Are the Police Service fit for purpose anymore?
Discussion
Condi said:
Red 4 said:
Did you know that Italy has over twice as many police officers per head of population compared to England and Wales ?
They also have a confusing number of different police services. 4, I think, including the anti-mafia lot. Population of Italy is 60,000,000 so not dissimilar to England and Wales at 56,000,000 ( police 120,000)
tangerine_sedge said:
EarlofDrift said:
I've been watching a lot of those 'auditor' types on Youtube recently. You know the guys that go to X landmark, a old Cold War era plane outside a base are just filming in a town centre. The way some of them get treated as soon as security and then the police turn up to question them is just embarrassing. They see an innocent member of the public with a camera and it's almost like it's triggered some sort of reaction which usually means they are in for the Spanish Inquisition.
Most of the police turn up for a 'chat', which quickly turns into a interrogation. The auditors know they don't have to give their identity as photography is not a crime. This refusal seems to ramp thing up further. They don't seem to be aware you can photograph anything in public, and private property from a public place a long as it's not into someones house. The police don't seem to know the law regarding photography or filming in public and just appear to make it up as they go along.
Here's one of the finest of recent audits. It's almost like he's threatened to shot passers dead with his camera.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmxR_4NKjvw
Step 1 : Go to a 'sensitive' place, knowing there will be confrontation.Most of the police turn up for a 'chat', which quickly turns into a interrogation. The auditors know they don't have to give their identity as photography is not a crime. This refusal seems to ramp thing up further. They don't seem to be aware you can photograph anything in public, and private property from a public place a long as it's not into someones house. The police don't seem to know the law regarding photography or filming in public and just appear to make it up as they go along.
Here's one of the finest of recent audits. It's almost like he's threatened to shot passers dead with his camera.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmxR_4NKjvw
Step 2 : Get challenged.
Step 3 : Dodge all questions, whilst filming, ensuring confrontation.
Step 4 : Edit and publish to YouTube.
Step 5 : Profit!
The fact remains that they shouldn't be challenged at all if there is no criminal offence. The 'nothing to hide nothing to fear'narrative is a slippery slope, once everyone starts to suspect someone in public with a camera it's a downward spiral into an East German style police state. It's just paranoia when CCTV is everywhere.
EarlofDrift said:
tangerine_sedge said:
EarlofDrift said:
I've been watching a lot of those 'auditor' types on Youtube recently. You know the guys that go to X landmark, a old Cold War era plane outside a base are just filming in a town centre. The way some of them get treated as soon as security and then the police turn up to question them is just embarrassing. They see an innocent member of the public with a camera and it's almost like it's triggered some sort of reaction which usually means they are in for the Spanish Inquisition.
Most of the police turn up for a 'chat', which quickly turns into a interrogation. The auditors know they don't have to give their identity as photography is not a crime. This refusal seems to ramp thing up further. They don't seem to be aware you can photograph anything in public, and private property from a public place a long as it's not into someones house. The police don't seem to know the law regarding photography or filming in public and just appear to make it up as they go along.
Here's one of the finest of recent audits. It's almost like he's threatened to shot passers dead with his camera.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmxR_4NKjvw
Step 1 : Go to a 'sensitive' place, knowing there will be confrontation.Most of the police turn up for a 'chat', which quickly turns into a interrogation. The auditors know they don't have to give their identity as photography is not a crime. This refusal seems to ramp thing up further. They don't seem to be aware you can photograph anything in public, and private property from a public place a long as it's not into someones house. The police don't seem to know the law regarding photography or filming in public and just appear to make it up as they go along.
Here's one of the finest of recent audits. It's almost like he's threatened to shot passers dead with his camera.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmxR_4NKjvw
Step 2 : Get challenged.
Step 3 : Dodge all questions, whilst filming, ensuring confrontation.
Step 4 : Edit and publish to YouTube.
Step 5 : Profit!
The fact remains that they shouldn't be challenged at all if there is no criminal offence. The 'nothing to hide nothing to fear'narrative is a slippery slope, once everyone starts to suspect someone in public with a camera it's a downward spiral into an East German style police state. It's just paranoia when CCTV is everywhere.
