Saturday, 16 February 2013

Why Is One Acceptable, And The Other Not?

I follow a lot of police Tweeters. Some are worthwhile, informative, and occasionally funny.

And then...there's Surrey Police, who mostly use it for inane PR fluff and 'public awareness' campaigns.

Like this:


Nice, eh? 'If you've got nice things and you flaunt them in public, well, of course some poor disadvantaged soul is going to be tempted beyond endurance, and who's fault is that, then, eh?' it seems to be saying.

So why is it utterly, utterly unthinkable that they would ever Tweet this?



I mean, really, what's the difference?

5 comments:

Goodnight Vienna said...

I agree completely. I remember in 2002 being advised by a policeman not to wear a gold chain and locket around my neck in case it was 'snatched'. It was something I'd worn for the previous twenty years.

We're living an increasingly judgmental society where everyone feels entitled and most feel offended. They therefore think they are 'right'. Hail the new Righteous; the new Puritans! Life is going to be hell for the next few decades.

John Pickworth said...

For me, I took issue 30 years ago with the stock police advice not to 'put up a fight' when confronted by a bad 'un.

Actually, no!

If you're able and the situation warrants it, stand up to the thugs. Most of them are cowards, wanting only your watch/phone/wallet not a damn good kicking.

Back in the early 80's I worked evenings in a petrol station while I was studying (also had a full time job too). One night, a black lad twice my size with balaclava and knife invited me to fill a bag with cash. I refused. He demanded and waved his knife a bit. I told him I was working and studying all hours God sent and I was damned if I was just going to hand him some free money - I think I told him to get a job too. He blinked. I stepped from behind the counter. He ran off into the night.

Ironically, the boss told me never to do it again because he was insured. The police said the same and added that it was their job to deal with them. And that royally pissed me off even more at the time... and said so.

As for this post... well here's an idea. Instead of tweeting to tell the law abiding how to behave why not tweet the thugs and remind them of the consequences of misbehaving? It wouldn't hurt to add that some of us out here might be a tiny but more dangerous than they are.

JuliaM said...

"Hail the new Righteous; the new Puritans! Life is going to be hell for the next few decades."

I fear you're right!

"...well here's an idea. Instead of tweeting to tell the law abiding how to behave why not tweet the thugs and remind them of the consequences of misbehaving?"

Because there usually aren't any?



Blue Eyes said...

The difference is that sex-crime is taboo. Feft is not.

John M said...

I'm not on Twitter but I honestly wonder what kind of sad bastard would be so desperate as to follow Surrey Police on Twitter.

Sad, sad, sad bastards...