How do we get rid of the Police
Discussion
This is not a Police bashing thread (!)
I hear the phrase 'policing by consent' a lot and it irks me.
Quite clearly we need the Police and I also think it is quite clear we could never remove the Police and apart from reforming how they work I don't think you could repalce it by any other system (not when the rest of the world pretty also have Police like us).
So what does policing by consent mean? Does it mean if we remove our consent to be policed by the police they would all be sacked off?
How would we remove our consent - 1m on a demo? 10m on a demo? A referendum? Parliament legislating?
Or does it mean something else? Maybe the consent is HOW we are police not IF we are Policed - i.e we always have the Police and we cannot remove them - the best we can do is kick up a fuss when they do something we don't like.
It is clear the Police are a 'living beast' they evolve as time progresses (based on their own knowledge and experience) and Parliament can of course legislate to make them or stop them doing some things but to some extent they are free to oeprate how they wish. So its not like they have to wait for Parliament to tell them to do something (the consent) before they do it.
As I say, its not a police bashing thread, more of a discussion on the theory.
Thoughts?
I hear the phrase 'policing by consent' a lot and it irks me.
Quite clearly we need the Police and I also think it is quite clear we could never remove the Police and apart from reforming how they work I don't think you could repalce it by any other system (not when the rest of the world pretty also have Police like us).
So what does policing by consent mean? Does it mean if we remove our consent to be policed by the police they would all be sacked off?
How would we remove our consent - 1m on a demo? 10m on a demo? A referendum? Parliament legislating?
Or does it mean something else? Maybe the consent is HOW we are police not IF we are Policed - i.e we always have the Police and we cannot remove them - the best we can do is kick up a fuss when they do something we don't like.
It is clear the Police are a 'living beast' they evolve as time progresses (based on their own knowledge and experience) and Parliament can of course legislate to make them or stop them doing some things but to some extent they are free to oeprate how they wish. So its not like they have to wait for Parliament to tell them to do something (the consent) before they do it.
As I say, its not a police bashing thread, more of a discussion on the theory.
Thoughts?
I think your right on some points, although there are hints of nutter in your post (don't take that the wrong way although I can't see how you can take it the right way tbh).
Your correct the Police have evolved, as have many government agencies. Personally I wish they hadn't, I'd be much happier with a blunter less PC (no pun intended) force, I'd even take some of the bad old days side effects. Nothing frustrates me more than seeing the way the Police struggle to deal with the scum we have around following a constant arrest, charge, release cycle with people who view it as a game.
And yes I find it frustrating that as a law abiding citizen with a job and something to lose if I do something wrong I end up losing everything, the war on motorists is absurd there must be more laws aimied at motorists than any other group of people.
But however I feel nothings going to change so I've just wasted 5 minutes typing this.
Your correct the Police have evolved, as have many government agencies. Personally I wish they hadn't, I'd be much happier with a blunter less PC (no pun intended) force, I'd even take some of the bad old days side effects. Nothing frustrates me more than seeing the way the Police struggle to deal with the scum we have around following a constant arrest, charge, release cycle with people who view it as a game.
And yes I find it frustrating that as a law abiding citizen with a job and something to lose if I do something wrong I end up losing everything, the war on motorists is absurd there must be more laws aimied at motorists than any other group of people.
But however I feel nothings going to change so I've just wasted 5 minutes typing this.
'What is meant by Policing by Consent' was a question we were all asked in my initial course at a training centre. There was a mixture of replies.
The general consensus was that it meant conforming to what the public wanted rather than following what would be best for the police, and naturally what the police feel would be the best for the public.
There were duties enforced on the police - public order, protection of life and property, that sort of thing - but for the rest methods should reflect the wishes of the public.
This ability of the police to PBC has been negated over the years, although quite steadily. In 1975 the lack of political control of the police was presented as the best thing about the mainland police forces, the idea being that each force should respond to the needs of the locale via the CC and the watch committee.
The installation of PCCs, even with just 10% of the population voting for one (and a price of £3.7m - I'll have to work out how much each vote actually cost), must be approaching the final nail.
My course reckoned that each individual police officer should be responsible for his/her own actions, and this was backed up by the law. At times the situation might require a police officer to follow orders, such as at a public order event.
When I was a PC two police officers refused to arrest a person after being directed to do so by an inspector. There was a bit of a fuss - not much - and a discipline hearing decided that they had acted correctly. I'm not sure that D&C would consider the defence had proved their case nowadays.
The government should not control the police. That is an essential. The job of the legislature should not be amalgamated with that of the judiciary. My belief is that Cameron knows precisely what he is doing at the moment. And that will mean that the police will no longer be able to police by consent of the public.
The general consensus was that it meant conforming to what the public wanted rather than following what would be best for the police, and naturally what the police feel would be the best for the public.
