|
Post by El Presidente on Dec 5, 2010 13:20:53 GMT 1
A couple of sweeping generalisations there Lucy, but I understand your point of view. Your average protestor will never have come across such levels of confrontation or violence which has followed more recent protests. Some are shocked by what they see as the 'behaviour' of some officers, mostly due to (and I don't mean this disrespectfully) ignorance of 'the law' and what powers constables have, and how they deal with mass disorder. Your friends may well see 'pumped up' officers, quite probably because these are the specialist officers who are trained to deal with and break up protests. Simply because a protest is peaceful, does not make it 'lawful'. Aggrevated trespass and obstruction of the highway (a highway includes the pavement) are offences which can be committed in incidents like this. I am no expert, I am simply drawing on a little common knowledge available to all. I think the reason you will see a different approach in different forces will entirely be down to the style of policing in the area, and the community that is policed. Not only that, but it is absolutely right that different approaches should be tried in order to find one that works best in any given situation. No two incidents will ever be the same, so should all be approached with an open mind. One thing to consider when talking of 'human rights' and democratic right to protest etc - it should be remembered that two of the cornerstones of fulfilling the Office of Constable are to protect life; and to protect property. Fundamental human rights are to be protected, but 'the law' is also to be upheld. If anyone has the time, and is interested, and wishes to be more informed on modern policing issues etc, follow this link. www.metfed.org.uk/support/uploads/1214552596Office%20Constable.pdf
|
|
|
Post by simianus on Dec 5, 2010 13:51:28 GMT 1
A couple of sweeping generalisations there Lucy, but I understand your point of view. Your average protestor will never have come across such levels of confrontation or violence which has followed more recent protests. Some are shocked by what they see as the 'behaviour' of some officers, mostly due to (and I don't mean this disrespectfully) ignorance of 'the law' and what powers constables have, and how they deal with mass disorder. Your friends may well see 'pumped up' officers, quite probably because these are the specialist officers who are trained to deal with and break up protests. Simply because a protest is peaceful, does not make it 'lawful'. Aggrevated trespass and obstruction of the highway (a highway includes the pavement) are offences which can be committed in incidents like this. I am no expert, I am simply drawing on a little common knowledge available to all. I think the reason you will see a different approach in different forces will entirely be down to the style of policing in the area, and the community that is policed. Not only that, but it is absolutely right that different approaches should be tried in order to find one that works best in any given situation. No two incidents will ever be the same, so should all be approached with an open mind. One thing to consider when talking of 'human rights' and democratic right to protest etc - it should be remembered that two of the cornerstones of fulfilling the Office of Constable are to protect life; and to protect property. Fundamental human rights are to be protected, but 'the law' is also to be upheld. If anyone has the time, and is interested, and wishes to be more informed on modern policing issues etc, follow this link. www.metfed.org.uk/support/uploads/1214552596Office%20Constable.pdfto b honest, i dont know wheter they are specialist policemen or not, but you would expect those with the training to be less pumped up, less fearfull of the public because they know what to do and what peoples rights are. the problemwith jobs that involve manhandling people, is that it sometimes attracts people who like to do that. having worked in an environment where control and restraint is used, i know this to be true, some people are never happier than when they are throwing other people about, they wont admit it, but their body language toward the patients and subconscious desire for some rough stuff will provoke it eventually. seen it too many times for it to be coincidence or anything else. now i havent served in the police force, and thankfully the few policemen i know (2) arent like that, but if the behaviour follows in the force i would say that a good 25% of them would be "up for it". but we are sort of getting away from the point i was making, which is that the police force is dependant on the govt of the day for it's money, which means they (at a management level at least), have a vested interest in serving the govts wishes, rather than the best interests of the public. they are stuck between us and the govt of the day as group that is separate from society in many ways(like it or not, many people see it in those terms on both sides of the fence). it must be a difficult place to be, as it means thay have to go on assumptions about what other groups are like(lets be honest, a policeman is not going to know too many anarchists as it wouldnt look too good, and vice versa, i cant imagine anarcho's would be that trusting of one of their number getting friendly with members of the constabulary). its the divide and rule game, the media distort the real intention of all parties (police included) and the government of the day is happy with that as smaller groups are easier to handle than a united populace. for me, the police should be fully independant of the government of the day, their fnding should be decided on by experts rather than idiot politicians, who lets be honest again, balls it up pretty much every time because they are self serving and only interested in their majorities.