Bigends said:
EarlofDrift said:
tangerine_sedge said:
EarlofDrift said:
I've been watching a lot of those 'auditor' types on Youtube recently. You know the guys that go to X landmark, a old Cold War era plane outside a base are just filming in a town centre. The way some of them get treated as soon as security and then the police turn up to question them is just embarrassing. They see an innocent member of the public with a camera and it's almost like it's triggered some sort of reaction which usually means they are in for the Spanish Inquisition.
Most of the police turn up for a 'chat', which quickly turns into a interrogation. The auditors know they don't have to give their identity as photography is not a crime. This refusal seems to ramp thing up further. They don't seem to be aware you can photograph anything in public, and private property from a public place a long as it's not into someones house. The police don't seem to know the law regarding photography or filming in public and just appear to make it up as they go along.
Here's one of the finest of recent audits. It's almost like he's threatened to shot passers dead with his camera.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmxR_4NKjvw
Step 1 : Go to a 'sensitive' place, knowing there will be confrontation.Most of the police turn up for a 'chat', which quickly turns into a interrogation. The auditors know they don't have to give their identity as photography is not a crime. This refusal seems to ramp thing up further. They don't seem to be aware you can photograph anything in public, and private property from a public place a long as it's not into someones house. The police don't seem to know the law regarding photography or filming in public and just appear to make it up as they go along.
Here's one of the finest of recent audits. It's almost like he's threatened to shot passers dead with his camera.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmxR_4NKjvw
Step 2 : Get challenged.
Step 3 : Dodge all questions, whilst filming, ensuring confrontation.
Step 4 : Edit and publish to YouTube.
Step 5 : Profit!
The fact remains that they shouldn't be challenged at all if there is no criminal offence. The 'nothing to hide nothing to fear'narrative is a slippery slope, once everyone starts to suspect someone in public with a camera it's a downward spiral into an East German style police state. It's just paranoia when CCTV is everywhere.
EarlofDrift said:
tangerine_sedge said:
EarlofDrift said:
I've been watching a lot of those 'auditor' types on Youtube recently. You know the guys that go to X landmark, a old Cold War era plane outside a base are just filming in a town centre. The way some of them get treated as soon as security and then the police turn up to question them is just embarrassing. They see an innocent member of the public with a camera and it's almost like it's triggered some sort of reaction which usually means they are in for the Spanish Inquisition.
Most of the police turn up for a 'chat', which quickly turns into a interrogation. The auditors know they don't have to give their identity as photography is not a crime. This refusal seems to ramp thing up further. They don't seem to be aware you can photograph anything in public, and private property from a public place a long as it's not into someones house. The police don't seem to know the law regarding photography or filming in public and just appear to make it up as they go along.
Here's one of the finest of recent audits. It's almost like he's threatened to shot passers dead with his camera.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmxR_4NKjvw
Step 1 : Go to a 'sensitive' place, knowing there will be confrontation.Most of the police turn up for a 'chat', which quickly turns into a interrogation. The auditors know they don't have to give their identity as photography is not a crime. This refusal seems to ramp thing up further. They don't seem to be aware you can photograph anything in public, and private property from a public place a long as it's not into someones house. The police don't seem to know the law regarding photography or filming in public and just appear to make it up as they go along.
Here's one of the finest of recent audits. It's almost like he's threatened to shot passers dead with his camera.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmxR_4NKjvw
Step 2 : Get challenged.
Step 3 : Dodge all questions, whilst filming, ensuring confrontation.
Step 4 : Edit and publish to YouTube.
Step 5 : Profit!
The fact remains that they shouldn't be challenged at all if there is no criminal offence. The 'nothing to hide nothing to fear'narrative is a slippery slope, once everyone starts to suspect someone in public with a camera it's a downward spiral into an East German style police state. It's just paranoia when CCTV is everywhere.