There were duties enforced on the police - public order, protection of life and property, that sort of thing - but for the rest methods should reflect the wishes of the public.
This ability of the police to PBC has been negated over the years, although quite steadily. In 1975 the lack of political control of the police was presented as the best thing about the mainland police forces, the idea being that each force should respond to the needs of the locale via the CC and the watch committee.
The installation of PCCs, even with just 10% of the population voting for one (and a price of £3.7m - I'll have to work out how much each vote actually cost), must be approaching the final nail.
My course reckoned that each individual police officer should be responsible for his/her own actions, and this was backed up by the law. At times the situation might require a police officer to follow orders, such as at a public order event.
When I was a PC two police officers refused to arrest a person after being directed to do so by an inspector. There was a bit of a fuss - not much - and a discipline hearing decided that they had acted correctly. I'm not sure that D&C would consider the defence had proved their case nowadays.
The government should not control the police. That is an essential. The job of the legislature should not be amalgamated with that of the judiciary. My belief is that Cameron knows precisely what he is doing at the moment. And that will mean that the police will no longer be able to police by consent of the public.
Mojooo said:
I hear the phrase 'policing by consent' a lot and it irks me.
How would we remove our consent
Ah, that's the easy bit.How would we remove our consent
Start here, and you'll be sorted in no time at all.
http://www.fmotl.com/
Derek Smith said:
each individual police officer should be responsible for his/her own actions,
Completely correct. I would add that so should every individual MoP.Derek Smith said:
two police officers refused to arrest a person after being directed to do so by an inspector. There was a bit of a fuss - not much - and a discipline hearing decided that they had acted correctly.
Good for them- doing what was right.Once upon a time two constables were sent to arrest me for no lawful reason; the inspector had a personal grudge. The solicitor with me at the time persuaded them to leave quietly, with one muttering "Too much politics here".
The police might benefit from more officers standing up for what is right.
I think maybe the crux of the question is that you are in a position of automatically consenting to be policed as long as you deem yourself to be legally in the UK.
Even visitors to the UK are in a position of consent as part of their visa signature and acceptance of conditions that come along with it.
How to remove the consent?... not sure. Remove government?
Because policing is a public service provided by government.
Even visitors to the UK are in a position of consent as part of their visa signature and acceptance of conditions that come along with it.
How to remove the consent?... not sure. Remove government?
Because policing is a public service provided by government.
You'd need a bloody good riot.
I think "consent" was removed when they had the riots in London, which spread all over the country. At least for a minority of people.
In fairness - after spending a reasonable amount of time abroad our police are quite nice and are generally good. The biggest gripe for most people is speed cameras. I've been to places in Africa where Police take people's wives if they don't pay the bribes.
I think "consent" was removed when they had the riots in London, which spread all over the country. At least for a minority of people.
In fairness - after spending a reasonable amount of time abroad our police are quite nice and are generally good. The biggest gripe for most people is speed cameras. I've been to places in Africa where Police take people's wives if they don't pay the bribes.
"How do we get rid of the Police"
I thought this was going to be an interesting thread about how to shake them off!
EG head off down your favourite country road, drop it a couple of gears leaving plod to disappear off into the scenery in their diesel hatchback as they vainly try to use shuffle steering to counter the terminal under-steer of their Astra/Hyundai!
I thought this was going to be an interesting thread about how to shake them off!
EG head off down your favourite country road, drop it a couple of gears leaving plod to disappear off into the scenery in their diesel hatchback as they vainly try to use shuffle steering to counter the terminal under-steer of their Astra/Hyundai!
Policing by consent is a silly illusion that has stymied the ability of the police to get on with policing in this country for too long. The move towards 'public servant' rather than sticking with law enforcement is what has seen the police lose respect and efficacy in this country. Too much power has been given to the people to say what they want, usually resulting in resources being wasted on trivial issues.
Take, for example, neighbourhood policing. A politician says to his constituents "what do you want from the police? Do you want to see a bobby on the beat?". What the public think they are getting is more response policing; ie someone waiting on the end of the phone who will come when they ring 999 and save their life, protect their property and drag the bad guy away, kicking and screaming. What they get is another lazy copper sitting on a neighbourhood team, not doing a great deal for them but counting as a 'bobby on the beat'.
Or complaining about reckless, anti-social drivers causing trouble. They get a speed trap scamera set up to generate some easy cash whilst little is done for the reckless drivers.
Easy fixes, skirting the real problems but feeding the public ego that they know best. It's a bit like strolling into an operation theatre during a heart transplant, blindfolding the surgeon and letting a toddler give the instructions.
What needs to be done? The public need to let go of the notion that they know best what the police should be doing, and let them get on with doing what needs to be done instead.
Take, for example, neighbourhood policing. A politician says to his constituents "what do you want from the police? Do you want to see a bobby on the beat?". What the public think they are getting is more response policing; ie someone waiting on the end of the phone who will come when they ring 999 and save their life, protect their property and drag the bad guy away, kicking and screaming. What they get is another lazy copper sitting on a neighbourhood team, not doing a great deal for them but counting as a 'bobby on the beat'.
Or complaining about reckless, anti-social drivers causing trouble. They get a speed trap scamera set up to generate some easy cash whilst little is done for the reckless drivers.
Easy fixes, skirting the real problems but feeding the public ego that they know best. It's a bit like strolling into an operation theatre during a heart transplant, blindfolding the surgeon and letting a toddler give the instructions.
What needs to be done? The public need to let go of the notion that they know best what the police should be doing, and let them get on with doing what needs to be done instead.
Baryonyx said:
Policing by consent is a silly illusion that has stymied the ability of the police to get on with policing in this country for too long. The move towards 'public servant' rather than sticking with law enforcement is what has seen the police lose respect and efficacy in this country. Too much power has been given to the people to say what they want, usually resulting in resources being wasted on trivial issues.
Take, for example, neighbourhood policing. A politician says to his constituents "what do you want from the police? Do you want to see a bobby on the beat?". What the public think they are getting is more response policing; ie someone waiting on the end of the phone who will come when they ring 999 and save their life, protect their property and drag the bad guy away, kicking and screaming. What they get is another lazy copper sitting on a neighbourhood team, not doing a great deal for them but counting as a 'bobby on the beat'.
Or complaining about reckless, anti-social drivers causing trouble. They get a speed trap scamera set up to generate some easy cash whilst little is done for the reckless drivers.
Easy fixes, skirting the real problems but feeding the public ego that they know best. It's a bit like strolling into an operation theatre during a heart transplant, blindfolding the surgeon and letting a toddler give the instructions.
What needs to be done? The public need to let go of the notion that they know best what the police should be doing, and let them get on with doing what needs to be done instead.
if you combine the above, with Derek Smith;s first reply in the thread you get a good idea of what 'policing by consent' really means , why it;s a good idea, how it's been diluted by party political meddling and why sometimes joe and josephine public needs to just just sit down and shut up and let the professionals get on with things Take, for example, neighbourhood policing. A politician says to his constituents "what do you want from the police? Do you want to see a bobby on the beat?". What the public think they are getting is more response policing; ie someone waiting on the end of the phone who will come when they ring 999 and save their life, protect their property and drag the bad guy away, kicking and screaming. What they get is another lazy copper sitting on a neighbourhood team, not doing a great deal for them but counting as a 'bobby on the beat'.
Or complaining about reckless, anti-social drivers causing trouble. They get a speed trap scamera set up to generate some easy cash whilst little is done for the reckless drivers.
Easy fixes, skirting the real problems but feeding the public ego that they know best. It's a bit like strolling into an operation theatre during a heart transplant, blindfolding the surgeon and letting a toddler give the instructions.
What needs to be done? The public need to let go of the notion that they know best what the police should be doing, and let them get on with doing what needs to be done instead.
these same issues have dirven the 'problems' and agendas in the NHS
so far there isn;t a police equivalent to the 'Liverpool care pathway' and the mis representation of the LCP or resuscitation status discussions and what it means and does by party paolitical t
ts, fellow travellers and useful idiots ... I agree that the Police are probably held back too much by nonsense opinion of a small section fo the public.
My actual question I think was not really whether the Police should behave as we want but more a black and white can we get rid of the Police or not.
Dereks answer suggests not - the consent element is more about how they behave not whether they exist.
Its not a Police bashing thread - its a legal/constituional question.
My actual question I think was not really whether the Police should behave as we want but more a black and white can we get rid of the Police or not.
Dereks answer suggests not - the consent element is more about how they behave not whether they exist.
Its not a Police bashing thread - its a legal/constituional question.
Mojooo said:
I agree that the Police are probably held back too much by nonsense opinion of a small section fo the public.
My actual question I think was not really whether the Police should behave as we want but more a black and white can we get rid of the Police or not.
Dereks answer suggests not - the consent element is more about how they behave not whether they exist.
Its not a Police bashing thread - its a legal/constituional question.
all too often the police are held back by either My actual question I think was not really whether the Police should behave as we want but more a black and white can we get rid of the Police or not.
Dereks answer suggests not - the consent element is more about how they behave not whether they exist.
Its not a Police bashing thread - its a legal/constituional question.
1. having to appease the curtain twitchers of Acacia Avenue simply becasue ofthe volume of s
te they will stir officially and unofficially if their trivial ASB and dog st issues are not dealt with .2. Having to deal with the Harpersons and yasmin alabai-brown's of this world complaining when the police do act against groups where there is acknowledged to be significant criminality ongoing ... sdometimes lack of cultural competence doesn;t help the situation ( e.g. eye contact that is deemed 'shifty' by the standards of white europeans is enitrely normal among other cultures)
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff