Hating the police

[cemertyone]

What would the police look like under a socialist government (in theory, obviously, not how it actually turned out in reality)?

That young lady is the question that needs to be answered...it would certainly be very different from the one we have at the minute.
But what form would it take???? you have to ask yourself..And perhaps there`s a thousand different answers to that...
When we had no police in West Belfast the Provos acted as a sort of police force (kneecapping those deemed to be responsible for anti-social activites)..but that can only go so far...no oversight..no appeal..just a bullet in the leg...most times deservedly so...
But there`s a limit to these`s form of "community justice"....
And once your on sliding slope of one person determing who is guilty and who is not...it all gets a bit messy...

 

[ayatollah]

I've seen YouTube videos of you (I presume) and your mates on "Bash the Rich" marches, yelling "scum, scum, scum" at a line of coppers.

If you did that here in Turkey, or in Mexico, Brazil etc, you would immediately be beaten to death.

So I think you must acknowledge that the British police are about as restrained as it is possible for a police force in a capitalist society to be.

This should lead you to conclude that the police are not the real problem, and this in turn should lead you to direct your antipathy and activism elsewhere.

I think when setting up the argument that " the British police are about as restrained as it is possible for a police force in a society to be" we have to step back , get the bigger capitalist system picture, and see why this might be so .......(alongside other pretty "restrained police forces in Sweden, Japan, Denmark, Holland, Switzerland, etc etc.) See the general linkage - they are all police forces of very rich (mostly ex-colonial) capitalist states - which normally have made concessions to their indigenous citizens on relatively high living standards - hence usually no need for brutal policing. But remember ALL these "Liberal democracies" have huge capital holdings all over the world, and in THESE countries, ruled nowadays by ex-colonial surrogates, the police forces can be as brutal as any anywhere. Just think of the policing right ACROSS the British empire in the 20th century. In Britain itself policing was relatively non-brutal, in stable periods anyway, , BUT across the NON-WHITE majority of the empire a state of repression equal to permanent martial law existed for much of the early 20th century. And of course in IRELAND throughout the 20 century the mask of "civilised policing" was off more often too !

One could point to the policing in the USA in the 20th century as non conformist with this - but the USA has always been peculiar in its inclusion of "first world" and "third world" conditions of life for different groups of citizens within the one state - mainly , but not by any means exclusively, determined by ethnicity. Therefore policing in the USA , particularly in the South has often been as brutal as Britain's policing in many of its (black) colonies was.

The myth of the British "Dixon of Dock Green" policing service quickly falls apart on ones first picket line - and will CERTAINLY be exposed as purely a tactical issue for our rulers as the post 2008 crisis produces ever greater resistance to the UK capitalist order. The Rubber bullets and live rounds are being got ready even now !.....

 

[Jon-of-arc]

You didn't indulge in sarcasm, patronising or otherwise.

Ok, what did I mean then? If it wasnt what I thought I was saying?

 

[likesfish]

public order is always going to get messy large group of people want to go somewhere and break stuff or stop other people doing something and once told no decide to use weight of numbers its going to get messy.

 

[Zabo]

Like the military, the police do not swear an oath to serve the people of this country but to the fucking Queen - The State.

You can therefore forget all silly notions of 'I know a half decent' copper or squaddie because if the time ever came they would be quite happy to beat shit out of you or kill you in defence of The Realm and all that it entails.

They also see it as 'their duty' to break strikes and undermine the people. Despite what they say they are not and have never been neutral. You would be stupid to think otherwise.

 

[phildwyer]

One could point to the policing in the USA in the 20th century as non conformist with this - but the USA has always been peculiar in its inclusion of "first world" and "third world" conditions of life for different groups of citizens within the one state - mainly , but not by any means exclusively, determined by ethnicity.

Good point, which I'd take even further. The division between the first and the third worlds is no longer a matter of global geography. There are first world areas within the third world, just as there are third world areas within the first world. And naturally policing practice varies accordingly. The British police behave very differently in Merthyr than they do in Hampstead for example.

I wasn't disputing that. I was expressing my distaste for middle-class pseudo-anarchist tosspots such as Steathamite, Charlie Gilmour and their ilk, who imagine they are doing something brave by chanting "scum" at a line of ordinary coppers, while lacking the faintest conception of the mechanisms that ensure they can do so without getting their silly heads caved in.

 

[phildwyer]

The fact police in some other countries are even more of a bunch of utter cunts than ours shouldn't make us grateful at all, it should make us even keener to restrain ours AND theirs further.

Streathamite: keen restrainer of policemen.

And even keener wanker.

 

[likesfish]

Like the military, the police do not swear an oath to serve the people of this country but to the fucking Queen - The State.

You can therefore forget all silly notions of 'I know a half decent' copper or squaddie because if the time ever came they would be quite happy to beat shit out of you or kill you in defence of The Realm and all that it entails.

They also see it as 'their duty' to break strikes and undermine the people. Despite what they say they are not and have never been neutral. You would be stupid to think otherwise.

No their duty is too defend the realm and rule of law.
You have the right to strike you don't have the right to use force against scabs.
Same with demos you can protest you can't stop people going about their lawful business no matter how much you object.

 

[William of Walworth]

[from page one]It was the battle of the beanfield that swung it for me. Not just the individual actions of the coppers, but the way it was seemingly organised and, to some degree, covered up by the state.

Won't have time to catch up with the rest of this thread now, but I'm absolutely in agreement with the bolded bit, that was true of me as well.

Well that and how the Police behaved during the 84/85 miners strike too ....

 

[ayatollah]

No their duty is too defend the realm and rule of law.
You have the right to strike you don't have the right to use force against scabs.
Same with demos you can protest you can't stop people going about their lawful business no matter how much you object.

Yep, in a capitalist state the rich and poor alike have the right to sleep rough under bridges to quote an old quote by some troublemaker or other.

The real point is that even if the police DID enforce "THE LAW" equally to all - which of course they don't - both because of vast corruption and the more insidious fear the police have of the rich and powerful , eg, the Murdoch empire..... the BOURGEOISE law itself is not neutral in what it defines as legal or illegal. Thus someone stealing a bottle of water in a riot gets over a year in clink - BUT the Rover Car company Directors simply STOLE £40m from the company to line their own pockets - YET they did it using company law wheezes which means they got away with the cash scot free. Same for the £billions stolen by the bankers who caused the 2008 Crash trading in bogus worthless mortgages and financial instruments - YET none of them is guilty of a crime under Bourgeoise Law. So no the ordinary copper didn't set these laws - he/she just polices and enforces them. That however IS the point - they are collaborators and enforcers for a class based legal system skewed massively to benefit the rich as opposed to the poor.

 

[Meltingpot]

Yep, in a capitalist state the rich and poor alike have the right to sleep rough under bridges to quote an old quote by some troublemaker or other.

Anatole France I believe. And I agree, it's unbelievable what the Phoenix directors got away with - I think they were lucky though that it happened before 2008 when the real storm over corporate asset stripping began to break.

(Where are those guys now btw? Not in this country I'll bet).

 

[ViolentPanda]

Ok, what did I mean then? If it wasnt what I thought I was saying?

You didn't indulge in sarcasm, you made a snide and belittling remark. Calling it sarcasm doesn't make it so.

 

[Jon-of-arc]

You didn't indulge in sarcasm, you made a snide and belittling remark. Calling it sarcasm doesn't make it so.

Thats pretty much what sarcasm is; a snide, belittling remark. And it was in direct response to a series of snide quips from pickmans.

 

[Streathamite]

Streathamite: keen restrainer of policemen.

And even keener wanker.

and phildwyer; gin-sodden academic failure, lover of cops and awesomely shit debater!

 

[ViolentPanda]

Thats pretty much what sarcasm is; a snide, belittling remark. And it was in direct response to a series of snide quips from pickmans.

That's what sarcasm is, eh? There was me thinking that it had to be a snide, belittling remark with a basis in irony to actually qualify.

Still, me and the OED must be wrong, eh?

(See, that is sarcasm!)

 

[coley]

So what you really mean is, if I'm reading your reply correctly is this.

You believe that the police are used as a tool of the government to "defend the interests of the state and capital, they do this through the use of force", and you oppose this, but you believe there is a need for some from of community protection?

The 2nd point you make I'm not sure is being made by anyone, I haven't seen anyone up to this point in the thread saying "there is no need for some from of community protection". (I'm on page 3 of the thread)

My first post on this thread was trying to make that point "There are 10's of thousands of towns and villages around the world where people never see the police" but that doesn't mean these communities don't protect themselves.

But in this country 'self protection' can lead to arrest and prosecution.

 

[coley]

Good point, which I'd take even further. The division between the first and the third worlds is no longer a matter of global geography. There are first world areas within the third world, just as there are third world areas within the first world. And naturally policing practice varies accordingly. The British police behave very differently in Merthyr than they do in Hampstead for example.

I wasn't disputing that. I was expressing my distaste for middle-class pseudo-anarchist tosspots such as Steathamite, Charlie Gilmour and their ilk, who imagine they are doing something brave by chanting "scum" at a line of ordinary coppers, while lacking the faintest conception of the mechanisms that ensure they can do so without getting their silly heads caved in.

Ah, a whiff of common sense, no doubt for which you will be hammered.

 

[Blagsta]

But in this country 'self protection' can lead to arrest and prosecution.

Example?

 

[Jon-of-arc]

That's what sarcasm is, eh? There was me thinking that it had to be a snide, belittling remark with a basis in irony to actually qualify.

Still, me and the OED must be wrong, eh?

(See, that is sarcasm!)

Honestly, I dont really have any beef with you vp, and sometimes found you an interesting and informative poster, but I find the above to be so jaw droppingly stupid that I am simply staggered. I've considered how best to respond, and engaging in this discussion any further would be a classic example of that old "arguing on the internet" addage - win or lose, im going to look pretty "special". I hope for your sake this is a comtinuation of pickmans rather dull wind up, but I have better things to be doing.

 

[CyberRose]

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, and that they actually have a far wider remit than that. A remit which needs to be fulfilled, even if I concede that the service they provide falls far short of adequate for most people at the moment.

To be fair, the role of the police is simply to uphold the laws made by government. Inevitably governments will pass laws that protect their own interests and that will apply to any kind of government. In our society, that's geared towards protecting the interests of a ruling class, in other countries throughout history that protection of interests has been more geared towards a political party (see Syria right now, for example). I don't think there is any question that the laws the police uphold will always protect the government in some way or another, and I don't think that could ever change unless there was no government to set any laws (suppose that would be anarchy?).

But I do also agree that, in this country at least (again, see Syria or former Communist countries for a counter argument), the police spend a minimal amount of time and energy protecting the interests of the ruling elite (no sorry, don't have any figures or wiki pages to back that up, just my opinion) and rather spend the majority of their time fighting "normal" crime. I also agree that the service they provide doing that can be pretty abysmal at times (I've tried to report a crime only to be told it was a civil dispute cos the cop on the phone didn't have a fucking clue! And I was right, as a Watchdog investigation later proved ) but I think most of the problems with that are the same for every other public sector industry in that they simply don't have the funding to make as much of an effort investigating crimes we report.

 

[Pickman's model]

and phildwyer; gin-sodden academic failure, lover of cops and awesomely shit debater!

Shurely 'master debater'?

 

[Pickman's model]

Good point, which I'd take even further. The division between the first and the third worlds is no longer a matter of global geography. There are first world areas within the third world, just as there are third world areas within the first world. And naturally policing practice varies accordingly. The British police behave very differently in Merthyr than they do in Hampstead for example.

I wasn't disputing that. I was expressing my distaste for middle-class pseudo-anarchist tosspots such as Steathamite, Charlie Gilmour and their ilk, who imagine they are doing something brave by chanting "scum" at a line of ordinary coppers, while lacking the faintest conception of the mechanisms that ensure they can do so without getting their silly heads caved in.

1) it was widely recognised in c19 britain that there was a darkest england just as there was a darkest africa. It's not a new and indeed rather cliche'd thing to observe

2) the cops out on the btr march were not 'ordinary cops' they were a mix of tsg, fit and public order tactical advisers. If you know anything about policing you're keeping it well hidden

 

[coley]

Example?

Numerous, one that springs to mind was the bloke who along with his wife and another woman was attacked in his own kitchen by a stanger high on drugs, in the ensuing sruggle the atttacker was stabbed to death, the homeowner was jailed for manslaughter but there are many other cases.

 

[coley]

To be fair, the role of the police is simply to uphold the laws made by government. Inevitably governments will pass laws that protect their own interests and that will apply to any kind of government. In our society, that's geared towards protecting the interests of a ruling class, in other countries throughout history that protection of interests has been more geared towards a political party (see Syria right now, for example). I don't think there is any question that the laws the police uphold will always protect the government in some way or another, and I don't think that could ever change unless there was no government to set any laws (suppose that would be anarchy?).

But I do also agree that, in this country at least (again, see Syria or former Communist countries for a counter argument), the police spend a minimal amount of time and energy protecting the interests of the ruling elite (no sorry, don't have any figures or wiki pages to back that up, just my opinion) and rather spend the majority of their time fighting "normal" crime. I also agree that the service they provide doing that can be pretty abysmal at times (I've tried to report a crime only to be told it was a civil dispute cos the cop on the phone didn't have a fucking clue! And I was right, as a Watchdog investigation later proved ) but I think most of the problems with that are the same for every other public sector industry in that they simply don't have the funding to make as much of an effort investigating crimes we report.

Some good points there, perhaps we could see an improvement if they were paid a wage that reflects the average wage and if so many of them were not on the 9 to 5, Monday to Friday.

 

[Meltingpot]

and phildwyer; gin-sodden academic failure, lover of cops and awesomely shit debater!

I don't normally like flames and have nothing at all against Phil Dwyer but I have to admit I laughed at this one. Sorry Phil.

 

[coley]

I wasn't disputing that. I was expressing my distaste for middle-class pseudo-anarchist tosspots such as Steathamite, Charlie Gilmour and their ilk, who imagine they are doing something brave by chanting "scum" at a line of ordinary coppers, while lacking the faintest conception of the mechanisms that ensure they can do so without getting their silly heads caved in.

 

[1%er]

But in this country 'self protection' can lead to arrest and prosecution.

What country is "this country"?

Numerous, one that springs to mind was the bloke who along with his wife and another woman was attacked in his own kitchen by a stanger high on drugs, in the ensuing sruggle the atttacker was stabbed to death, the homeowner was jailed for manslaughter but there are many other cases.

I'm talking about community self protection in areas where there are no police, not self-defense.

 

[stethoscope]

Oh dear, you're not borrowing lines from Dwyer already are you, coley?

 

[xes]

I wasn't disputing that. I was expressing my distaste for middle-class pseudo-anarchist tosspots such as Steathamite, Charlie Gilmour and their ilk, who imagine they are doing something brave by chanting "scum" at a line of ordinary coppers, while lacking the faintest conception of the mechanisms that ensure they can do so without getting their silly heads caved in.

But they are scum. they stand against the people they are supposed to protect, because they've been told to. they are braind dead morons who only follow orders. not human beings who have critical thinking abilities.

 

[Jon-of-arc]

I wasn't disputing that. I was expressing my distaste for middle-class pseudo-anarchist tosspots such as Steathamite, Charlie Gilmour and their ilk, who imagine they are doing something brave by chanting "scum" at a line of ordinary coppers, while lacking the faintest conception of the mechanisms that ensure they can do so without getting their silly heads caved in.

"we should be so grateful for the freedoms we have that we should never actually act on them"???