Are the Police Service fit for purpose anymore?
Discussion
turbobloke said:
Pothole said:
turbobloke said:
Metooism, how wonderful. What a shame people have different views, and that some can't cope with this, hence the slurs ^^
Back on-topic, the HMICFRS survey for 2018, published in 2019, showed only 61% of respondents were satisfied with their local police service, though that's an increase over 2017 which was even worse. Poop poor results.
The top type of crime respondents think police should prioritise, beating all other types of crime, is extremism/terrorism. What a surprise! To Cambridge police maybe.
How did they phrase the question which measured the respondents' local forces' response to extremism/terrorism? I suspect many people in rural areas struggled to tick any box except "neither unsatisfied nor satisfied" as that specific issue doesn't really figure in their lives.Back on-topic, the HMICFRS survey for 2018, published in 2019, showed only 61% of respondents were satisfied with their local police service, though that's an increase over 2017 which was even worse. Poop poor results.
The top type of crime respondents think police should prioritise, beating all other types of crime, is extremism/terrorism. What a surprise! To Cambridge police maybe.
People in rural areas, amazingly, watch the news and read newspapers, they even visit towns and cities.
Pothole said:
I think this thread has shown, as many others have before it, that the main issue with public perception of police performance is unrealistic expectation. Forces don't manage this expectation very well, but that doesn't change the fact that the average man in the street hasn't a clue how policing works and so has no real foundation on which to base their expectation. I was one of those people until 5 years ago. My perception and subsequent expectation has changed wildly since then.
Satisfaction doesn't depend on knowing how policing works, it depends on the quality of experience.It may well be that how policing works needs to change - satisfaction ought to be at least 80% for a group dedicated to protecting and serving (or is that role only for the City of London police) rather than languishing in the 50s and 60s. It would be informative to have a survey in Cambridge right now.
Edited by turbobloke on Saturday 22 February 13:00
I would suppose that someone whose car or van was broken into and whose tools were stolen therefrom might express different levels of satisfaction in the following two cases:
1. They are a typical PHer who thinks the police spend all their time avoiding work and actually want a van full of officers to descend on their address and bang on every front door in a 3 mile radius interrogating all occupants Gestapo style, a SOCO to fingerprint every surface on and in their vehicle, despite the fact that entry was gained by jemmying a rear door and the value of the tools was £3.50, and it's been raining non-stop for 3 weeks, oh and ALL local CCTV should be seized immediately and the van load of officers tasked with reviewing it before the end of the day.
2. it's my car.
Pothole said:
You wouldn't concede that one's judgement of the quality of an experience might be influenced by one's expectation of that experience and how that expectation was met?
I would suppose that someone whose car or van was broken into and whose tools were stolen therefrom might express different levels of satisfaction in the following two cases:
1. They are a typical PHer who thinks the police spend all their time avoiding work and actually want a van full of officers to descend on their address and bang on every front door in a 3 mile radius interrogating all occupants Gestapo style, a SOCO to fingerprint every surface on and in their vehicle, despite the fact that entry was gained by jemmying a rear door and the value of the tools was £3.50, and it's been raining non-stop for 3 weeks, oh and ALL local CCTV should be seized immediately and the van load of officers tasked with reviewing it before the end of the day.
2. it's my car.
How do you know what a typical PHer is in this context? I suspect you don't know, but can create caricatures. Does either of those options reflect your position?I would suppose that someone whose car or van was broken into and whose tools were stolen therefrom might express different levels of satisfaction in the following two cases:
1. They are a typical PHer who thinks the police spend all their time avoiding work and actually want a van full of officers to descend on their address and bang on every front door in a 3 mile radius interrogating all occupants Gestapo style, a SOCO to fingerprint every surface on and in their vehicle, despite the fact that entry was gained by jemmying a rear door and the value of the tools was £3.50, and it's been raining non-stop for 3 weeks, oh and ALL local CCTV should be seized immediately and the van load of officers tasked with reviewing it before the end of the day.
