NUS national protest against the cuts 10.11.10 [London]

[ViolentPanda]

The point is that they don't use force on either side - they use force to do their best to keep the peace and allow all sides to carry on their lawful business.

Ideally, that would be what happens.
In reality, however, policing is inextricably tied (and it shouldn't be) to politics, whether that's the politics of self-advancement by individual officers, or the politics of the government.

 

[ViolentPanda]

The State enforces the vast majority of it's decisions without recourse to force.

Without recourse to the use of force.
There is, and always has been, as we both know, the implicit threat of it. The iron hand behind the velvet glove, which is often enough of a threat to enforce (good choice of words by the way) the decisions of the executive.

 

[Lock&Light]

Theoretically it is Parliament's approval of the decisions of the executive which gives them force.

 

[ViolentPanda]

You miss the point - the threat of force is always there. It's what the state ultimately relies on.

Is deeply dependent on, I'd say.
That's why the coalition may be making such a mistake in believing that they can cut police and army numbers with no harm to their "threat of force".

 

[ViolentPanda]

Theoretically it is Parliament's approval of the decisions of the executive which gives them force.

Except, of course, insofar as the executive acts outside of parliamentary convention, which the executive has the discretion to do, in some circumstances.

 

[Lock&Light]

The executive is always dependent on the approval of parliament, even retrospectively.

 

[DotCommunist]

Is deeply dependent on, I'd say.
That's why the coalition may be making such a mistake in believing that they can cut police and army numbers with no harm to their "threat of force".

apparently greater manchester police are facing serious front line losses due to the cuts. While the serious crime bods will still be kept mint I can see the fraying that leads to rioting happening.

 

[detective-boy]

You miss the point - the threat of force is always there. It's what the state ultimately relies on.

Ultimately, yes. If all else fails. But, as I said, it enforces the vast majority of it's decisions without recourse to force. So it is hardly an argument for the strikers being able to enforce their decisions by force, is it?

 

[detective-boy]

Theoretically it is Parliament's approval of the decisions of the executive which gives them force.

It's surely the judiciary's approval of the decisions of the executive which gives them force.

 

[detective-boy]

apparently greater manchester police are facing serious front line losses due to the cuts. While the serious crime bods will still be kept mint I can see the fraying that leads to rioting happening.

ALL forces are facing serious front line cut backs. Serious crime teams will NOT be exempt (and some of them were serious understaffed to start with). The fucking idiot who claims she is Home Secretary simply hasn't got a clue what the police do on a day to day basis and keeps parroting that "The only job of the police is to cut crime". She thinks that the massive cuts being imposed on the police can be achieved without impact on the front line. Frankly she's deluded ...

Things will start getting worse in a variety of ways over the next twio or three years. Expect more reported crime, less solved crime, more complaints over lack of action, more "anti-social behaviour", less proactive policing of anything, more fiddling of statistics by / for bosses whose bonuses rely on figures going down, etc.

 

[winjer]

Ultimately, yes. If all else fails. But, as I said, it enforces the vast majority of it's decisions without recourse to force. So it is hardly an argument for the strikers being able to enforce their decisions by force, is it?

That would only make sense if strikers were claiming force as a first resort.

 

[Lock&Light]

It's surely the judiciary's approval of the decisions of the executive which gives them force.

I think the judiciary decides if decisions are legal, but it's parliament that has the power of life or death over the executive.

 

[treelover]

'Serious crime teams will NOT be exempt'

Thats appalling, if there is one element of the police that is crucial it is this, the global crime gangs who utilmately through drugs and people trafficking make life misery for many will make hay

 

[treelover]

DB , will the police consider striking? yes i know they are not allowed to, but these are not normal times.

 

[detective-boy]

DB , will the police consider striking? yes i know they are not allowed to, but these are not normal times.

I don't think so. There may well be things like "work to rules" (if every job was done to the letter of every policy and procedure (rather than cutting corners to get things actually done and risking criticism and sanction if things go wrong) and withdrawal of goodwill (huge amounts of police work only gets done / done effectively because of goodwill - in the Met the vast majority of Detective Inspectors (who are the lowest salaried ranks) have huge numbers of rest days that they have been required to work one way or another, for which they got no reward and for which they will never get the opportunity to take another day off in lieu of it (as would normally be the case with a salaried job). This would bring the police service to a grinding halt within a couple of weeks.

 

[Blagsta]

Ultimately, yes. If all else fails. But, as I said, it enforces the vast majority of it's decisions without recourse to force.

Because everyone is aware that the state likes to hold the monopoly on force.

So it is hardly an argument for the strikers being able to enforce their decisions by force, is it?

