Why do you think people don’t like the Police?
- Thread starter Virdi
- Start date
is this a sting operation ? 
at end of day it must be experience that forms most peoples opinions of coppers
most people will be angry if get nicked or told off for naughty things they been caught doing or have been caught up in something else and not been part of the inncident but still been reprimanded in the same way. this is what forms most peoples bad opinions. oh also not being there on time if needed.
when you wiegh up the things for and against to form a opinion its easy to take a negitive on them.
ps pls dont remove my sig mr babalon
at end of day it must be experience that forms most peoples opinions of coppers
most people will be angry if get nicked or told off for naughty things they been caught doing or have been caught up in something else and not been part of the inncident but still been reprimanded in the same way. this is what forms most peoples bad opinions. oh also not being there on time if needed.
when you wiegh up the things for and against to form a opinion its easy to take a negitive on them.
ps pls dont remove my sig mr babalon
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 15,788
- Location
- Outside in the bushes
Nothing like quoting a meaningless 5 year old article.
Not meaningless the policeing in Thames valley hasn't changed.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Feb 2008
- Posts
- 11,114
I suppose "Message in a Bottle" deserves its classic status, but "Roxanne" is waaaaay overrated.
When was the big handover to the law from society to give it the right of oppression? The law is a painful aggregation of some basic peace promotion (e.g. you can't kill other people) and random persecution (e.g. homosexuality, drug use [but only the drugs it doesn't like], apartheid etc.). It is the culmination of fears and the dangerous aspects of human instinct overriding rational thought and the promotion of peace. It is for those malignant reasons that I reject it, and by doing so it has no right at all.
Curtailing of freedom is torturous. A fundamental aspect of our nature restricted. It is torture in all instances, which is why great care should be taken before imposing it. One could almost liken it to murder (stay with me here): if you kill someone, you are ending their life prematurely. What you have done is taken time they would have otherwise had to live. When you imprison someone, you are taking away so many aspects of life you have to really evaluate whether you are letting them live at all, beyond the biological component of it. For me, freedom is a fundamental aspect of life, and to take it from me you may as well kill me. All prison does is make the "murder" temporary, and forces you to exist in captivity - this being the torture.
Imagine you know someone who you share a lot of interests with, you go fishing with on a weekend, you invite over for dinner often and who you go on holidays with. At night they go around and beat people up. Do you just accept their good attributes and ignore the rest, or do you reject them outright and have nothing to do with them?
The rest does not equal the majority. I am certain that I do think more about these things than the majority, yes. Easily so, in fact. The majority of people barely think about these things at all. If you were to take 100 people I'd bet far far less than 50 of them spend more than 5 seconds a year thinking about these things. It is that fact which scares me - the law contains regulations that are manifestations of their prejudices and fears.
You approach this from the angle that those guidelines and promises are inherent in our existence, when they are not. We are free by nature, and control is something we have constructed. To justify the construction ruling over nature because of the existence of the construction is backwards. Each aspect of the construct needs to be justifiable as operating in the protection of nature before it can be valid. If that cannot happen, then the construct is simply flawed. I do not want anything - I already have everything I need, which is freedom. It is society with its construct of law that wants to control me. Why should I not be allowed to live peacefully how I choose? If the law cannot demonstrate that I am causing harm why should it be empowered to control me?
If I am in need then I will ask for help. Is there anything wrong with that? The apes in the jungle call for help when they are in need, and it has nothing to do with law or the police, but everything to do with mutual support. If I were being attacked then I think calling for help is a reasonable thing to do. Do I expect people to come running because they are police officers or there's a law that allows them? No, I hope they come running because attacking people isn't a very nice thing to do and they want to stop it.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 15,788
- Location
- Outside in the bushes
So you want the law to apply to others, but not to yourself?
I think some people dislike the police because:
They don't agree with a particular law (forgetting that the Police don't make the law).
They don't think the law applies to them, also known as the "why aren't you out there catching real criminals" syndrome.
They've fallen for Paper's "the police are brutes" or "the police are useless" slant on events (enough threads/posts on here make me suspect that many people take what is reported at face value).
They expect the Police to fully investigate every single crime fully, with full CSI support...
They mistake a certain level of cynicism/caution in the way the police may treat people. with rudeness - not realising that while their insurance documents are indeed at home, and it is indeed a mistake with the computer showing the car as uninsured and unable to remember the insurance company, but they've also had that line hundreds of times (sometimes from quite respectable looking people) who aren't insured. Or that whilst you're not a threat to them, they've met enough people who also looked harmless in similar situations, but did turn violent.
They mistake the legal requirement for the police to investigate certain complaints (even if they seem silly) impartially.
They don't have a clue about the role of the police, verses the roles of the CPS, Magistrates/Judge/Jury, thus blame the police when someone is charged or convicted (or let off without charge/a short sentence).
And not forgetting the all time favourite reason to hate the police: Because it's "cool".
I don't necessarily like individual officers, but I wholeheartedly respect the police force as a whole, especially the guys on the ground who are basically doing a job that no one who is fully sane
would want to do for the wage that they are paid.
I've heard comments from some officers that they would much rather deal with a "career" or "repeat" offender, than many of the "occasional" criminals who have a good job/background and whose only offence might be something like getting completely drunk then try to drive...
They don't agree with a particular law (forgetting that the Police don't make the law).
They don't think the law applies to them, also known as the "why aren't you out there catching real criminals" syndrome.
They've fallen for Paper's "the police are brutes" or "the police are useless" slant on events (enough threads/posts on here make me suspect that many people take what is reported at face value).
They expect the Police to fully investigate every single crime fully, with full CSI support...
They mistake a certain level of cynicism/caution in the way the police may treat people. with rudeness - not realising that while their insurance documents are indeed at home, and it is indeed a mistake with the computer showing the car as uninsured and unable to remember the insurance company, but they've also had that line hundreds of times (sometimes from quite respectable looking people) who aren't insured. Or that whilst you're not a threat to them, they've met enough people who also looked harmless in similar situations, but did turn violent.
They mistake the legal requirement for the police to investigate certain complaints (even if they seem silly) impartially.
They don't have a clue about the role of the police, verses the roles of the CPS, Magistrates/Judge/Jury, thus blame the police when someone is charged or convicted (or let off without charge/a short sentence).
And not forgetting the all time favourite reason to hate the police: Because it's "cool".
I don't necessarily like individual officers, but I wholeheartedly respect the police force as a whole, especially the guys on the ground who are basically doing a job that no one who is fully sane
would want to do for the wage that they are paid.I've heard comments from some officers that they would much rather deal with a "career" or "repeat" offender, than many of the "occasional" criminals who have a good job/background and whose only offence might be something like getting completely drunk then try to drive...
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
I don't necessarily like individual officers, but I wholeheartedly respect the police force as a whole, especially the guys on the ground who are basically doing a job that no one who is fully sane
Think about the people who do it for free
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 15,788
- Location
- Outside in the bushes
14/15 inch?
if only you'd have said a short while ago we threw one of those out
God damn it!
t'was 15 inch
Think about the people who do it for free
They are freaks, and i have a hunch you do it. My friends brother did it too. Dont understand it at all. No moral high ground clap trap speech could ever make me see different.
Must be my working class upbringing
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 1 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 12,681
- Location
- Tyneside
lurkio said:
The media either do not know, do not care or find it convenient to omit that the officers who followed Mr de Menezes onto the train did indeed pile on top of him ....... in order to absorb as much of the blast as possible, believing him to be a suicide bomber and knowing it would have killed them as well.
Do you think they whooped with joy when they found out he wasn't ?
I agree entirely that someone should answer for that day but I believe it should be higher up the chain but certainly not the officers that shot him dead. The whole episode is a tragedy.
As said by someone earlier, I think they do a very difficult job reasonably well on the whole. I think Policing has become a lot more difficult in the past 30 years and I feel for them now.
Where as they used to have a bit more respect from average public and less constraints from above (budget, quotas, etc). They now have less respect and more constraints.
Where as they used to have a bit more respect from average public and less constraints from above (budget, quotas, etc). They now have less respect and more constraints.
The Police in my experience is sadly the 97% of the bad ones giving the 3% of the good ones a bad name.
They are nothing but Corporate Enforcement Officers, fighting crime is far less a priority to them than making cash through Fines and there's no one to blame but ourselves for allowing the Govt. to pass the 'Laws' for this sad state of affairs. Profit over punishment.
They are nothing but Corporate Enforcement Officers, fighting crime is far less a priority to them than making cash through Fines and there's no one to blame but ourselves for allowing the Govt. to pass the 'Laws' for this sad state of affairs. Profit over punishment.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
You're asking for a date? Facetious question or not - there is no precise date and time when society determined that law was a fundamental because society and laws (of a sort) had to form in an interlinked fashion - it's difficult to have a functional society without law and it's pointless to have law without society.
You claiming something has no right over you doesn't make it so, since we're going down this route anyway then did Radovan Karadžić rejecting the authority of the court mean that it did not have the right or authority to try him?
One could liken it thus, one would seem to be being overly emotive but if you disagree with the principle of prison itself then it would be great if you could suggest a better alternative. As a society it has been decided that prison should both punish and hopefully rehabilitate - the imprisonment is the punishment part here, it seems more humane than any of the corporal alternatives.
I don't know, do the people they beat up deserve it? Is such a thing even possible?
I do know that I wouldn't necessarily reject the person out of hand because of one aspect of their personality - it's more complex than a simple acceptance or rejection of the whole as it is with law.
That would be me not framing the terms clearly enough, thinking about something more than the majority doesn't mean that you're on the right lines with your conclusions.
Control is something that people have constructed because a certain degree of it is necessary to a functional society, we can debate what level is vital but that at some level it is required is, I would have previously thought, indisputable.
You appear to be looking at this from the point of view that if you are a reasonable and responsible member of society then everyone else will be - that's a truly lovely ideal and I wish I could believe the same but unfortunately the more experience I have of the World the less I believe that everyone is reasonable. Laws aren't just there to infringe on your liberties, they are there to attempt to control and protect all, this does sometimes mean that the rights of ordinary law abiding citizens are impinged upon and this should be kept to a minimum but it is a natural byproduct of needing some measure of control.
If you've already got freedom then why are you complaining about the law controlling you? You either don't have freedom or are demanding something different.
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 15,788
- Location
- Outside in the bushes
They should have a proper screening process in place to tell the good cops from the bad by setting up crimes that aren't actually real to test the bobbys on a regular basis i.e get a bunch of actors to play out a fictional crime and have someone standing on the sidelines as it's played out to see how the bobbys react when faced with a real crime of a simelar nature.
Associate
- Joined
- 22 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 2,212
- Location
- In My Command Center
this is the one statment that sums up the old bill, there needs to be massive reform of the laws and policing of those laws.
police have too much power and it is driving them insane. they are a law upon them selfs and as such believe they are untouchable.
point and case:- police man up north doing 150mph in a new vxr vectra, on the moterway during the day was let off with a slapped wrist, saying to the judge " i was testing the cars perfomance, i am due to get a new one for my traffic car"
i would be jailed and never be allowed to drive again if i was caught!