Hating the police

[purenarcotic]

Dunno - how many council leaders have been reported for crimes?

I would put good money on not very many; not because they don't commit crime but because their power allows them to exert influence over others to put them off reporting somebody.

 

[Mr.Bishie]

Like your mum, but with jackboots on.

 

[Jon-of-arc]

That probably wouldn't be a sensible set of inferences to draw, as the ratio of convicted offenders to any particular offence is fairly fluid in any one year. It's pretty difficult even to draw year-on-year conclusions because (perhaps mainly due to political fidgeting with criminal legislation over the last 20 years or so) even the actual definition of a particular offence can change between one year and the next.

I suspect that whilst the ratios of offences may change, there are probably the same top ones year in, year out.

Those figures don't seem to go for specific offences, anyway - all sexual offences are categorised under that header.

 

[frogwoman]

I'd also add that the prevention of crime and the apprehension of criminals is a secondary function to the main function, it's part of it in other words. if the police were to stop investigating all crimes except that against rich people, not only would you probably get at least some proportion of officers refusing to go along with it, but you would also get a huge increase in social unrest, fear, as well as the odd outbreaks of vigilantism, all of which would add up to a challenge on the state's power. if for example, there was a serial killer going around murdering people, or a terrorist attack, and the police did absolutely nothing, there would probably be riots, or worse, and whatever committees were set up by w/c people to investigate these incidents themselves would almost certainly represent a challenge to the government.

i have no doubt that there are many decent police officers who are dedicated to their jobs and the idea of making their communities safe from criminals, we also have anecdotes from the miners' strike about how the local coppers in south wales villages supported the strike and even confronted cops from outside, and in egypt where they had to bring people in from the countryside to the city to "police" the riots. i think that, as well as the police not having the right to strike, the fact that police at least these days often don't end up working their whole careers in areas they've known all their lives, also contributes to this alienation process, where they will feel a lot less empathy with the local community than they would otherwise have felt.

 

[ViolentPanda]

policing is a more recent word than 250 years ago and i think we do need to get rid of it, not least because of its unfortunate association with the state.

It's not the best of words, but it has descriptive utility compared to, for example, "regulation".

 

[Mr.Bishie]

Community policing. A clip round the lug hole. Cunts.

 

[Jon-of-arc]

given that you're interested in people targeting their own communities for theft, where better for the police to start than councillors, council leaders and mps? after all, it's public knowledge where they live, and it's a fair auld bet that they're almost all on the fiddle. why would anyone need to report them when it's odds on that they're guilty as sin? i thought the police were supposed to be proactive and intelligence-led whereas now you're saying that they haven't a fucking clew.

Have you got any good intelligence? Or do you think that the police should just go and barge in on any and every councillor, searching their homes, raking through their lives, because a few of them are bent?

Even if this wasnt a nonsense suggestion, I'm not so sure it is a great bet that it would be easy to find evidence that many of them were up to anything.

Where on earth did I say that they haven't (or have, for that matter...) a clue? Getting a bit carried away with yourself there.

But of course, where there is good cause to investigate elected officials for abuse of power, I would strongly condone such a course of action.

Why does "thinking the police need to exist" and challenging a notion that they do nothing but protect the powerful equate to being asked to account for the many issues?

 

[Pickman's model]

Have you got any good intelligence? Or do you think that the police should just go and barge in on any and every councillor, searching their homes, raking through their lives, because a few of them are bent?

Even if this wasnt a nonsense suggestion, I'm not so sure it is a great bet that it would be easy to find evidence that many of them were up to anything.

Where on earth did I say that they haven't (or have, for that matter...) a clue? Getting a bit carried away with yourself there.

But of course, where there is good cause to investigate elected officials for abuse of power, I would strongly condone such a course of action.

Why does "thinking the police need to exist" and challenging a notion that they do nothing but protect the powerful equate to being asked to account for the many issues?

the idea they don't have a clew comes from your notion that these well known thieves and crooks have to be reported.

 

[abstract1]

I never said it was enough, and I'm not here to stick up for the police.

I was simply pointing out that this debate seemed (on the first page particularly, from what I saw) largely framed around the role the police play in public order

The police play a pivotal role in public order - good or bad will depend on your position/politics, and whether they should be afforded such power/influence is a matter for debate.

I think you are here to stick up for the police btw. Why, I'm not sure, but it seems that way to me.

 

[Jon-of-arc]

the idea they don't have a clew comes from your notion that these well known thieves and crooks have to be reported.

Reported or have reasonable grounds to suspect a specific crime is being committed.

Or would you advocate that the police should be allowed to carry out intrusive investigations into the entire population of a particular demographic simply because a few of those people are dodgy?

 

[Pickman's model]

Reported or have reasonable grounds to suspect a specific crime is being committed.

Or would you advocate that the police should be allowed to carry out intrusive investigations into the entire population of a particular demographic simply because a few of those people are dodgy?

it's a bit late for that. you didn't kick up a fucking fuss when this did happen, so why the fuck are you concerned about it now?

 

[Jon-of-arc]

The police play a pivotal role in public order - good or bad will depend on your position/politics, and whether they should be afforded such power/influence is a matter for debate.

I think you are here to stick up for the police btw. Why, I'm not sure, but it seems that way to me.

I agree that the police play a role in public order. But this seems to me a relatively small part of their job. Far from insignificant, but not their main role by a long way. And the way that they police public order sickens me as much as it does the next man.

You're wrong about the second bit. A weird thing to say.

 

[Pickman's model]

I agree that the police play a role in public order. But this seems to me a relatively small part of their job. Far from insignificant, but not their main role by a long way. And the way that they police public order sickens me as much as it does the next man.

it's actually quite a large part of their job, maintaining the queen's peace

 

[Jon-of-arc]

it's a bit late for that. you didn't kick up a fucking fuss when this did happen, so why the fuck are you concerned about it now?

That's the point, though - I disagree with such behaviour whoever it is targeted against. I'd care quite a lot less if it did happen to politicians, as it happens, but I've certainly never advocated targeting specific groups of people.

Again, you're getting carried away with your assumptions about what I believe.

 

[Jon-of-arc]

it's actually quite a large part of their job, maintaining the queen's peace

It's an aspect, and I've never said otherwise. But the investigation of specific crime is a far bigger aspect.

 

[Pickman's model]

That's the point, though - I disagree with such behaviour whoever it is targeted against. I'd care quite a lot less if it did happen to politicians, as it happens, but I've certainly never advocated targeting specific groups of people.

Again, you're getting carried away with your assumptions about what I believe.

it would be nice for people to know what you believe

 

[Pickman's model]

It's an aspect, and I've never said otherwise. But the investigation of specific crime is a far bigger aspect.

you said it was a relatively small part of their job above.

 

[frogwoman]

Reported or have reasonable grounds to suspect a specific crime is being committed.

Or would you advocate that the police should be allowed to carry out intrusive investigations into the entire population of a particular demographic simply because a few of those people are dodgy?

i think you are misunderstanding the role of the police.

it isn't just about protecting rich people, but it isn't about stopping crime either.

it's about law enforcement, about maintaining "stability" whether that's the stability of not having serial killers and paedophiles running around and the unrest that would cause, and not only that, but the stability of not having mass protests, strikes, etc (or having the people on them cowed into submission). the laws themselves are not designed to prevent crime and only that, and of course, if you are wealthy enough you ca nbuy your way out of even that. if the police only enforced the laws relating to rich people and not the ones relating to crime in general, it would of course cause a breakdown of order and of trust and even legitimacy of the government. cooperation with the mafia and various gangs to preserve good relationships with them , to "keep control" etc, and of course for more corrupt reasons, is seen in many countries, possibly including this one, more important than stopping crime.

in north korea, people reputedly have to keep a wall free in their house and hang pictures of the great and dear leaders and clean them every day, and inspectors can turn up and check at random to see if they're doing it properly. It doesn't mean that north korean police officers also don't also investigate murders, muggings, etc. what is the function of these inspections? is it helping anyone (apart from the kims) that they are doing that? are the police in north korea intrinsically more cuntish, given the society they've grown up in and what they think is "normal", than police in a bourgeois democracy? i'm not sure they are, and i'm also not sure that should the situation require it the police here wouldn't be required to enforce a far more authoritarian level of control.

 

[Jon-of-arc]

it would be nice for people to know what you believe

I think I said that I believe police serve a useful function - the detection and prosecution of crimes against the person.

What else do you want to know about my police related beliefs? A lot of them are cunts, they unfairly target working classes and minorities, they make themselves as unaccountable as possible, both as individuals and as an institution, they often abuse their power. What particular issue would you like me to comment on?

 

[Pickman's model]

I think I said that I believe police serve a useful function - the detection and prosecution of crimes against the person.

What else do you want to know about my police related beliefs? A lot of them are cunts, they unfairly target working classes and minorities, they make themselves as unaccountable as possible, both as individuals and as an institution, they often abuse their power. What particular issue would you like me to comment on?

the police do not prosecute. you're thinking of the auld days when magistrates courts were police courts.

for that matter they don't do a great deal of detection either

 

[Jon-of-arc]

you said it was a relatively small part of their job above.

It is - they do it in two ways, mostly. Either simply by having a presence on the street whilst going about their investigations or, less and less frequently, in the form of a "bobby on the beat", or they have some large scale public order operations, such as is seen at demonstrations. But this is not much compared to the investigation of crime.

 

[Pickman's model]

It is - they do it in two ways, mostly. Either simply by having a presence on the street whilst going about their investigations or, less and less frequently, in the form of a "bobby on the beat", or they have some large scale public order operations, such as is seen at demonstrations. But this is not much compared to the investigation of crime.

yeh cos obviously cops only investigate crime.

do you know the fucking slightest thing about the police? because you seem to be spewing forth nonsense at a fair auld rate of knots.

given that the police rarely bother investigating muggings, burglaries or cycle theft among other crimes, that they allow other crimes to take place in front of them - such as cycling on the pavement - what are these crimes they spend so much time investigating? do they manage to solve them - and do the cps then prosecute? and is a conviction gained? of those crimes the cops bother with, the vast majority don't end with a conviction.

 

[Jon-of-arc]

the police do not prosecute. you're thinking of the auld days when magistrates courts were police courts.

for that matter they don't do a great deal of detection either

I am well aware of the relationship between the police, the CPS and the courts. Spent a LOT more time involved in the CJS in various capacities than you ever will. I said earlier something like "assisting in prosecuting", but its tiresome to keep typing that out.

Detection, investigation, admin - the general legwork required in order to prepare a case to refer to a prosecutor.

 

[Pickman's model]

Spent a LOT more time involved in the CJS in various capacities than you ever will.

mainly as the defendant / prisoner i expect

 

[Jon-of-arc]

yeh cos obviously cops only investigate crime.

do you know the fucking slightest thing about the police? because you seem to be spewing forth nonsense at a fair auld rate of knots.

given that the police rarely bother investigating muggings, burglaries or cycle theft among other crimes, that they allow other crimes to take place in front of them - such as cycling on the pavement - what are these crimes they spend so much time investigating? do they manage to solve them - and do the cps then prosecute? and is a conviction gained? of those crimes the cops bother with, the vast majority don't end with a conviction.

Again, I have spent a lot more time involved in the CJS, (from as a defendant, to working in a magistrates court, to spending time in custody suites offering drug addicts help) than you ever will. I am very aware of what police spend a lot of their time doing.

 

[Pickman's model]

I am very aware of what police spend a lot of their time doing.

nothing, in all honesty

 

[Jon-of-arc]

mainly as the defendant / prisoner i expect

Some of that (and believe me, I have as much reason to despise the police as most people on these boards) but the majority working with offenders.

Bizarre slur.

 

[Pickman's model]

i'll just pause for a bit while you catch up

 

[Jon-of-arc]

caught up. You don't seem to be saying much yourself.​

What experience do you have with the CJS, pickmans?​

 

[Pickman's model]

caught up. You don't seem to be saying much yourself.​

What experience do you have with the CJS, pickmans?​

more public order experience than you'll ever have