2. it's my car.
It's not clear that expectations are high. However, surely they should be. Policing is a very important function in society.
turbobloke said:
Red 4 said:
Surveys, eh ?
According to the survey 20% of respondents have not seen police (in a vehicle) within the last year.
Where do these people live ? In a cave ? Come on, own up, which PHers responded to the survey ?
Some haven't seen much at all of police cars. Such is life. According to the survey 20% of respondents have not seen police (in a vehicle) within the last year.
Where do these people live ? In a cave ? Come on, own up, which PHers responded to the survey ?
It doesn't reflect my experience in the UK but it does for the times I've spent abroad (Europe, Far East) where in both cases in spending months at a time in each location there wasn't a single sighting. This may be a good thing - in both locations the crime rate barely existed. It's certainly not worth hinting that the respondents are liars.
A thankfully very small but growing number see too much of police cars up-close. The increase must be a cause for concern, or has policy changed in the last year of stats and if so in what way?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/police...
I've travelled a fair bit in the UK and in pretty much every place I've been I've seen police.
I can guarantee that if I went out, right now, for more than a couple of hours then I would see a police car. I'm in the 'burbs. Not a city.
Regarding your link - 42 deaths involving police vehicles.
However, 30 of those deaths were caused by the driver of a vehicle being pursued by police.
That leaves 12. ( 5 involving police vehicles responding to an incident ).
As ever though, the devil is in the detail. "Involving" does not attribute blame.
Rather than reading a headline and swallowing it perhaps you should consider other factors that may be in play.
Blame, for one.
turbobloke said:
How do you know what a typical PHer is in this context? I suspect you don't know, but can create caricatures. Does either of those options reflect your position?
It's not clear that expectations are high. However, surely they should be. Policing is a very important function in society.
I'm basing it on the number of "X happened to me/near me/ to someone I don't know but who posted on Facebook and "the police are not interested"" posts we see on this forum as well as any other social medium you care to look at.It's not clear that expectations are high. However, surely they should be. Policing is a very important function in society.
If expectations are naively too high to possibly be met, satisfaction will inevitably be lower, won't it?
Erm, isn't it obvious that my expectations are lower?
ETA:
A possible analogy if I might: If I go to a Holiday Inn expecting the Ritz, I'm going to fill in my survey expressing deep dissatisfaction. If I go to a Holiday Inn and it's just like a Holiday Inn, my responses will probably be different, won't they?
Edited by Pothole on Saturday 22 February 15:10
Pothole
A few things with that. I will avoid messy quoting and unquoting.
Their visible presence made them a laughing stock, and it was quite likely that some member of the public would have "restored order" had the police not been there.
I would rather it was dealt with quicker. Either he calms down and goes home or he sobers up in the cells.
He was a stumbling, incoherent drunk who could have been detained, as he eventually was, with a firm grab of each arm. No brutality required.
The area this happened in has football matches and raucous Friday nights. If they didn't have adequate custody spaces on that day how could they deal with these events?
Why on earth do you need an outside contractor to hose a bit of piss out of the back of a van?
Is it normal practice to avoid arresting people on the speculation that they might cause themselves a head injury?
An alternative is they could have told him to calm down and move along, met with drunken refusal and did what they ended up doing anyway 38 minutes sooner.
I'm not saying all police officers are useless. I'm saying the force is ineffective at fighting crime because they are operating under a set of ridiculous constraints set by politicians and senior management who don't really care about crime, or believe that effective policing can solve it.
A few things with that. I will avoid messy quoting and unquoting.
Their visible presence made them a laughing stock, and it was quite likely that some member of the public would have "restored order" had the police not been there.
I would rather it was dealt with quicker. Either he calms down and goes home or he sobers up in the cells.
He was a stumbling, incoherent drunk who could have been detained, as he eventually was, with a firm grab of each arm. No brutality required.
