Anti-Police

[Will]

Where did you find out that they have targets?

 

It's one of the things often highlighted when people report on the various ridiculous arrests that happen.

 

Thats without suspicion, but i would think it suspicious if i saw a group of young kids out after like 10, or near a shop for no obvious reason

 

I suppose when you see a group of people in a bus stop or outside a shop it makes you think "Oh, i'll go say hello!", and not " I wonder why they're hanging around outside this shop?".

 

Just one of reasons people don't like the police. Why the automatic suspicion? Our legal system is based on innocence until proven guilty, what on earth reason do you have to be suspicious of people just for being outside a shop or (unbelievably) in a bus stop?

[The Bard]

Agents of the nanny state gone overboard.

[MoogleViper]

Just one of reasons people don't like the police. Why the automatic suspicion? Our legal system is based on innocence until proven guilty' date=' what on earth reason do you have to be suspicious of people just for being outside a shop or (unbelievably) in a bus stop?[/quote']

 

But if those kids did something wrong people would say, "The police walked by them and didn't do anything about it." They just can't win.

[ipaul]

But if those kids did something wrong people would say, "The police walked by them and didn't do anything about it." They just can't win.

 

If the Police had walked by and the kids were doing nothing suspicious at all (other than being there, which as we all know from this thread, is mighty suspicious in itself) then I really don't think people would blame the police.

[danny]

Agents of the nanny state gone overboard.

 

Are you really trying to say the country would work without police at all?

 

Oh do behave yourself danny. The bent coppers is a very valid point. Everyone knows the influencing power of the media. Every time a copper is brought up for abuse of their power/position this will only stem the negativity. Sure its a generalisation, but it only helps to grow the hostility from the public aimed at the police.

 

As for the stupid laws, I would like you to name them since I'm interested to know what you consider stupid.

 

I dont consider laws stupid. My point was other people do consider laws stupid and then blambe the police for them when its not there fault. Its the govenments.

I am well behaved i dont see the odd bent copper being a reason to be anti police. I know there are scots that have killed people. I dont think oh my god im about tomeet my maker every time i meet a scot. Its totally irational behaviour to think like that.

 

Incorrect.

 

A story which was pretty big up here was a guy who was given a fine for blowing his nose in his car. He was told he was not in control of the vehicle, yet his handbrake was on.

 

Another great copper story up was a guy who was also fined because he accidently dropped a £10 note out of his pocket and didn't realize. Apparently he was littering.

 

Just two example of coppers who are not even following the law but dishing out their own warped power trips. Because I can, I will.

 

As for the handbrake argument im not actually sure what the exact law is. But you cant talk on a phone in the drivers seat if the egine is runing. Dosent matter if you are sat in an 8 mile tailback and you havent moved in thelast 3hours if your engine is runing you are breaking the law. I suspect this could be something simlaer.

And i cant comment on the second story as i dont knwo anything about th actual story.

[Sheikah]

This sort of thing is why people are highly sceptical of people in the Police force.

 

 

 

Quite clearly you are a naturally suspicious person then.

 

They could be in your house right now. Best go look for them.

 

Suspicion is part of a policeman's job. Without it they would be useless.

 

Yes, they should monitor youths stood outside a shop. Yes, particularly if they are dressed like / have the demeanor of chavs. Why? Because statistically, people matching these descriptions do the majority of this sort of crime.

 

Asserting a police presence is a proven method to prevent crime. Whether the people were going to commit a crime or not (most likely: not) is irrelevant; their job is to reduce possibility. And through simply talking to people it's hardly skin off anyone's nose. They would not be majorly inconvenienced.

 

An example is where someone who seemed quite suspicious was taking an empty bucket around our (fairly nice) neighborhood towards the end of the day. Without sounding too judgmental, he seemed to be eying up the properties as he approached the doors and asked people if they wanted their car cleaning. My dad reported him to the police because he was honestly one seemingly dodgy person. Within 10 minutes a police car had driven up and down the road.

 

Now this man probably wouldn't have robbed anyone, but anything that seems a bit suspicious is very easily checked up on by the police. How much effort is it to just have a small check, or a chat? And if the police had done nothing, and he had gone on to burgle someone's property, no doubt the police would have been blamed. One small bit of effort that doesn't really affect anyone too much can possibly prevent a huge load of aggro down the line. Easy. People need to have a cup of tea and stop getting offended so fucking easily.