No one has made the argument that force is a first resort.

 

[detective-boy]

No one has made the argument that force is a first resort.

They have though. It was in the post which first started this discussion ...

When the strikers act to defend their interests by stopping the scabs crossing the picket line the police act to enforce the "peace" and allow the strike breakers to cross.The workers have no choice but to engage in conflict or to face defeat. So they act to stop the scabs and of course they are presented as the aggressors. And this is because the "peace," the status quo is not neutral. It's a bosses peace and the law defends it by defending the status quo.

 

[Blagsta]

Read it again.

 

[dylans]

They have though. It was in the post which first started this discussion ...

Actually force, or the threat of force is always a LAST resort. No worker wants to have to physically defend a picket line. The most successful strike is one where the picket line is respected, even by those who opposed the decision to strike. The first resort is an appeal to class solidarity and an assumption of loyalty between workers. The very thing that makes the word scab such an awful label is the shared understanding that to be a scab is to be a traitor to your fellow workers. A picket line underlines this.For a worker with any sense of of working class values the mere sight of a picket line is enough for him/her to refuse to cross. Force becomes a last resort when appeals to solidarity and class ethics have been exhausted and an individual selfishly acts to betray his colleagues by breaking a democratically agreed decision to strike.

 

[The Black Hand]

Actually force, or the threat of force is always a LAST resort. No worker wants to have to physically defend a picket line. The most successful strike is one where the picket line is respected, even by those who opposed the decision to strike. The first resort is an appeal to class solidarity and an assumption of loyalty between workers. The very thing that makes the word scab such an awful label is the shared understanding that to be a scab is to be a traitor to your fellow workers. A picket line underlines this.For a worker with any sense of of working class values the mere sight of a picket line is enough for him/her to refuse to cross. Force becomes a last resort when appeals to solidarity and class ethics have been exhausted and an individual selfishly acts to betray his colleagues by breaking a democratically agreed decision to strike.

This is very reasonable.

 

[Divisive Cotton]

Edward Woollard, the one who was charged with violent disorder for throwing a fire extinguisher, has just pleaded guilty! What a stupid cunt

 

[Santino]

He should have stuck to being in The Equaliser.

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

Edward Woollard, the one who was charged with violent disorder for throwing a fire extinguisher, has just pleaded guilty! What a stupid cunt

Probably on the advice of his solicitor, as any sentence is reduced by the maximum amount possible (~a third as I understand it).

 

[butchersapron]

Bottom left, exactly how not to do it:

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

Bottom left, exactly how not to do it:

priceless bit of class solidarity there...

 

[Streathamite]

It's surely the judiciary's approval of the decisions of the executive which gives them force.

nope. British constiutution is based on the sovereignty of the Crown in Parliament, ergo, Parliament is the highest body.

 

[Streathamite]

Actually force, or the threat of force is always a LAST resort. No worker wants to have to physically defend a picket line. The most successful strike is one where the picket line is respected, even by those who opposed the decision to strike. The first resort is an appeal to class solidarity and an assumption of loyalty between workers. The very thing that makes the word scab such an awful label is the shared understanding that to be a scab is to be a traitor to your fellow workers. A picket line underlines this.For a worker with any sense of of working class values the mere sight of a picket line is enough for him/her to refuse to cross. Force becomes a last resort when appeals to solidarity and class ethics have been exhausted and an individual selfishly acts to betray his colleagues by breaking a democratically agreed decision to strike.

absolutely spot-fucking-on

 

[revol68]

Bottom left, exactly how not to do it:

as a graduate of the arts I can only dream of being a waste management officer.

 

[detective-boy]

He should have stuck to being in The Equaliser.

That was Edward Woodward ...

(Which gives me the opportunity to share one of the most appropriate nicknames ever ... when I moved to a new station I was introduced to one of my new supervisors (who turned out to be one of the most boring men in the world) with the words "You've heard of Edward Woordward, The Equaliser? Well this is Dave Woodward, The Tranquilliser ..." )

 

[detective-boy]

nope. British constiutution is based on the sovereignty of the Crown in Parliament, ergo, Parliament is the highest body.

I appreciate that ... but the point was that it had been suggested that it was Parliament's approval of the decisions of the executive which gives them force. I was saying that surely the decisions of the executive were approved by the judiciary. Obviously Parliament can subsequently overrule those decisions by changing the law but the basic rule is Parliament makes law, executive acts on it, judiciary rule on whether the actions of the executive are lawful. I wasn't suggesting that the judiciary were the highest power, just that it was their approval of the executive's decisions which gave those decisions force.