came up with that she was "forced" to have an abortion, but if I was prosecuting I would have argued that she sought the abortion as it would have adversely affected her career at the time.

Huhne must be kicking himself for pleading guilty considering he could have been put in front of such an inept jury.

Personally I would have found Pryce not guilty for no other reason other than to rub Huhne's nose in it a bit more.

Oh, of course you do. But of course it's something you can't possibly share on here, as they would have to kill you. So you can only mutter dark hints, and we must accept your dire apocryphal message as YOU, above all men, KNOW.

You do not know all 135K police officers so you do not have personal experience of the overwhelming majority of them, so spare me your tendentious bullcrap.

It's not a question of belief, nor do I have any such rose-tinted "vision", but some decades of extensive experience. And yes I could tell you plenty of not so savoury stories too, as people could about any group or occupation, but it doesn't change the general point I was making.

Oh, bravo!

Phrase of the day won, and at such an early hour.

Hey, I don't deny there may be some hard working policemen and women out there, but neither can it be denied there are some real criminals among their number.....I was responding to the poster who quoted the magistrate who believed ALL police speak the truth and only deal with the truth, because, if that is true, then that is very, very scary for anybody who is unfortunate enough to get mixed up with some of the bad guys in the police force.

Like I say, personally, through an unfortunate experience, I wouldn't trust any of them at all.....That's not to say that the likes of yourself can't put your faith in them, its just I'm pretty loathe to.

I have had some good experience with the police and I've also had my fair share of run-ins with some of the bastads who have managed to infiltrate the ranks. I've also got a couple of mates who are in the force.

By and large I don't have a problem with the police in general, what I do have a problem with is when there is any doubt over the activity or procedure and how any incident is then investigated. The IPCC is not fit for purpose: it is beyond bafflement that with the numbers of people who have died in police custody, not one single officer has ever been found guilty of any offence. The fact that police officers are allowed to confer before writing up their notebooks invites collusion - a privilage that is not offered to any members of the public who may find themselves accused of any offence.

Re: the above. Here's a prime example of what's wrng with the police

Re: the above. Here's a prime example of what's wrng with the police