Why you defend them I have no idea.
oyster said:
EarlofDrift said:
tangerine_sedge said:
EarlofDrift said:
I've been watching a lot of those 'auditor' types on Youtube recently. You know the guys that go to X landmark, a old Cold War era plane outside a base are just filming in a town centre. The way some of them get treated as soon as security and then the police turn up to question them is just embarrassing. They see an innocent member of the public with a camera and it's almost like it's triggered some sort of reaction which usually means they are in for the Spanish Inquisition.
Most of the police turn up for a 'chat', which quickly turns into a interrogation. The auditors know they don't have to give their identity as photography is not a crime. This refusal seems to ramp thing up further. They don't seem to be aware you can photograph anything in public, and private property from a public place a long as it's not into someones house. The police don't seem to know the law regarding photography or filming in public and just appear to make it up as they go along.
Here's one of the finest of recent audits. It's almost like he's threatened to shot passers dead with his camera.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmxR_4NKjvw
Step 1 : Go to a 'sensitive' place, knowing there will be confrontation.Most of the police turn up for a 'chat', which quickly turns into a interrogation. The auditors know they don't have to give their identity as photography is not a crime. This refusal seems to ramp thing up further. They don't seem to be aware you can photograph anything in public, and private property from a public place a long as it's not into someones house. The police don't seem to know the law regarding photography or filming in public and just appear to make it up as they go along.
Here's one of the finest of recent audits. It's almost like he's threatened to shot passers dead with his camera.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmxR_4NKjvw
Step 2 : Get challenged.
Step 3 : Dodge all questions, whilst filming, ensuring confrontation.
Step 4 : Edit and publish to YouTube.
Step 5 : Profit!
The fact remains that they shouldn't be challenged at all if there is no criminal offence. The 'nothing to hide nothing to fear'narrative is a slippery slope, once everyone starts to suspect someone in public with a camera it's a downward spiral into an East German style police state. It's just paranoia when CCTV is everywhere.
Why you defend them I have no idea.
I have to say that these videos show just how tolerant the UK is
In many countries if you stood outside the headquarters of the Secret Intelligence Services and started filming the place you’d find yourself in a Prison long before you could shout “ freeman on the land”
In others you’d probably receive a bullet
Plenty of “plane spotters” and the like have found themselves in very deep water taking pictures of Govt installations, even in Europe.
The man is clearly a prick
I have no problem at all with him being asked to account for his actions and presence .. in fact I’m damn glad he and his like are being challenged
How hard is it for him to say
“i’m a YouTuber from Bridlington making a film about iconic buildings, here’s my driving licence to prove who I am, thanks very much for checking, but I’m no threat, my channel is .... feel free to give me a like etc”
There ARE people out there that would harm US .. they often do reccee’s on potential targets, iconic sites etc
What if he wasn’t filming the building but people going in/out to try to identify them so they can be targeted later
Which brings me full circle to my earlier comment.. the man is a prick
Reading the shocking comments from obvious or apparent police here, defending the police lack of action where it matters, clearly some are no longer fit for purpose.
We have more police, and greater funding (in real terms) per head of population than at almost any other time since WW2, yet somehow, there is little visible presence, and frequently a surly reluctance to act when upholding of the law is demanded.
The problems may stem from above, but as has been pointed out previously, following orders is not a defence for wrongdoing; if the cops on the ground receive inappropriate orders from their "superiors", they could and should arrest them for misconduct in public office.
We have more police, and greater funding (in real terms) per head of population than at almost any other time since WW2, yet somehow, there is little visible presence, and frequently a surly reluctance to act when upholding of the law is demanded.
The problems may stem from above, but as has been pointed out previously, following orders is not a defence for wrongdoing; if the cops on the ground receive inappropriate orders from their "superiors", they could and should arrest them for misconduct in public office.
Having had to report the theft of antiques I am beginning to wonder. I report the offence to the call centre, get a call back the next day which basically gives a crime number. Then follows is an explanation that without having a slam-dunk guilty as charged with bells on suspect it will go to the secondary investigation team. I am promised an email detailing how to submit evidence but almost a week later nothing! It feels like I am the investigating officer and doing all the work. I get more excuses why they aren't going to do anything, it is like dealing with someone who can't be arsed to get out of bed and has a list of excuses a politician would be proud of.
Not impressed!
Not impressed!
John Locke said:
We have more police, and greater funding (in real terms) per head of population than at almost any other time since WW2, yet somehow, there is little visible presence, and frequently a surly reluctance to act when upholding of the law is demanded.
And policing demand and complexity it higher than it's ever been. We have a very low number of police per head vs Europe and most other comparable countries, regardless of any historical comparison.
John Locke said:
Reading the shocking comments from obvious or apparent police here, defending the police lack of action where it matters, clearly some are no longer fit for purpose.
We have more police, and greater funding (in real terms) per head of population than at almost any other time since WW2, yet somehow, there is little visible presence, and frequently a surly reluctance to act when upholding of the law is demanded.
The problems may stem from above, but as has been pointed out previously, following orders is not a defence for wrongdoing; if the cops on the ground receive inappropriate orders from their "superiors", they could and should arrest them for misconduct in public office.
Your comment shows a naivety and total lack of understanding of the issues We have more police, and greater funding (in real terms) per head of population than at almost any other time since WW2, yet somehow, there is little visible presence, and frequently a surly reluctance to act when upholding of the law is demanded.
The problems may stem from above, but as has been pointed out previously, following orders is not a defence for wrongdoing; if the cops on the ground receive inappropriate orders from their "superiors", they could and should arrest them for misconduct in public office.
In the 60’s there were approx 1m crimes recorded per annum .. violent, serious and organised crime levels were very low. There was no terrorist threat
Police today may have more numbers, however the number of crimes recorded annually is now approaching 6m
The nature and complexity of those crimes has changed massively. There is now a serious, ongoing and daily threat of Terrorism
Further to that prior to the 80’s society was not bothered about Policing and the methods thereof
Starting with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act in 1984 and continuing unabated since Parliament has continually increased to regulation of the Police and the central direction of their actions.
It has continually created new offences and hampered how the Police must respond
Most recently removing the right for Police to bail suspects
The Government does not see property crime as a priority. It is way below Harm offences such as Domestic Violence and Hate crimes
The Home Office sets the parameters and sadly if your pedal cycle is stolen then the expectation is your insurance will pay out. The Police are there to protect you from harm
Technology has massively increased the burden on the Police, as has the imposition of the CPS
In essence you can cannot compare apples with pears
Society gets the Policing it deserves.
It has legislated continually against Police powers and increased the oversight and regulation of the Police and hampered it operationally
Don’t blame the Police ... blame Parliament
Earthdweller said:
John Locke said:
Reading the shocking comments from obvious or apparent police here, defending the police lack of action where it matters, clearly some are no longer fit for purpose.
We have more police, and greater funding (in real terms) per head of population than at almost any other time since WW2, yet somehow, there is little visible presence, and frequently a surly reluctance to act when upholding of the law is demanded.
The problems may stem from above, but as has been pointed out previously, following orders is not a defence for wrongdoing; if the cops on the ground receive inappropriate orders from their "superiors", they could and should arrest them for misconduct in public office.
Your comment shows a naivety and total lack of understanding of the issues We have more police, and greater funding (in real terms) per head of population than at almost any other time since WW2, yet somehow, there is little visible presence, and frequently a surly reluctance to act when upholding of the law is demanded.
The problems may stem from above, but as has been pointed out previously, following orders is not a defence for wrongdoing; if the cops on the ground receive inappropriate orders from their "superiors", they could and should arrest them for misconduct in public office.
In the 60’s there were approx 1m crimes recorded per annum .. violent, serious and organised crime levels were very low. There was no terrorist threat
Police today may have more numbers, however the number of crimes recorded annually is now approaching 6m
The nature and complexity of those crimes has changed massively. There is now a serious, ongoing and daily threat of Terrorism
Further to that prior to the 80’s society was not bothered about Policing and the methods thereof
Starting with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act in 1984 and continuing unabated since Parliament has continually increased to regulation of the Police and the central direction of their actions.
It has continually created new offences and hampered how the Police must respond
Most recently removing the right for Police to bail suspects
The Government does not see property crime as a priority. It is way below Harm offences such as Domestic Violence and Hate crimes
The Home Office sets the parameters and sadly if your pedal cycle is stolen then the expectation is your insurance will pay out. The Police are there to protect you from harm
Technology has massively increased the burden on the Police, as has the imposition of the CPS
In essence you can cannot compare apples with pears
Society gets the Policing it deserves.
It has legislated continually against Police powers and increased the oversight and regulation of the Police and hampered it operationally
Don’t blame the Police ... blame Parliament
That answers the OP's original question.
It's no longer fit for purpose.
That person who's had his bike stolen pays his portion of the Police council tax, yet the crime against him is not dealt with.
As someone has already said, a big reset is required.
Trevor555 said:
Earthdweller said:
John Locke said:
Reading the shocking comments from obvious or apparent police here, defending the police lack of action where it matters, clearly some are no longer fit for purpose.
We have more police, and greater funding (in real terms) per head of population than at almost any other time since WW2, yet somehow, there is little visible presence, and frequently a surly reluctance to act when upholding of the law is demanded.
The problems may stem from above, but as has been pointed out previously, following orders is not a defence for wrongdoing; if the cops on the ground receive inappropriate orders from their "superiors", they could and should arrest them for misconduct in public office.
Your comment shows a naivety and total lack of understanding of the issues We have more police, and greater funding (in real terms) per head of population than at almost any other time since WW2, yet somehow, there is little visible presence, and frequently a surly reluctance to act when upholding of the law is demanded.
The problems may stem from above, but as has been pointed out previously, following orders is not a defence for wrongdoing; if the cops on the ground receive inappropriate orders from their "superiors", they could and should arrest them for misconduct in public office.
In the 60’s there were approx 1m crimes recorded per annum .. violent, serious and organised crime levels were very low. There was no terrorist threat
Police today may have more numbers, however the number of crimes recorded annually is now approaching 6m
The nature and complexity of those crimes has changed massively. There is now a serious, ongoing and daily threat of Terrorism
Further to that prior to the 80’s society was not bothered about Policing and the methods thereof
Starting with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act in 1984 and continuing unabated since Parliament has continually increased to regulation of the Police and the central direction of their actions.
It has continually created new offences and hampered how the Police must respond
Most recently removing the right for Police to bail suspects
The Government does not see property crime as a priority. It is way below Harm offences such as Domestic Violence and Hate crimes
The Home Office sets the parameters and sadly if your pedal cycle is stolen then the expectation is your insurance will pay out. The Police are there to protect you from harm
Technology has massively increased the burden on the Police, as has the imposition of the CPS
In essence you can cannot compare apples with pears
Society gets the Policing it deserves.
It has legislated continually against Police powers and increased the oversight and regulation of the Police and hampered it operationally
Don’t blame the Police ... blame Parliament
That answers the OP's original question.
It's no longer fit for purpose.
That person who's had his bike stolen pays his portion of the Police council tax, yet the crime against him is not dealt with.
As someone has already said, a big reset is required.
Edited by Earthdweller on Friday 21st February 19:22
Earthdweller said:
Posted stuff that, while accurate, will be ignored so a repost just adds to the irritation that those who are blind to facts causes me.
There was research, some years ago now, on the impact of mobile phones on the demands on police. The number of requests/demands for police action doubled in many areas, more so in some (including my division) in the period covered. Since then, funding for police has dropped in real terms and the numbers of officers has recently dropped significantly. This is exacerbated by the problems of new offences and the limits on police discretion. You also forgot to mention the demands of HMIC. There is a dolt in charge, the one who wears pretty uniforms he designs himself, who, during his first few months, demanded that the police believe complainants of abuse when children/young adults. It was pointed out that this was likely to cause problems. The criticism was taken on board by HMIC, and ignored. When these problems materialised, the HMIC washed its hands of the cause and said that although someone might have said something, it should not have been taken literally. And, of course, the inspectors should not have checked that it was being implemented during inspections.
No problem, though. The press, and one, two or more, posters of PH and, no doubt, other keyboard warriors, blamed the police for doing what they were ordered to do by a government agency. That gave everyone a laugh.
There are those who believe what the government says about funding of the police. Yes, they do. Some people even suggest that funding is up in real terms. I assume also that they believed the government when, a couple of years ago, they said, to the sycophantic media, that there would be no more cuts to police funding. I know no one with any sense would believe such rubbish, but it came hard to a superintendent in my force who was trying to create a plan to cope with a £1million cut the following year. That gave everyone a laugh.
Not a criticism of your post, ED, just some extra statements that can be ignored by those who will ignore anything that contradicts their prejudice.
As an aside, the police were criticised on here for the increase in knife crime, particularly in London. Almost proof that the service was unfit. It was, however, fit enough to point out to the then Home Secretary that the limitations on searching those suspected of carrying knives would, in all probability, result in an increase in knife crime.
The government has admitted its mistake and accepted full responsibility for the debacle.
I bet that last sentence gave everyone a laugh. For those still up to speed, it has criticised the police.
All criticisms of idiot posts aside, the police does need a Royal Commission.
Over the years it is obliged to take on responsibility for occurrences that it is not equipped to resolve, has had to act as a backstop to those national and local agencies that, due to their own problems with funding, have had to dump on the police.
The police can't refuse of course. They just have to make do. In my time operational matters had to take a back seat to the welfare of those abandoned by others. Yet no warrant was required.
The problem is that any RC will put the ball into the government's court. It would appear that a railway line is more important than proper funding of various agencies, at least up to a level where they can fulfill their role. That alone would release sufficient police to respond to those tasks that require response.
So the police will be fiddled with, nothing will improve, and just before the next election everyone will be told that policing is of prime importance to all parties.
Over the years it is obliged to take on responsibility for occurrences that it is not equipped to resolve, has had to act as a backstop to those national and local agencies that, due to their own problems with funding, have had to dump on the police.
The police can't refuse of course. They just have to make do. In my time operational matters had to take a back seat to the welfare of those abandoned by others. Yet no warrant was required.
The problem is that any RC will put the ball into the government's court. It would appear that a railway line is more important than proper funding of various agencies, at least up to a level where they can fulfill their role. That alone would release sufficient police to respond to those tasks that require response.
So the police will be fiddled with, nothing will improve, and just before the next election everyone will be told that policing is of prime importance to all parties.
My Mrs is a DC and works with victims of serious sexual assaults. She has just had a download from a victim's mobile phone and there are well over 10,000 messages that she is expected to sit and read through. Shes also waiting for the offenders phone to come back and read through all of those too.
That's just one of 23 rape investigations shes trying to manage, not forgetting the regular high risk domestic violence jobs and sexual assaults shes carrying.
That's just one DC, in one team in one area.
That's just one of 23 rape investigations shes trying to manage, not forgetting the regular high risk domestic violence jobs and sexual assaults shes carrying.
That's just one DC, in one team in one area.
John Locke said:
1. We have more police, and greater funding (in real terms) per head of population than at almost any other time since WW2, yet somehow, there is little visible presence, and frequently a surly reluctance to act when upholding of the law is demanded.
2. The problems may stem from above, but as has been pointed out previously, following orders is not a defence for wrongdoing; if the cops on the ground receive inappropriate orders from their "superiors", they could and should arrest them for misconduct in public office.
1. Wrong. There are the same number of police currently as there were in 1985.2. The problems may stem from above, but as has been pointed out previously, following orders is not a defence for wrongdoing; if the cops on the ground receive inappropriate orders from their "superiors", they could and should arrest them for misconduct in public office.
England and Wales have lost 20,000 police since 2010.
Where are you getting your " facts" from ?
2.
Are we back to Nazis and The Holocaust again ?
Arrest senior officers for inappropriate orders ? OK, if you say so, Guv.
