Speeding is often the cause of an accident, and where an accident is going to happen anyway it increases the consequences and injuries. I've seen plenty of brain matter scraped across tarmac where postmortem analysis has ruled out drug use. A few dead children where investigation has shown the same. Pedestrians and other road users caught in the consequences. To say speeding doesn't cause a serious level of harm is outrageously ignorant. It's not intentional on the part of the speeder, which is why the response is generally a low level fine at most and if it's not a high level of speeding may just be a caution or words of advice. It's not like I'm having anyone thrown to the gulags for it, I'm just encouraging a law which protects lives to be followed.
You are using an incorrect definition of terrorism as, by most criminological and legal definitions, it requires use of force or threat of force towards the public or a section of the public for the purpose of influencing government or public attitude on political, religious or ideological grounds. So you are actually objectively wrong, which you would know had you done any research.
There are a lot of resources that go into taking on gangs, and that you think there aren't demonstrates how little you know - it is a high priority in pretty much every Western country.
There are entire independent organisations in my country dedicated to rooting out misconduct, that is also a top priority. While I personally will report misconduct, it's the job of a different organisation to take it on in the same way we take on gangs, for the sake of impartiality.
Assuming the training is largely similar to where I live, you aren't required to use sirens when responding to an emergency, so the response to that is simple. That's part of training, identifying when it is and isn't necessary. Again, a basic level of research would tell you this, but you choose not to do this to fuel your prejudice.
No, I'm not gonna say I've never sped before. But it was wrong of me to and I shouldn't have. Simple as.
The law is outdated in many ways and a level of discretion is granted for the sake of the common sense application of it in certain circumstances. Broadly speaking it should be applied anyway because rule of law is a central tenet of democracy. Do I wish the law would change quicker? Yes, but that has nothing to do with the police
you are a dipshit if you think
What a nice, decent person you are, surprising that someone like you would hate the people who apply society's rules on then.
Expecting a police force not to have examples of misconduct is unrealistic. That's not to say we should accept it, it should be actively identified and responded to aggressively. That being said, while I have seen (and will report, as will almost all of my colleagues) questionable use of force and misuse of computer systems (e.g. running a check on a potential partner), I've not noticed any paedophiles, money launderers or sex traffickers. I can see this being common in certain countries, but that you would have this view of every police force in the world shows how prejudiced your attitude is. It's simply not rooted in reality.
Yeah I could talk all day about my issues with the legal system. My dissertation was on issues I take with the legal and penal system. I'm not going to talk about it with you, and why I believe in police work in spite of the issues I have, because you clearly lack any education on the topic and I wish to avoid any further waste of my time on someone whose views and attitudes lack any level of nuance because they're not considered, calculated, researched or reasonable. I have nothing to gain, no new insight to learn, from talking to you, and my motivation to change your mind has disappeared.
Goodbye.