Edited February 15, 2010 by Sheikah

[Kirkatronics]

Are you really trying to say the country would work without police at all?

 

 

 

I dont consider laws stupid. My point was other people do consider laws stupid and then blambe the police for them when its not there fault. Its the govenments.

I am well behaved i dont see the odd bent copper being a reason to be anti police. I know there are scots that have killed people. I dont think oh my god im about tomeet my maker every time i meet a scot. Its totally irational behaviour to think like that.

 

 

 

As for the handbrake argument im not actually sure what the exact law is. But you cant talk on a phone in the drivers seat if the egine is runing. Dosent matter if you are sat in an 8 mile tailback and you havent moved in thelast 3hours if your engine is runing you are breaking the law. I suspect this could be something simlaer.

And i cant comment on the second story as i dont knwo anything about th actual story.

The thing is with these stories they never get both sides, or rarely do.

[The Bard]

Are you really trying to say the country would work without police at all?

 

Your argument = Don't complain about the many inadequecies of the police force because our whole system of laws and customs would be rendered unviable without the external agency of some punitive force.

 

That's ridiculous. Try and get an idea of the nunace of the other's argument, instead of superimposing your own biases onto it, and ultimately letting it flow neatly out the other ear.

 

What I'm saying is, well, yes, we as human beings need to be policed, because of our innate need to be dicks. Unfortunately, the laws, moralities and social customs of the state are, much like you, incapable of taking into consideration the divergences of culture and disposition that are prevalent in this country, and thus are in a fuckton of cases, incapable of being adhered to. The whole system of one law fits all, is quite frankly shite. Unfortunately, your problem, as with all people who are wholly proponents of a particular normative set of customs, is that you are opposed to anything that challenges your particular status quo (I am assuming here...or conceptualising the existence of people who do actually do this. They exist everywhere).

 

Rant rant rant rant etc.

[danny]

 

Your argument = Don't complain about the many inadequecies of the police force because our whole system of laws and customs would be rendered unviable without the external agency of some punitive force.

 

That's ridiculous. Try and get an idea of the nunace of the other's argument, instead of superimposing your own biases onto it, and ultimately letting it flow neatly out the other ear.

 

What I'm saying is, well, yes, we as human beings need to be policed, because of our innate need to be dicks. Unfortunately, the laws, moralities and social customs of the state are, much like you, incapable of taking into consideration the divergences of culture and disposition that are prevalent in this country, and thus are in a fuckton of cases, incapable of being adhered to. The whole system of one law fits all, is quite frankly shite. Unfortunately, your problem, as with all people who are wholly proponents of a particular normative set of customs, is that you are opposed to anything that challenges your particular status quo (I am assuming here...or conceptualising the existence of people who do actually do this. They exist everywhere).

 

Rant rant rant rant etc.

 

Your fucking odd. You have used a lot of long words but havent really moved your argument forward at all.

I havent said dont complain about the police, what have said is that you shoudnt tar all the police with the same brush. Thousends of them d a very hard job very well. Yet people hear a few bad storys and suddenly there all power crazy uber nazis.

[Coolness Bears]

I view them as

 

Dogs of the Military.

 

 

or

 

Chief Wiggum

 

[Sheikah]

 

Your argument = Don't complain about the many inadequecies of the police force because our whole system of laws and customs would be rendered unviable without the external agency of some punitive force.

 

That's ridiculous. Try and get an idea of the nunace of the other's argument, instead of superimposing your own biases onto it, and ultimately letting it flow neatly out the other ear.

 

What I'm saying is, well, yes, we as human beings need to be policed, because of our innate need to be dicks. Unfortunately, the laws, moralities and social customs of the state are, much like you, incapable of taking into consideration the divergences of culture and disposition that are prevalent in this country, and thus are in a fuckton of cases, incapable of being adhered to. The whole system of one law fits all, is quite frankly shite. Unfortunately, your problem, as with all people who are wholly proponents of a particular normative set of customs, is that you are opposed to anything that challenges your particular status quo (I am assuming here...or conceptualising the existence of people who do actually do this. They exist everywhere).

 

Rant rant rant rant etc.

Unfortunately people would complain if one person received a more severe punishment / more points on the license for an identical crime. On the one hand, like you said, one law often doesn't fit all. On the other hand, once you start making exceptions or hand out varying punishments, people will call unfairness. You can't win either way. At the end of the day there will always be a human being or a collective body passing judgement on somebody, which is where the problem is. It's human nature.

Edited February 15, 2010 by Sheikah

[The Bard]

Unfortunately people would complain if one person received a more severe punishment / more points on the license for an identical crime. On the one hand, like you said, one law often doesn't fit all. On the other hand, once you start making exceptions or hand out varying punishments, people will call unfairness. You can't win either way. At the end of the day there will always be a human being or a collective body passing judgement on somebody, which is where the problems. It's human nature.

 

Yup, exactly. Its seems to be an unresolvable set of conundrums, but one that I can't help but bitch about anyway =p. Of course there is the fact that the law could be established in such a way as to put more of an emphasis on context, which is something that does occur in some instances; unfortunately the gargantuan task of applying contextuality to every concievable law is so daunting (and in some instances so prone to ridiculous abstraction; for example, sex laws to do with statutory rape are often absurd) that its preferential to the government to apply to one as to all.

 

Also; the point of a system of laws is to maintain a social equilibrium (well...ideally. Instead, it functions at times to just further the most base instincts in people), and so if a persons cries of unfairness are to be taken into consideration, isn't this just a ridiculous compromise of the system of laws' own ideals?

 

Nywaaa...

[weeyellowbloke]

For myself it comes of having gone on protests and having the seen the treatment of people by the police. Often protesters are treated as guilty by definition and therefore deserving of sub-human treatment. That and:

 

Plus the way the police closed ranks to cover their own arses and fed bullshit in the aftermath about the protesters bottling them while bravely trying to save Ian Tomlinson's life. Not that this necessarily makes me anti-police. Most of the ordinary coppers are decent people doing an exceedingly hard job, however the management and large-scale organisation is shambolic.

[Kirkatronics]

Bard, i've noticed that you never actually reply to what people post. Instead you post some tosh to try make your self sound clever, and to me it doesn't help you at all.

You over complicate things, then try to analyse everything and do it badly.

 

If you want to sound intelegent take note from Supergrunch, and The Fish.

[chairdriver]

Bard, i've noticed that you never actually reply to what people post. Instead you post some tosh to try make your self sound clever, and to me it doesn't help you at all.

You over complicate things, then try to analyse everything and do it badly.

 

If you want to sound intelegent take note from Supergrunch, and The Fish.

 

This is the most feeble post I've ever read in my life.

 

"I don't understand, and there's a possibility I might lose this argument, so I'll make an irrelevant personal attack."

[Kirkatronics]

This is the most feeble post I've ever read in my life.

 

"I don't understand, and there's a possibility I might lose this argument, so I'll make an irrelevant personal attack."

He just frustrates me, his post also had nothing to do with the argument.

He just posted a comment which made no sense, and when was called up on it he just replies in a manner which avoids the question.

 

Im not avoiding the argument, i just haven't replied yet.

Surely you agree with me that his comment made no sense, and his deefence doesnt even relate to what danny put.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

For myself it comes of having gone on protests and having the seen the treatment of people by the police. Often protesters are treated as guilty by definition and therefore deserving of sub-human treatment. That and:

 

Plus the way the police closed ranks to cover their own arses and fed bullshit in the aftermath about the protesters bottling them while bravely trying to save Ian Tomlinson's life. Not that this necessarily makes me anti-police. Most of the ordinary coppers are decent people doing an exceedingly hard job, however the management and large-scale organisation is shambolic.

The times I've been most angry with the police are also during demonstrations. That's not to say I'm anti-police. Most of the time, I like the police for doing a great job. But often when there are demonstrations with passionate demonstrators, it seems the police are just a bit too eager to subdue them, even when they haven't been violent or done anything wrong. Of course, the aggressive demonstrators who only wish to cause trouble I have no sympathy for, but when lawful demonstrators are pulled with them into it, it simply isn't good enough. A problematic answer I've heard from the police before is that the peaceful demonstrators are well aware of the "dangers" of demonstrating (i.e. unwillingly being pulled into a crowd of trouble makers) - it hurts the democratic right to demonstrate.

 

But yeah, on the whole, I very much like the police.

[Kirkatronics]

For myself it comes of having gone on protests and having the seen the treatment of people by the police. Often protesters are treated as guilty by definition and therefore deserving of sub-human treatment. That and:

 

Plus the way the police closed ranks to cover their own arses and fed bullshit in the aftermath about the protesters bottling them while bravely trying to save Ian Tomlinson's life. Not that this necessarily makes me anti-police. Most of the ordinary coppers are decent people doing an exceedingly hard job, however the management and large-scale organisation is shambolic.

Didn't see this untill it was just quoted.

I have no idea what that was about, seemed totally un-provoked.

In that case that wasn't accceptable and should be counted as an assault charge.

 

I'm genuinly appauled by that.

[ipaul]

Bard, i've noticed that you never actually reply to what people post. Instead you post some tosh to try make your self sound clever, and to me it doesn't help you at all.

You over complicate things, then try to analyse everything and do it badly.

 

If you want to sound intelegent take note from Supergrunch, and The Fish.

 

I'm assuming that's intenshonel.

 

Knew there was another reason why I didn't like the Police: Their behaviour during protests recently. In particular the G20 protests, that footage is horrible.

[danny]

This is the most feeble post I've ever read in my life.

 

"I don't understand, and there's a possibility I might lose this argument, so I'll make an irrelevant personal attack."

 

It was a fair comment. The guy just posts crap. His comments are just drivel well written drivel. But drivel all the same. He even explains why his posts are drivel. He has an idea for the world which isnt ever going to happen and when you question this idea he just goes on to ramble bollocks.

[The Bard]

Bard, i've noticed that you never actually reply to what people post. Instead you post some tosh to try make your self sound clever, and to me it doesn't help you at all.

You over complicate things, then try to analyse everything and do it badly.

 

If you want to sound intelegent take note from Supergrunch, and The Fish.

 

Firstly, you are entirely unqualified to judge my intelligence, considering that your above post indicates that you probably don't even understand what I'm writing most of the time. Secondly, read what I wrote again; I'm fairly sure that if you strain yourself enough, you might understand what I'm getting at.

 

Unfortunately, I choose not to speak in cliches and proverbs, so communicating with you is probably going to be a tough job. Would you like me to draw you a diagram instead?

 

Lord. What a couple of utter twats.

[danny]

Also about the demos. That video is shocking and shoudnt have happened. But personally i think the demos are ruined by the minority and this causes the police to take a very tough stance with everyone. At the end of the day they just want to go home to there familys without getting hurt. The police just the same as anyone else dont have to wait to be hit if they feel threatened.

[Kirkatronics]

 

Firstly, you are entirely unqualified to judge my intelligence, considering that your above post indicates that you probably don't even understand what I'm writing most of the time. Secondly, read what I wrote again; I'm fairly sure that if you strain yourself enough, you might understand what I'm getting at.

 

Unfortunately, I choose not to speak in cliches and proverbs, so communicating with you is probably going to be a tough job. Would you like me to draw you a diagram instead?

 

Lord. What a couple of utter twats.

I never claimed to be intellegent. If im not qualified, who is?

 

It was a fair comment. The guy just posts crap. His comments are just drivel well written drivel. But drivel all the same. He even explains why his posts are drivel. He has an idea for the world which isnt ever going to happen and when you question this idea he just goes on to ramble bollocks.

Thanks, glad to see someone also sees this.

 

Anyway, back onto the topic at hand.

[The Bard]

Well, I'm sorry then. I guess this forum isn't the place for discussion of the sort I had in mind.

 

Perhaps this is the way Emerson felt in the face of the confederates =p.

 

Anyway; ramble on.

[Pyxis]

Just one of reasons people don't like the police. Why the automatic suspicion? Our legal system is based on innocence until proven guilty' date=' what on earth reason do you have to be suspicious of people just for being outside a shop or (unbelievably) in a bus stop?[/quote']

 

I was attacked by a couple of guys hanging around outside my local mini tesco 3 years ago.. Those teenagers hanging outside shops are bored and a lot of them are desperate to cause trouble as a means of entertainment.

 

In my case, they followed me into the woods (where I stood and waited for them after seeing them coming after me) and they tried to mug me. One of the guys was holding a big iron rod like a baseball bat and I told him that he should learn some respect! The guy was on the ground with me punching his head in in seconds, but it wasn't a nice experience and I'd happily support banning groups of teenagers from being allowed to hang around shops, especially when they're sitting by the cash machines.

 

Ah well, the only good thing I got out of that experience was realising how weak my punches were. I was desperate to knock that guy out and kind of felt sorry for him. I was on top of him and he was pissing himself while I punched him in the head at least half a dozen times! He then got up and complained about me punching him and then followed me on to the road, where I did the same thing!

Edited February 15, 2010 by Pyxis