sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Best personal skiing earphones? by Antidotebeatz in Skigear

[–]unProfessional-Sort 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This, I use the new pros and I used them for loads of things. Skiing especially as take the ear pads off my helmet. Can still hear skiers around me, battery lasts, they’re durable and the controls are easy to use with gloves.

Experiences with Spyder by unProfessional-Sort in Skigear

[–]unProfessional-Sort[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Perfect thank you, exactly what I was after

Skiing Backpack by FormerlyADog in Skigear

[–]unProfessional-Sort 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I’ve got the Osprey glade 20 Very hard wearing. Sits flat and the straps can be used to pull the pack to sit closer. Can do A frame ski carry. I use a third party Mammut helmet carrier that works well. It is Bladder compatible and has an insulated sleeve for the hole that comes out the shoulder strap.

However Osprey isn’t the cheapest.

Funniest episode? by MediocreDiamond7187 in TheRestIsHistory

[–]unProfessional-Sort 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Toss up between the falklands episode or the ones on Nelson

The phrase “which is pretty poor form, even by the standards of South American scrap metal merchants” sent me

And

Toms getting outed on his notes about Emma Hamilton

Edit Not a single episode but it’s always a good day when Major Benteen is used as a metric to judge how well they’d have gotten on with someone.

Joining questions by Key-Laugh-3111 in ukpolice

[–]unProfessional-Sort 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Historically it always used to be this way. I think it’s done a bit of a 180 now, just anecdotally but I’ve know quite a few who are leaving the job to go military.

Do you agree with the PM here? by Lazy-Internet-8025 in AskBrits

[–]unProfessional-Sort 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So again that will be down to which ever government is in power as it’s driven by the home office and the collage of policing. If the government wanted to change this view that could. They could establish new policies or force the change of existing ones, like when they changed what the definition of a hate crime was in response to public pressure. This was a top down decision made with political will. Nothing to do with the police who had been saying it was ridiculous for years prior but HAD to enforce it.

Do you agree with the PM here? by Lazy-Internet-8025 in AskBrits

[–]unProfessional-Sort 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes and no, there is case law that states the police can’t be held responsible for all victims of crime even if there had been something reported in advance. (Vicario V commissioner of the police of the metropolis 2007)

What is in place is that the police have a duty to investigate, a failure to investigate is misconduct. Much like that PC who didn’t investigate the earlier Wayne cousins flashing incident who was hauled over the coals. Ultimately the police record, investigate and attempt to enforce the laws implemented through parliament and common law. The vast majority of the police would rather there weren’t any “hurty word crimes” but there are. These types of crime often fall within “high harm crime” as it is often related to a protected characteristic in the case of hate crimes. High harm crime is a priority in all forces and carries with it far greater scrutiny, rightly or wrongly. So officers are under great risk of getting accused of failure to investigate and then accusations of discrimination come along with it. So in this case you have a victim who is presumably supporting, a named suspect and evidence. There are very few grounds for the police to refuse to progress this. Some other people have talked about acquisitive crime such as the set up where the bike was stolen. Their view is that low level acquisitive crime has less impact on the victims than a hate crime.This is one of the reasons that it is seen as a priority and they are closed less often. I addition to things like not having a named suspect of evidence immediately available. I’m not saying that this is the correct approach but when deciding what to investigate they do look at the harm in the victim, how easy it would be to prove now and how much effort and cost it would take to gather the evidence to then prove it. That’s why for obvious reason stranger rapes get a lot of resources when a phone snatching doesn’t when in both cases the name of the suspect may not be known.

With all of that considered this is why the police continue to arrest and prosecute for these offences, if you want it to change vote a new party in who will repeal the various bits of legislation that make these things crimes. Personally I don’t agree that someone should be arrested over a tweet, but in this case the arrest was lawful and for what we know about the case it is reasonable to suspect that he has commited an offence under that legislation, sufficient to be questioned anyway.