The area this happened in has football matches and raucous Friday nights. If they didn't have adequate custody spaces on that day how could they deal with these events?
Why on earth do you need an outside contractor to hose a bit of piss out of the back of a van?
Is it normal practice to avoid arresting people on the speculation that they might cause themselves a head injury?
An alternative is they could have told him to calm down and move along, met with drunken refusal and did what they ended up doing anyway 38 minutes sooner.
I'm not saying all police officers are useless. I'm saying the force is ineffective at fighting crime because they are operating under a set of ridiculous constraints set by politicians and senior management who don't really care about crime, or believe that effective policing can solve it.
JuanCarlosFandango said:
I'm not saying all police officers are useless. I'm saying the force is ineffective at fighting crime because they are operating under a set of ridiculous constraints set by politicians and senior management who don't really care about crime, or believe that effective policing can solve it.
I agree. I'm glad you have the intelligence and insight to realise that. Apparently, those are rare qualities.Most people sum up the situation by using the collective "the police" and saying they "are useless/lazy/uncaring/unfit for purpose". Nobody really knows what "the police" means in that context. The attitude is taken out on rank and file officers on a daily basis by members of the public who appear to believe those officers are in control of what they do and where they do it.
Red 4 said:
John Locke said:
Red 4 said:
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.
Some facts: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/23/police...
2) Are you suggesting that senior officers who break the law or fail to uphold it are immune from arrest and prosecution?
Your response reinforces the first sentence (which you omitted) of my previous post:
"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."
You are now posting a news article comparing police numbers in the 60s to current levels.
Why ? That isn't what you said in your previous post and policing in the 60s is not comparable to the present day.
I'm stating that your suggestion to arrest senior officers in some sort of mutiny is ridiculous.
Don't move the goalposts.
I'm not defending anyone, I'm merely pointing out the flaws in your argument and pointing out that your "facts" are not facts at all.
Edited by Red 4 on Saturday 22 February 10:24
"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."
You responded "Wrong", changing the time period to suit your argument. My statement is not wrong.
I also said:
"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."
You said:
"I'm stating that your suggestion to arrest senior officers in some sort of mutiny is ridiculous.
Don't move the goalposts."
How is upholding the law a ridiculous mutiny?
You are of course right about policing in the 1960s being different from now: then it was effective and carried out with courtesy towards the public, now it is ineffective and all too frequently carried out with arrogance.
John Locke said:
Red 4 said:
John Locke said:
Red 4 said:
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.
Some facts: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/23/police...
2) Are you suggesting that senior officers who break the law or fail to uphold it are immune from arrest and prosecution?
Your response reinforces the first sentence (which you omitted) of my previous post:
"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."
You are now posting a news article comparing police numbers in the 60s to current levels.
Why ? That isn't what you said in your previous post and policing in the 60s is not comparable to the present day.
I'm stating that your suggestion to arrest senior officers in some sort of mutiny is ridiculous.
Don't move the goalposts.
I'm not defending anyone, I'm merely pointing out the flaws in your argument and pointing out that your "facts" are not facts at all.
Edited by Red 4 on Saturday 22 February 10:24
"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."
You responded "Wrong", changing the time period to suit your argument. My statement is not wrong.
I also said:
"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."
You said:
"I'm stating that your suggestion to arrest senior officers in some sort of mutiny is ridiculous.
Don't move the goalposts."
How is upholding the law a ridiculous mutiny?
You are of course right about policing in the 1960s being different from now: then it was effective and carried out with courtesy towards the public, now it is ineffective and all too frequently carried out with arrogance.
Here's a simple graph which shows the decline in police numbers.
Note the period from 2010. Losing 20,000 officers isn't a drop in the ocean.
Numbers are at their lowest level since 1985.
https://fullfact.org/crime/police-numbers/
Regarding your comments about policing in the 1960's and it being "effective and carried out with courtesy towards the public" what do you mean ?