As usual some of the comments range from the laughable to the worrying.
In order to answer the original question posed one has to establish what the purpose of the police is. Only then can one judge whether the current service is adequate.
I am another one who feels that a Royal Commission to establish the role of the police in the 21st century would be a very good idea. This is hardly a new idea of course. Some of us were saying this in the early 90's at the time of Sheehy.
In order to answer the original question posed one has to establish what the purpose of the police is. Only then can one judge whether the current service is adequate.
I am another one who feels that a Royal Commission to establish the role of the police in the 21st century would be a very good idea. This is hardly a new idea of course. Some of us were saying this in the early 90's at the time of Sheehy.
XCP said:
As usual some of the comments range from the laughable to the worrying.
In order to answer the original question posed one has to establish what the purpose of the police is. Only then can one judge whether the current service is adequate.
I am another one who feels that a Royal Commission to establish the role of the police in the 21st century would be a very good idea. This is hardly a new idea of course. Some of us were saying this in the early 90's at the time of Sheehy.
It's a great idea, give some of the time consuming I inherited sIn order to answer the original question posed one has to establish what the purpose of the police is. Only then can one judge whether the current service is adequate.
I am another one who feels that a Royal Commission to establish the role of the police in the 21st century would be a very good idea. This is hardly a new idea of course. Some of us were saying this in the early 90's at the time of Sheehy.
t back to who should be dealing with it. I'm not sure they even have a purpose.
They did have, set out nearly 200 years ago and quite successful until relatively recently. The first of the Peelian principles (amazed nobody has mentioned these) of policing is "To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment."
Both Cambridge and the possibly worse "occupation" of Paddington Green police station amount to officially sanctioned protests. They could easily be stopped with quite reasonable force, and who can really doubt that they would be if it was Fathers for Justice or the EDL. They will stand by and watch crime and disorder when they agree with the motives.
Some things the police do are amazing. The officers who attended the Borough Market attack seemed almost super human. The work of attending car crashes and death scenes, informing relatives and taking statements from distraught witnesses and victims is grim and far less glamorous. And many do this for years on end with terrific stoicism.
But it's hard to believe that these are the same people as the impotent muppets I witnessed waste 40 minutes conversing with a drunken nuisance last summer. Or who will go and bully some unemployed crank for posting something on Twitter, yet won't attend burglaries or assaults because they are under staffed.
They have become a political play thing, and another branch of a public sector completely in the grip of fashionable "progressive" ideas and actively hostile to things that actually work.
They did have, set out nearly 200 years ago and quite successful until relatively recently. The first of the Peelian principles (amazed nobody has mentioned these) of policing is "To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment."
Both Cambridge and the possibly worse "occupation" of Paddington Green police station amount to officially sanctioned protests. They could easily be stopped with quite reasonable force, and who can really doubt that they would be if it was Fathers for Justice or the EDL. They will stand by and watch crime and disorder when they agree with the motives.
Some things the police do are amazing. The officers who attended the Borough Market attack seemed almost super human. The work of attending car crashes and death scenes, informing relatives and taking statements from distraught witnesses and victims is grim and far less glamorous. And many do this for years on end with terrific stoicism.
But it's hard to believe that these are the same people as the impotent muppets I witnessed waste 40 minutes conversing with a drunken nuisance last summer. Or who will go and bully some unemployed crank for posting something on Twitter, yet won't attend burglaries or assaults because they are under staffed.
They have become a political play thing, and another branch of a public sector completely in the grip of fashionable "progressive" ideas and actively hostile to things that actually work.
JuanCarlosFandango said:
Both Cambridge and the possibly worse "occupation" of Paddington Green police station amount to officially sanctioned protests. They could easily be stopped with quite reasonable force, and who can really doubt that they would be if it was Fathers for Justice or the EDL. They will stand by and watch crime and disorder when they agree with the motives.
I sometimes fail to understand how there's not a mechanism which makes a person asking the question, "Is that actually true?", when writing something like that. Police officers being well known for supporting the motives of XR and all...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff