Originally Posted by The Untalented Mr Ripley

There have been a spate of incidents concerning the British police recently concerning harassment of amateur photographers / tourists, the retention of DNA on police records in respect of those individuals not charged with or found guilt of a criminal offence, police officers abusing (even killing it would appear) protesters and innocent bystanders, arresting opposition politicians for embarassing the Home Office and failing to use their common sense by arresting all and sundry, seemingly to keep their stats healthy.

The question I increasingly find myself asking is should the general public trust or indeed cooperate with the modern UK police?

Hmm, a difficult one in some ways. My own personal opinion is that we can still trust some individual officers, most certainly, however if we're talking about the police as a whole, I'd say the answer is increasingly no, as they're becoming more and more politicised and used to enforce politically inspired laws which are both unjust and indefensible in the eyes of many perfectly law-abiding citizens.

Originally Posted by The Untalented Mr Ripley

There have been a spate of incidents concerning the British police recently concerning harassment of amateur photographers / tourists, the retention of DNA on police records in respect of those individuals not charged with or found guilt of a criminal offence, police officers abusing (even killing it would appear) protesters and innocent bystanders, arresting opposition politicians for embarassing the Home Office and failing to use their common sense by arresting all and sundry, seemingly to keep their stats healthy.

The question I increasingly find myself asking is should the general public trust or indeed cooperate with the modern UK police?

With Gordon Brown"s Stasi,it is all down to targets; Gordon Brown can say how well he"s doing, espeacialy with the election coming up. Vote Labour for more of the same. In my opnion, and a lot of peoples opnions, it is not a free country anymore. The whole force needs overhauling.

Originally Posted by The Untalented Mr Ripley

There have been a spate of incidents concerning the British police recently concerning harassment of amateur photographers / tourists, the retention of DNA on police records in respect of those individuals not charged with or found guilt of a criminal offence, police officers abusing (even killing it would appear) protesters and innocent bystanders, arresting opposition politicians for embarassing the Home Office and failing to use their common sense by arresting all and sundry, seemingly to keep their stats healthy.

The question I increasingly find myself asking is should the general public trust or indeed cooperate with the modern UK police?

Hi,

sadly the answer is an unequivocal NO. They have largely lost the respect and support of the public at large and are no longer policing by consensus. There have, as you have briefly outlined, been many high profile abuses including going armed to kill and murder of numerous private individuals to no perceivable gain.

Regards,
Greg L-W.

Originally Posted by Greg Lance-Watkins

Hi,

sadly the answer is an unequivocal NO. They have largely lost the respect and support of the public at large and are no longer policing by consensus. There have, as you have briefly outlined, been many high profile abuses including going armed to kill and murder of numerous private individuals to no perceivable gain.

Regards,
Greg L-W.

I wonder how many more times we're going to have to endure your use of the emotive term "Murder".

You've been asked time and time again to provide proof supporting any charge of murder (ie, the premeditated killing of a specific person by the Police).

You have failed to provide any evidence of these allegations......................because no such evidence exists

Any criminal charges relating to a death caused by Police action can and will only result in a prosecution for the crime of Manslaughter (Culpable Homicide in Scotland).

You can only sustain a charge of murder if you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Pc. Smith, planned, prepared and with malice aforethought set out to kill Joe Bloggs.

Your continual use of emotive terminology in an effort to hype up your argument, serves only to actually weaken it.

Any interpretation of police motivation other than the enforcing of the state's will against the people is naive, whether you (or even the individual officers) agree with them or not.

Originally Posted by FactOrFiction

Any interpretation of police motivation other than the enforcing of the state's will against the people is naive, whether you (or even the individual officers) agree with them or not.

Sorry, but by the term "The State" I assume you mean the government of the day.

You might wish to consider that said government are there by virtue of the "peoples will" in that they were elected......................I believe it's called democracy

Originally Posted by Binnman

Sorry, but by the term "The State" I assume you mean the government of the day.

You might wish to consider that said government are there by virtue of the "peoples will" in that they were elected......................I believe it's called democracy

Ah, democracy. In a utopia it would work so well!
But then so would an autocracy..

Unfortunately, in the real world we are controlled by a group of people who simply pretend to be 'elected', through lies, ignorance, social control and exploitation. The dictators' greatest victory was convincing the dictated that they were free.

In relation to the second part of the question, "should we co-operate", I would generally say yes.
However if you REALLY know the law and that they are in the wrong, (quite common it seems, particularly from PCSOs trying to stop people filming), feel free to NOT co-operate.
The problem is that they then tend to overreact, take it personally and arrest you.

Then it's a long time getting compensation, if ever.

I would recomend not trusting the police, it has been shown on several occasions how they think. The average UK plod these days is politicised beyond belief, self serving, uncaring, incompetent and lazy.

Years ago a plod was selected for his quick thinking, physical ability and his compassionate nature, today a plod is selected because he has a Degree that will help him in his work.Classic Degrees for a Plod include, Politics, History, Home economics, Art or a combined Humanities degree from't local poly. Very usefull when apprehending a violent crim, wave your socialwork degree in his face and he will co operate.

An old school plod didnt need a socialworkers degree, he had a trunchon and the ability to use it, he had the ability to controll his fear and his aggression(usually due to his Military background) he was a professional.

If a Plod makes an unreasonable demand, cooperate, do not ask why or he will arrest you, particulary if there are others watching you embarres poor plod and making him look as stupid as he so obviously is.

This debate is typical of so many others on this forum and in wider societal discourse - all navel gazing no substance!

We all feel comfortable blaming the Police Force for the role they currently undertake, yet do not see fit to turn the camera on ourselves and society in general. Politicians have politicised the Police Force not the other way around. Increased law-making and regulation cause the inefficiency endemic in many our our Forces. Training regimes have been relaxed, to allow greater participation of female and minority groups and educational requirements are required as a judgement of ability rather than the traditional experience based approaches (ex military for example) as Pauli states.

It's no longer possible for the Police to be out in the community, policing in the manner they once did. Respect for authority has all but been eroded from society by politically correct politicians who see fit to micro-manage all aspects of society and all organisations within. EU regs and Human Rights have caused no end of issue with a copper no longer able to deal with small scale issues , the Police Officer must now choose between intervention in a situation and likely arrests or staying clear so not to infringe on the Human Rights of the largely lawless masses. A quiet word and a be on your way no longer suffices.

In regards the photography and video prevention - does anyone realise how Islamic terrorism occurs. With low level off the radar (usually female) associates acting as tourists to take footage of public offices and buildings (I was told of one recent attempt to video a Central London Emergency Command Centre) as well as popular tourist attractions, which is then used to plan potential bomb attacks. I understand that caution and common sense must prevail but in a society defunct of the concept is it any wonder the Police struggle with it?

It's amazing how many people know their right but how few know the law.

Originally Posted by Midas

Hmm, a difficult one in some ways. My own personal opinion is that we can still trust some individual officers, most certainly, however if we're talking about the police as a whole, I'd say the answer is increasingly no, as they're becoming more and more politicised and used to enforce politically inspired laws which are both unjust and indefensible in the eyes of many perfectly law-abiding citizens.

I think you'll find the public's attitude to the police changed when Maggie used them as the political arm of the Tory party to beat the s**t out of the miners. That was a watershed which changed the public's perception of the police for ever. . If anything, the majority of police are instinctively Tory supporters as they feel they will be allowed more scope to do the very things you lot are complaining about, particularly when it comes to dealing with disputes between workers and employers.

I agree with Pauli beat, bobbies in the main are work shy who would rather sit in the station exaggerating the amount of paperwork than do a face to face with the public. The only time they venture out is in a panda car or when they are kicked up the jacksie and made to go out.

Originally Posted by Expounder

I think you'll find the public's attitude to the police changed when Maggie used them as the political arm of the Tory party to beat the s**t out of the miners. That was a watershed which changed the public's perception of the police for ever. . If anything, the majority of police are instinctively Tory supporters as they feel they will be allowed more scope to do the very things you lot are complaining about, particularly when it comes to dealing with disputes between workers and employers.

Instinctively Conservative!!! I actually think the change to public attitude of policing came when the Labour Party gave every person rights but failed to explain that with those rights come responsibility! A lack of respect for authority and order has ensued meaning the police not only have their hands tied by endless regulations, health and safety measures and PC (sorry for the pun) policing but that when little Alfie from the estate verbally abuses them they can do nothing to stop him - although Alfie is rewarded no doubt for his improvement in communication and expression!!

The miners had it coming, when will you understand that throwing your toys out the pram because you can't get your own way does not give you the right to down tools and cause no end of damage to society both physically in assaulting those who choose to continue working and economically. The Police were called on to perform their duty and did so admirably - and we're well compensated for their efforts. The public perception of the miners strike waned when they realised two points: 1) The strike demands were selfish and unreasonable influenced by the greed of a demagogue 2) That long term the public were the ones being held to ransom.

Lucky Maggie had stockpiled coal and the strike cause no long term negativity to wider society!

Originally Posted by Tete123

Instinctively Conservative!!! I actually think the change to public attitude of policing came when the Labour Party gave every person rights but failed to explain that with those rights come responsibility! A lack of respect for authority and order has ensued meaning the police not only have their hands tied by endless regulations, health and safety measures and PC (sorry for the pun) policing but that when little Alfie from the estate verbally abuses them they can do nothing to stop him - although Alfie is rewarded no doubt for his improvement in communication and expression!!

The miners had it coming, when will you understand that throwing your toys out the pram because you can't get your own way does not give you the right to down tools and cause no end of damage to society both physically in assaulting those who choose to continue working and economically. The Police were called on to perform their duty and did so admirably - and we're well compensated for their efforts. The public perception of the miners strike waned when they realised two points: 1) The strike demands were selfish and unreasonable influenced by the greed of a demagogue 2) That long term the public were the ones being held to ransom.

Lucky Maggie had stockpiled coal and the strike cause no long term negativity to wider society!

Tete, there are millions on the country who don't agree with with Tory strong arm tactics when it comes to trying to negotiate a decent wage from their employers.It's a one way street for Tories, who pay workers the minimum for the maximum effort and don't believe in contributing to general taxation and hoard their profits away in a tax haven.

Dave is looking groggy, his landslide doesn't look like materialising Labour are holding the line in the polls it's all to play for.

Originally Posted by Tete123

It's amazing how many people know their right but how few know the law.

You had me right up to the above point. As I see it, from an American perspective, there should be no conflict between 'rights' and 'law'. Rights take precedence over law. Any law that conflicts with a right is illegal.

Originally Posted by Expounder

Tete, there are millions on the country who don't agree with with Tory strong arm tactics when it comes to trying to negotiate a decent wage from their employers.It's a one way street for Tories, who pay workers the minimum for the maximum effort and don't believe in contributing to general taxation and hoard their profits away in a tax haven.

Dave is looking groggy, his landslide doesn't look like materialising Labour are holding the line in the polls it's all to play for.

There was me thinking the coal miners strike was about pit closures! You were there on the front lines therefore I'm happy to accept it was predominantly about money!

Sorry Conservatism does not determine the factors for the minimum acceptable recompense for employment, the market does, or should I say did until Labour set a minimum wage that is far too low to actually survive on - thus setting in motion the gradual decline of general wages for all industries to that low watermark.

Yes you haven't started campaigning yet due to having no money, get Gordon's face on a couple of billboards smiling and we'll soon see improvements in the polls.

Also who is running your campaign Balls, Alexander, Harman, E. Miliband ??? Seems the infighting has only just begun!!

Originally Posted by Don

You had me right up to the above point. As I see it, from an American perspective, there should be no conflict between 'rights' and 'law'. Rights take precedence over law. Any law that conflicts with a right is illegal.

There is always conflict between rights and laws. Man created both so why should one take precedence over the other?

Originally Posted by Tete123

There is always conflict between rights and laws. Man created both so why should one take precedence over the other?

To an American, that is a total nonsense. Our Declaration of Independence states rights are granted by our creator and amazingly even non believers, in the great majority, think that rights have precedence if for no other reason than they are guaranteed by our Constitution and Bill of Rights, which are the supreme law of the land. Any law that manages to be passed by Congress or any law making body and conflicts with our Constitution or Bill of Rights is therefore illegal. Rights take precedence over law. Law that conflicts with the Constitutional is illegal.

Our Bill of Rights was intended as and is legally a guarantee of natural rights, rights that were deemed to preexist written law.

Originally Posted by Don

To an American, that is a total nonsense. Our Declaration of Independence states rights are granted by our creator and amazingly even non believers, in the great majority, think that rights have precedence if for no other reason than they are guaranteed by our Constitution and Bill of Rights, which are the supreme law of the land. Any law that manages to be passed by Congress or any law making body and conflicts with our Constitution or Bill of Rights is therefore illegal. Rights take precedence over law. Law that conflicts with the Constitutional is illegal.

Our Bill of Rights was intended as and is legally a guarantee of natural rights, rights that were deemed to preexist written law.

Are you talking about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness of natural rights?

I'm not sure I can respond to this post without taking the thread way off topic - although I did comment that: "people know their rights but not the law" . My response will therefore be in a new thread if that is okay with you?

Originally Posted by Expounder

I think you'll find the public's attitude to the police changed when Maggie used them as the political arm of the Tory party to beat the s**t out of the miners. That was a watershed which changed the public's perception of the police for ever. . If anything, the majority of police are instinctively Tory supporters as they feel they will be allowed more scope to do the very things you lot are complaining about, particularly when it comes to dealing with disputes between workers and employers.

I agree with Pauli beat, bobbies in the main are work shy who would rather sit in the station exaggerating the amount of paperwork than do a face to face with the public. The only time they venture out is in a panda car or when they are kicked up the jacksie and made to go out.

I consider the country fortunate indeed to have had the police force it did in the early 1980s, when the the very democratic fabric of our society was under threat from the anti-democratic, politically inspired violent and intimidating campaign of the NUM led by Scargill and his thugs. The intention of Scargill, was to bring down a democratically elected government through violent insurrection, and many thousands of British miners were duped into believing it was about saving totally unsustainable jobs in unviable pits, and became in many cases his unwitting stormtroopers, to their eternal shame.

It was thanks to the exemplary national leadership, and indomitable spirit, of the finest peacetime Prime Minister of the last hundred years, along with the many police forces involved in restoring and maintaining peace, and protecting the wider populace that the threat to our democracy was averted.

Sadly the police 'service' of today is a pale imitation of the police force of those days, politicised as it is and more interested in Google Page Ranking, job protection, and paperwork rather than maintaining law and order.

Originally Posted by Major Sinic

I consider the country fortunate indeed to have had the police force it did in the early 1980s, when the the very democratic fabric of our society was under threat from the anti-democratic, politically inspired violent and intimidating campaign of the NUM led by Scargill and his thugs. The intention of Scargill, was to bring down a democratically elected government through violent insurrection, and many thousands of British miners were duped into believing it was about saving totally unsustainable jobs in unviable pits, and became in many cases his unwitting stormtroopers, to their eternal shame.

It was thanks to the exemplary national leadership, and indomitable spirit, of the finest peacetime Prime Minister of the last hundred years, along with the many police forces involved in restoring and maintaining peace, and protecting the wider populace that the threat to our democracy was averted.

Sadly the police 'service' of today is a pale imitation of the police force of those days, politicised as it is and more interested in Google Page Ranking, job protection, and paperwork rather than maintaining law and order.

That's pretty much all true.

I do not agree with expounder's view that Police Officers are lazy. They are motivated, but in an incorrect manner:

They are motivated by the constant fear of litigation. (This effectively ties their hands in too many situations)
They are motivated by endless ridiculously complex and unenforceable laws.
They are motivated by a sea of control freak paperwork, not just for the files to be submitted when a criminal is arrested, but statistics about every possible politically sensitive matter to collect.
They are motivated by a CPS that stabs them in the back at every opportunity.
They are motivated by an IPCC that seeks to undermine and emasculate any officer using force to defend the nation, and any officer daring to try and stop a criminal driving a stolen car, the criminal then causing an accident through his/her bad driving.
They are motivated by a criminal law system which puts criminals first with their rights, free solicitors, and 99 let-offs rather than prison when they deserve it.

What sort of motivation is that?
What more would you expect from YOUR Police Force?

[QUOTE=Tete123;96492]There was me thinking the coal miners strike was about pit closures! You were there on the front lines therefore I'm happy to accept it was predominantly about money!

Sorry Conservatism does not determine the factors for the minimum acceptable recompense for employment, the market does, or should I say did until Labour set a minimum wage that is far too low to actually survive on - thus setting in motion the gradual decline of general wages for all industries to that low watermark.

Too low to survive on, but was opposed tooth and nail by the "socially responsible caring Tories" who said businesses would go to the wall by it's introduction. Get real.

Originally Posted by Expounder

Too low to survive on, but was opposed tooth and nail by the "socially responsible caring Tories" who said businesses would go to the wall by it's introduction. Get real.

I don't support the reason given for opposing the minimum wage but the Labour Government acknowledge the minimum wage is too low as they provide a raft of top-ups to support those receiving it. The minimum wage, like every other measure introduced by New Labour attempts to be all things to all men - set low enough to appease concerned business proprietors , yet insufficient to raise those at the bottom up. It's all fancy rhetoric and populist policy!

Originally Posted by Tete123

I don't support the reason given for opposing the minimum wage but the Labour Government acknowledge the minimum wage is too low as they provide a raft of top-ups to support those receiving it. The minimum wage, like every other measure introduced by New Labour attempts to be all things to all men - set low enough to appease concerned business proprietors , yet insufficient to raise those at the bottom up. It's all fancy rhetoric and populist policy!

Yet the minimum wage was surely better for those working for a couple of quid an hour?

Originally Posted by pauli007001

Yet the minimum wage was surely better for those working for a couple of quid an hour?

Not so good for a large percentage who were working for between £6 - £10 per hour and have now seen there wage drop to the minimum over a period of time. I remember a time when I was Warehouse Manager and Fork Truck drivers could demand between £7 - £9 per hour when I left in 2008 the rate was marginally more than the minimum at about £6 per hour. Although it didn't help that Job Centre Plus were sending thousands on Fork Truck course and saturating the market with inexperienced newly licensed drivers but I think the point is true - from what I can ascertain from looking at Job Centre Plus listings of available opportunities for many occupations.

Originally Posted by Major Sinic

I consider the country fortunate indeed to have had the police force it did in the early 1980s, when the the very democratic fabric of our society was under threat from the anti-democratic, politically inspired violent and intimidating campaign of the NUM led by Scargill and his thugs. The intention of Scargill, was to bring down a democratically elected government through violent insurrection, and many thousands of British miners were duped into believing it was about saving totally unsustainable jobs in unviable pits, and became in many cases his unwitting stormtroopers, to their eternal shame.

It was thanks to the exemplary national leadership, and indomitable spirit, of the finest peacetime Prime Minister of the last hundred years, along with the many police forces involved in restoring and maintaining peace, and protecting the wider populace that the threat to our democracy was averted.

Sadly the police 'service' of today is a pale imitation of the police force of those days, politicised as it is and more interested in Google Page Ranking, job protection, and paperwork rather than maintaining law and order.

Her methods destroyed the fabric of our society, we are no longer a single nation. the Miners were fighting for their families and communities livelihood which when destroyed left swathes of wastelands in Britain. It was blind conservative rage and malice. Her policy was like America's policy in Iran, no thought or care of the consequences of what would happen to those people in those areas deprived of the means of gainful employment where there were no other industries.

She is a heroine to the Tory faithful, but she is reviled by the majority of British people who regard he as a mad despicable hand bag swinging tyrant. If ever there was evidence of the cult of the personality she personified it, especially when dealing with a cowardly Tory cabinet. She saw an opportunity in a falklands war to to raise her profile otherwise she would have been dumped out of office long before the dominating brain misswired hag she was.
.

Originally Posted by Expounder

Her methods destroyed the fabric of our society, we are no longer a single nation. the Miners were fighting for their families and communities livelihood which when destroyed left swathes of wastelands in Britain. It was blind conservative rage and malice. Her policy was like America's policy in Iran, no thought or care of the consequences of what would happen to those people in those areas deprived of the means of gainful employment where there were no other industries.

She is a heroine to the Tory faithful, but she is reviled by the majority of British people who regard he as a mad despicable hand bag swinging tyrant. If ever there was evidence of the cult of the personality she personified it, especially when dealing with a cowardly Tory cabinet. She saw an opportunity in a falklands war to to raise her profile otherwise she would have been dumped out of office long before the dominating brain misswired hag she was.
.

Your response comes as no surprise to me. Your vitriolic personal attack on her reflects far more adversely on your own subjective prejudice, than on Mrs Thatcher. That she won two further elections after she limited the undemocratic power and intimidation of the trade union movement is evidence enough that the majority of the electorate supported her defence of our democratic way of life.

Had Scargill truly represented the miners, he would have entered into a dialogue with the NCB, and more miners would have stayed employed for longer. The mines which were destined for closure were not economically viable, and the number of miners employed in the industry was not sustainable. Scargill and his lieutenants knew this, but had their own political agenda which was to overthrow a democratically elected government using extreme violence and intimidation as their chosen method. They betrayed the poor duped miners and their families the whole way down the line.

Anyway back to topic, the police in those days actually maintained law and order.

Historically it is interesting that although the British invented the police service in its modern context, we have not had the police for very long at all. More interestingly still was the public opposition to the idea of the Met when they were first introduced. It seems the UK and the rest of th world managed just fine without the police for centuries and never even wanted them to begin with (so much for the myth of policing by consensus).

The need for police is perhaps the greatest con trick government has ever pulled!

Originally Posted by Marxist Nutter

Historically it is interesting that although the British invented the police service in its modern context, we have not had the police for very long at all. More interestingly still was the public opposition to the idea of the Met when they were first introduced. It seems the UK and the rest of th world managed just fine without the police for centuries and never even wanted them to begin with (so much for the myth of policing by consensus).

The need for police is perhaps the greatest con trick government has ever pulled!

Although historically we did have a central authoritative figure with the divine right to rule who controlled an army to take care of matters of criminality against the state and enact law - so the trade off between the two has been beneficial to society I would say.

One or two points of interest.

The Labour Gov't under Callaghan closed more pits than than Maggie did, yet Scargill said absolutely hee-haw. The whole strike had absolutely nothing to do with either closures or pay scales. Scargill planned to bring down the Tory Government and ultimately have a Labour Administration headed by Tony Benn instead.

In Maggie, he picked the wrong sow to take by the ear.....................and thank god for that, because any government lead by Benn (and Scargill) would have shut this country down within the 1st year.

Regarding Lazy Police Officers. During my 32 years, the level of paperwork grew on an almost monthly basis. Also during that time Government Policies required the setting up of numerous departments, ie. Domestic Violence Units, Professional Standards Departments, Planning Departments etc., etc. All very necessary requirements to meet today's Policing needs.

Only problem is that in order to staff these wonderous departments, you need to remove cops from normal duties, which means that you (the public) suffer less coverage and longer response times. One other problem is that these officers disappear into departments and remain on the old 9-5 five day week gravy train for years.

If Central Government require every force to set up such and such a department, then they need to increase the Force Budget by a commensurate amount, so that staff on beat duties are replaced as and when these departments are created.

Originally Posted by The Untalented Mr Ripley

The question I increasingly find myself asking is should the general public trust or indeed cooperate with the modern UK police?

No we should not

Originally Posted by SocialistCara

No we should not

Says the bleeding heart liberal who would advocate paedophiles converging on schools.

Originally Posted by Tete123

Says the bleeding heart liberal who would advocate paedophiles converging on schools.

Whoa! since when have u been Mr Populist!

Originally Posted by Marxist Nutter

Whoa! since when have u been Mr Populist!

I wasn't attempting to be populist.

There are really two points to why we should at least be suspicious of the police. Firstly, while it isn't their fault, they're increasingly suffering from bureacratisation, and 'meddling' from the government who likes to set up taskforces and units that look good on paper. Which leads to, as Binnman said, less officers on beat. Secondly, the police have in the past suffered from corruption and malpractice. While generally far less occuring now in comparison, it has stained the police force. In Australia the Queensland police are still bastards, and are generally loathed by the populace for their role in the Bjelke-Petersen years.

Another issue is simply the police themselves are not given enough power to deal with offenders. I would propose having 'relative' powers for police, so that police in areas of high crime have either their bureacracy streamlined or are given more powers to combat crime than a low crime area.

Generally, yes we should trust them. Who else do you go to when either life is in danger or property goes missing. The question is, are the police becoming less trusting of the public, hence their stricter interpretation & implementation of laws.

Originally Posted by Major Sinic

Your response comes as no surprise to me. Your vitriolic personal attack on her reflects far more adversely on your own subjective prejudice, than on Mrs Thatcher. That she won two further elections after she limited the undemocratic power and intimidation of the trade union movement is evidence enough that the majority of the electorate supported her defence of our democratic way of life.

Had Scargill truly represented the miners, he would have entered into a dialogue with the NCB, and more miners would have stayed employed for longer. The mines which were destined for closure were not economically viable, and the number of miners employed in the industry was not sustainable. Scargill and his lieutenants knew this, but had their own political agenda which was to overthrow a democratically elected government using extreme violence and intimidation as their chosen method. They betrayed the poor duped miners and their families the whole way down the line.

Anyway back to topic, the police in those days actually maintained law and order.

Nowdays, they are just another branch of the Inland Revenue in the main.

Originally Posted by Major Sinic

I consider the country fortunate indeed to have had the police force it did in the early 1980s, when the the very democratic fabric of our society was under threat from the anti-democratic, politically inspired violent and intimidating campaign of the NUM led by Scargill and his thugs. The intention of Scargill, was to bring down a democratically elected government through violent insurrection, and many thousands of British miners were duped into believing it was about saving totally unsustainable jobs in unviable pits, and became in many cases his unwitting stormtroopers, to their eternal shame.

It was thanks to the exemplary national leadership, and indomitable spirit, of the finest peacetime Prime Minister of the last hundred years, along with the many police forces involved in restoring and maintaining peace, and protecting the wider populace that the threat to our democracy was averted.

Sadly the police 'service' of today is a pale imitation of the police force of those days, politicised as it is and more interested in Google Page Ranking, job protection, and paperwork rather than maintaining law and order.

Spot on! In those days we had a force to be proud of.

Originally Posted by Tete123

Says the bleeding heart liberal who would advocate paedophiles converging on schools.

well go ahead and debate tete but you realise that my opinon is not going to change on human rights issues

Originally Posted by SocialistCara

well go ahead and debate tete but you realise that my opinon is not going to change on human rights issues

Mainly because you don't understand how one human right can easily be used to the detriment of another human right - the whole concept is a human construct therefore inherently flawed. So, seeing as human rights are neither enforced by law, not compatible with each other : who do you protect Cara - the child or the paedophile?

Originally Posted by Tete123

Mainly because you don't understand how one human right can easily be used to the detriment of another human right - the whole concept is a human construct therefore inherently flawed. So, seeing as human rights are neither enforced by law, not compatible with each other : who do you protect Cara - the child or the paedophile?

From what you are saying you protect the facist. Let's get back on topic.

Originally Posted by SocialistCara

From what you are saying you protect the facist. Let's get back on topic.

Please describe fascist for me? Yes okay on topic - we should trust the police because they have a human right to be respected in their chosen profession. Do you agree?

Whether we like it or not we place a lot of responsability and trust in the hands of the police, and I fail to see how not trusting them achieves anything, especially since its merely for being the police.

REFRERENCE: CAN WE TRUST THE POLICE?

I seem to remember Jackie Smith arranging for Police officers to get a free taxi home after a long duty, following a fatal accident concerning a Police Officer, after a long shift. Now, my deepest sympathy goes out to the officer, and officers family. But surely Police Officers are highly trained in the art of keeping the public safe on our roads, yet can"t keep themselves safe, and need the help of tax payers cash to get them home in one piece - despite earning relatively high money compared to some people in the job market. I think we need to look very closely at the type of people being recruited into this highly responsible job. With this sort of example - the answer is a defiante no.

Originally Posted by The Untalented Mr Ripley

There have been a spate of incidents concerning the British police recently concerning harassment of amateur photographers / tourists, the retention of DNA on police records in respect of those individuals not charged with or found guilt of a criminal offence, police officers abusing (even killing it would appear) protesters and innocent bystanders, arresting opposition politicians for embarassing the Home Office and failing to use their common sense by arresting all and sundry, seemingly to keep their stats healthy.

The question I increasingly find myself asking is should the general public trust or indeed cooperate with the modern UK police?

I have even heard of people being threatend with arrest for wearing anti Tony Blair shirts.

Originally Posted by Marxist Nutter

Historically it is interesting that although the British invented the police service in its modern context, we have not had the police for very long at all. More interestingly still was the public opposition to the idea of the Met when they were first introduced. It seems the UK and the rest of th world managed just fine without the police for centuries and never even wanted them to begin with (so much for the myth of policing by consensus).

The need for police is perhaps the greatest con trick government has ever pulled!

True, we did without them for centuries - and lived under tyrany for centuries. What we need is proper Police, who enforce the law with common sense, like we had before.

Originally Posted by octopus

REFRERENCE: CAN WE TRUST THE POLICE?

I seem to remember Jackie Smith arranging for Police officers to get a free taxi home after a long duty, following a fatal accident concerning a Police Officer, after a long shift. Now, my deepest sympathy goes out to the officer, and officers family. But surely Police Officers are highly trained in the art of keeping the public safe on our roads, yet can"t keep themselves safe, and need the help of tax payers cash to get them home in one piece - despite earning relatively high money compared to some people in the job market. I think we need to look very closely at the type of people being recruited into this highly responsible job. With this sort of example - the answer is a defiante no.

What were the facts of the case involving the deceased police officer? I mean police officers are not infallible and accidents happen. He could maybe have shown better judgement in not driving if he felt tired but then these things can come on suddenly, and it only take a momentary loss of concentration for the worst to happen. I think whether they should receive tax payer subsidy to provide carriage home is dependent on the situation. Transport For London employee's, who are also funded by the tax payer all receive free travel passes for tube, train and bus routes, potentially saving them thousands of pounds a year (I know this as my father is an employee) and they are vastly north of the national average with a bus driver taking home between £400 and £500 per week; a bus station controller, main task providing route information to customers and ensuring the bus stations run smoothly earn £26,000 - £29,000 per annum and my father's grade which is managerial, yet essentially is working the emergency radio desks pay around £40,000 per annum for 12 days work a month. The police by comparison, and considering the potential dangers of the job are relatively poorly remunerated. So what type of people are we employing in this responsible role? And, does it matter? If the attitudes of this forum are an indication of the public's perception then is it little wonder society has gone the way it has? We no longer have respect for those charged with protecting us, why would anybody want this type of employment is maybe a more pertinent question?

Originally Posted by Expounder

Her methods destroyed the fabric of our society, we are no longer a single nation. the Miners were fighting for their families and communities livelihood which when destroyed left swathes of wastelands in Britain. It was blind conservative rage and malice. Her policy was like America's policy in Iran, no thought or care of the consequences of what would happen to those people in those areas deprived of the means of gainful employment where there were no other industries.

She is a heroine to the Tory faithful, but she is reviled by the majority of British people who regard he as a mad despicable hand bag swinging tyrant. If ever there was evidence of the cult of the personality she personified it, especially when dealing with a cowardly Tory cabinet. She saw an opportunity in a falklands war to to raise her profile otherwise she would have been dumped out of office long before the dominating brain misswired hag she was.
.

I totaly disagree. When Mrs Thatcher was prime minister we were a nation on the up Why? Because she backed the workers, not the shierkers - I know, I was one such worker at the time. The miners were living in a dream world with unrealistic expectations on their pits - so they had to close. She helped me start up a business, with an enterprise allowance. Money was given to the people who desevered it, and could in turn produce the wealth. The Falklands war, a necesary war, because the people concerned were entitled to our protection - and got it! If she was in charge of the tories today, I would vote for them, but today the tories are just a shadow of their former self, with no proper leader or policies.

RE: The deceased Police Officer

Just because you join the Police, it does not alter the fact that you are a human being. Guess what? Just like you, cops are prone to that great fault which damns all human beings..............................they aren't perfect.

As to the taxi home scenario, what would you have preferred? A bunch of guys/girls driving home just after scraping their mate up and putting him/her in a body bag?

Or perhaps (as was the case) - the cops taking the sensible approach and transporting those involved home, in order to reduce the risk of further accidents.