Bobbies walking a beat with no personal radios snd needing to go to a police box to check-in ?
Lots of small forces (not many County sized forces in those days) with little accountability ?
Take off your rose-tinted glasses. Dixon of Dock Green wasn't all that. And he got shot, if you remember ...
Your comments ( and knowledge ) on this subject are laughable.
Demand has also increased exponentially and, perhaps unsurprisingly, you don't actually get more with less.
Edited by Red 4 on Saturday 22 February 16:43
Pothole said:
I agree. I'm glad you have the intelligence and insight to realise that. Apparently, those are rare qualities.
Most people sum up the situation by using the collective "the police" and saying they "are useless/lazy/uncaring/unfit for purpose". Nobody really knows what "the police" means in that context. The attitude is taken out on rank and file officers on a daily basis by members of the public who appear to believe those officers are in control of what they do and where they do it.
I suppose it's born of frustration and the front line is where people get to vent it. A policeman's lot is not a happy one.Most people sum up the situation by using the collective "the police" and saying they "are useless/lazy/uncaring/unfit for purpose". Nobody really knows what "the police" means in that context. The attitude is taken out on rank and file officers on a daily basis by members of the public who appear to believe those officers are in control of what they do and where they do it.
I will retract the "muppet" part of my post above, and say the officers attending were probably as frustrated as anyone else with the protracted counselling session they had to go through before getting to the inevitable conclusion. They were probably hard working and decent officers (by God they were patient) who joined for all the right reasons and wanted to do the right things.
They were impotent though, for whatever reason they were simply unable to deal with this in anything like an effective or efficient manner. Unless this really is the most effective and efficient way we can deal with a mouthy drunk. Which I don't believe.
Pothole said:
As I typed I was recalling a conversation I had last week with an officer who really tried not to arrest someone for being Drunk and Disorderly. It was only after they returned for the 5th time and were still calling the officer and his female colleague c@nts and throwing chips at them that they finally decided they had to do so. They had given him advice to tone down his language and just make his way home the other 4 times. Typical timewasting muppets, though, eh?
I relate those snap assumptions to the ones managers sometimes make if they spot that you're looking at a news website on a work PC. You MUST have been doing that ALL DAY, surely?
Why does it take 5 rounds of abuse though?I relate those snap assumptions to the ones managers sometimes make if they spot that you're looking at a news website on a work PC. You MUST have been doing that ALL DAY, surely?
I know you don't want to arrest everyone who gets a bit boisterous after a drink but in my simplistic view if someone refuses to stop when told to do so then they should be fairly swiftly made to do so.
If he returns 4 times to dish out abuse to two police officers who have threatened to arrest him, who are presumably physically capable, confident and able to arrest him, then how will he behave towards a defenceless woman who takes his fancy or a bus driver?
Red 4 said:
John Locke said:
Red 4 said:
John Locke said:
Red 4 said:
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.
Some facts: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/23/police...
2) Are you suggesting that senior officers who break the law or fail to uphold it are immune from arrest and prosecution?
Your response reinforces the first sentence (which you omitted) of my previous post:
"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."
You are now posting a news article comparing police numbers in the 60s to current levels.
Why ? That isn't what you said in your previous post and policing in the 60s is not comparable to the present day.
I'm stating that your suggestion to arrest senior officers in some sort of mutiny is ridiculous.
Don't move the goalposts.
I'm not defending anyone, I'm merely pointing out the flaws in your argument and pointing out that your "facts" are not facts at all.
Edited by Red 4 on Saturday 22 February 10:24
"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."
You responded "Wrong", changing the time period to suit your argument. My statement is not wrong.
I also said:
"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."
You said:
"I'm stating that your suggestion to arrest senior officers in some sort of mutiny is ridiculous.
Don't move the goalposts."
How is upholding the law a ridiculous mutiny?
You are of course right about policing in the 1960s being different from now: then it was effective and carried out with courtesy towards the public, now it is ineffective and all too frequently carried out with arrogance.
Here's a simple graph which shows the decline in police numbers.
Note the period from 2010. Losing 20,000 officers isn't a drop in the ocean.
Numbers are at their lowest level since 1985.
https://fullfact.org/crime/police-numbers/
Regarding your comments about policing in the 1960's and it being "effective and carried out with courtesy towards the public" what do you mean ?
Bobbies walking a beat with no personal radios snd needing to go to a police box to check-in ?
Lots of small forces (not many County sized forces in those days) with little accountability ?
Take off your rose-tinted glasses. Dixon of Dock Green wasn't all that. And he got shot, if you remember ...
Your comments ( and knowledge ) on this subject are laughable.
Demand has also increased exponentially and, perhaps unsurprisingly, you don't actually get more with less.
Edited by Red 4 on Saturday 22 February 16:43
If one revisits those times, one does not discover that they were halcyon periods of love-ins between the police and the public. Where does this nostalgia come from? Certainly not those who know about the realities of the time. Corruption was rife. Most of it was low level, but then I view corruption a bit like being pregnant; it's one thing or the other.
Try complaining about the police in those days. It was much more open to subjective interpretation as to what constituted poor behaviour.
The press were largely on-side. There was very little criticism of corrupt behaviour despite every journo knowing it was going on. Racist behaviour was endemic. I used to get the last bus home from Lewisham and the police would leapfrog the bus and stop any blacks getting on. There was no point in complaining. And lots and lots of support for the police back in the day. You remember, the days of the riots against the police.
Thuggish behaviour was expected.
Someone suggested that there are more police and greater funding despite all the evidence to the contrary. That is farcical, but then so is the suggestion that everyone got on with the police in the 1960s. I lived in a rough area of London. The police never came down out street. No point I suppose as no one would talk to them. If you did need the police there were shops where you could always find them during the day or pubs during the night.
That said, the demand on individual officers was so much lower in those days. There would be a requirement to phone in once an hour, or when the light was illuminated on the top of the police box, but other than that, you were on your own.
The good old days. Read up on Challoner, a detective sergeant. He had an excuse for his corrupt behaviour. He suffered what was then called a breakdown. However, he was supported in his behaviour by any number of police officers. Not to mention lawyers and magistrates. It would not happen now because, in many ways, now are the good old days, the ones everyone goes on about, when police can be trusted and those who are arrested are treated properly. Well, nearly the good old days. With more officers and a proper job description, the service could be more or less everything the public expect.
They are not rose-tinted glasses; they are blinkers.
ninepoint2 said:
Those attracted to join the Police will be a certain "type". Usually not the sharpest knife in the drawer and therefore unable to get into a proper job. I have very little respect for any Police I have ever had contact with.
They are above average for English grammar.ninepoint2 said:
Those attracted to join the Police will be a certain "type". Usually not the sharpest knife in the drawer and therefore unable to get into a proper job. I have very little respect for any Police I have ever had contact with.
Out of interest, what would you say a 'proper job' is?
ninepoint2 said:
Those attracted to join the Police will be a certain "type". Usually not the sharpest knife in the drawer and therefore unable to get into a proper job. I have very little respect for any Police I have ever had contact with.
Did it ever occur to you that they may have very little respect for you given your superiority complex ?You:re trying too hard. That's often a sign of insecurity and knowing that, really, you are inferior. Just saying ...
Edited by Red 4 on Saturday 22 February 20:19
Red 4 said:
ninepoint2 said:
Those attracted to join the Police will be a certain "type". Usually not the sharpest knife in the drawer and therefore unable to get into a proper job. I have very little respect for any Police I have ever had contact with.
Did it ever occur to you that they may have very little respect for you given your apparent superiority complex ?Derek Smith said:
The good old days of the 1960s, eh?