|
|
|
Post by El Presidente on Dec 5, 2010 13:59:39 GMT 1
but we are sort of getting away from the point i was making, which is that the police force is dependant on the govt of the day for it's money, which means they (at a management level at least), have a vested interest in serving the govts wishes, rather than the best interests of the public. Nail, head, hit....on the....to a degree. This is the fault of senior officers, probably Chief Officers, who seek to 'meet' home office targets. As in the link above, the Police Federation are currently resisting this, as it totally undermines the whole principle of policing in this country - that being that no one is above the law: “No Minister of the Crown can tell him that he must, or must not, keep observation on this place or that; or that he must, or must not, prosecute this man or that one. Nor can any police authority tell him so. The responsibility for law enforcement lies on him. He is answerable to the law and to the law alone.” (R v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner at 769)
|
|
|
Post by Shrewed on Dec 6, 2010 8:42:07 GMT 1
Welcome back Heavenly, have missed my daily laugh at your postings. I thought that for the first time ever I'd agree 100% with one of your posts then your xenophobia shone through. I agree that what the ConDems are doing with their cuts will be a disaster for the youth of this country but the ones to suffer should be those that can afford it not the poorest in the world. There was a time Ed when the youth of today actually earned the right to an education. Now they expect it Please explain to me why. What gives them the right in this economic climate to expect something for nothing. They are the future and if they are it is not very bright is it. No respect for authority blights our society and looking at the blatant law breaking by what should be the best educated of this generation doesn't bode well for the future does it. Unfortunately they have been given everything on a plate during the good times and I agreed they know no better. Life isn't fair so get used to it. I am sure that all students that end up in University would consider that they have earned the right to be their through their efforts during GCSE and A levels. The future of our country is dependent on the youth of today and while agreeing that a university education is not the only way to success it is a good starting point. I disagreed when Labour introduced Tuition fees and I am totally opposed to the tripling of those fees. For a student to find themselves leaving full time education with debts of £40k must be soul destroying. It also has an impact on other areas of society. Recently I discovered that the average age of a first time buyer is 38 not solely down to student debt but definitely a significant cause. www.independent.co.uk/life-style/house-and-home/property/no-place-like-home-the-generation-who-cant-afford-to-buy-1921781.htmlHoward Flight might consider that Child Benefit encourages the poor to breed, but it is surely true that student debt delays the educated breeding. Starting a family with combined debts of £80k must be, in many cases, must be the start of the road to poverty.
|
|
|
Post by simianus on Dec 6, 2010 11:39:20 GMT 1
There was a time Ed when the youth of today actually earned the right to an education. Now they expect it Please explain to me why. What gives them the right in this economic climate to expect something for nothing. They are the future and if they are it is not very bright is it. No respect for authority blights our society and looking at the blatant law breaking by what should be the best educated of this generation doesn't bode well for the future does it. Unfortunately they have been given everything on a plate during the good times and I agreed they know no better. Life isn't fair so get used to it. I am sure that all students that end up in University would consider that they have earned the right to be their through their efforts during GCSE and A levels. The future of our country is dependent on the youth of today and while agreeing that a university education is not the only way to success it is a good starting point. I disagreed when Labour introduced Tuition fees and I am totally opposed to the tripling of those fees. For a student to find themselves leaving full time education with debts of £40k must be soul destroying. It also has an impact on other areas of society. Recently I discovered that the average age of a first time buyer is 38 not solely down to student debt but definitely a significant cause. www.independent.co.uk/life-style/house-and-home/property/no-place-like-home-the-generation-who-cant-afford-to-buy-1921781.htmlHoward Flight might consider that Child Benefit encourages the poor to breed, but it is surely true that student debt delays the educated breeding. Starting a family with combined debts of £80k must be, in many cases, must be the start of the road to poverty. some good points there, but i think the main reason for older 1st time buyers is to do with the selling of council housing and the lack of ringfencing the proceeds for further social housing by 2 govts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2010 17:06:52 GMT 1
[ There was a time Ed when the youth of today actually earned the right to an education. Now they expect it Surely one of the most rediculous comments i have ever read on B&A.
|
|