If one revisits those times, one does not discover that they were halcyon periods of love-ins between the police and the public. Where does this nostalgia come from? Certainly not those who know about the realities of the time. Corruption was rife. Most of it was low level, but then I view corruption a bit like being pregnant; it's one thing or the other.
Try complaining about the police in those days. It was much more open to subjective interpretation as to what constituted poor behaviour.
The press were largely on-side. There was very little criticism of corrupt behaviour despite every journo knowing it was going on. Racist behaviour was endemic. I used to get the last bus home from Lewisham and the police would leapfrog the bus and stop any blacks getting on. There was no point in complaining. And lots and lots of support for the police back in the day. You remember, the days of the riots against the police.
Thuggish behaviour was expected.
Someone suggested that there are more police and greater funding despite all the evidence to the contrary. That is farcical, but then so is the suggestion that everyone got on with the police in the 1960s. I lived in a rough area of London. The police never came down out street. No point I suppose as no one would talk to them. If you did need the police there were shops where you could always find them during the day or pubs during the night.
That said, the demand on individual officers was so much lower in those days. There would be a requirement to phone in once an hour, or when the light was illuminated on the top of the police box, but other than that, you were on your own.
The good old days. Read up on Challoner, a detective sergeant. He had an excuse for his corrupt behaviour. He suffered what was then called a breakdown. However, he was supported in his behaviour by any number of police officers. Not to mention lawyers and magistrates. It would not happen now because, in many ways, now are the good old days, the ones everyone goes on about, when police can be trusted and those who are arrested are treated properly. Well, nearly the good old days. With more officers and a proper job description, the service could be more or less everything the public expect.
They are not rose-tinted glasses; they are blinkers.
But when was I more likely to find my house burgled, my car stolen, or myself being assaulted? 1960 or 2020?If one revisits those times, one does not discover that they were halcyon periods of love-ins between the police and the public. Where does this nostalgia come from? Certainly not those who know about the realities of the time. Corruption was rife. Most of it was low level, but then I view corruption a bit like being pregnant; it's one thing or the other.
Try complaining about the police in those days. It was much more open to subjective interpretation as to what constituted poor behaviour.
The press were largely on-side. There was very little criticism of corrupt behaviour despite every journo knowing it was going on. Racist behaviour was endemic. I used to get the last bus home from Lewisham and the police would leapfrog the bus and stop any blacks getting on. There was no point in complaining. And lots and lots of support for the police back in the day. You remember, the days of the riots against the police.
Thuggish behaviour was expected.
Someone suggested that there are more police and greater funding despite all the evidence to the contrary. That is farcical, but then so is the suggestion that everyone got on with the police in the 1960s. I lived in a rough area of London. The police never came down out street. No point I suppose as no one would talk to them. If you did need the police there were shops where you could always find them during the day or pubs during the night.
That said, the demand on individual officers was so much lower in those days. There would be a requirement to phone in once an hour, or when the light was illuminated on the top of the police box, but other than that, you were on your own.
The good old days. Read up on Challoner, a detective sergeant. He had an excuse for his corrupt behaviour. He suffered what was then called a breakdown. However, he was supported in his behaviour by any number of police officers. Not to mention lawyers and magistrates. It would not happen now because, in many ways, now are the good old days, the ones everyone goes on about, when police can be trusted and those who are arrested are treated properly. Well, nearly the good old days. With more officers and a proper job description, the service could be more or less everything the public expect.
They are not rose-tinted glasses; they are blinkers.
Rewe said:
Red 4 said:
ninepoint2 said:
Those attracted to join the Police will be a certain "type". Usually not the sharpest knife in the drawer and therefore unable to get into a proper job. I have very little respect for any Police I have ever had contact with.
Did it ever occur to you that they may have very little respect for you given your apparent superiority complex ?Mr Freud, we have a customer for you ...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff