Policing Demo Split (From Vax)

Ninja_Stoker

Admin
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Posts
35,495
Reaction score
17,950
Unfortunately when you are tasked with upholding the law you piss people off in equal measure to making people feel safe. Everyone has an agenda they want to follow through on, sometimes it supports the police, sometimes it doesn’t
Absolutely. The irony of the vigil ban is the Police are being criticised by the same politicians who supported the restrictions which they are trying to uphold.
 

sharpe

Veteran Contributor
Joined
May 14, 2019
Posts
731
Reaction score
1,287
Probably the wrong time to inject an “in my day post” but in my day :)
 

GreyWing

Nobody
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Posts
5,887
Reaction score
4,666
This was illustrated with the proposed Sarah Everard vigil whereby those who support it found themselves at odds with the Police viewpoint but equally, not so long ago people were getting pretty frustrated with the BLM protests and declared them "illegal" under the current restrictions. Like many of these temporary regulations it feels like many individuals only comply fully when it aligns with their beliefs.
I do see a pattern with recent politicians. They tend to make things illegal or unlawful on mass, then selectively choose what to enforce and against whom. By the letter of the law, yes people did break them. But these laws should be invalidated unless they are enforced against everyone. Otherwise the Police become open to a charge of being a political enforcement unit by one side or the other.

Probably the wrong time to inject an “in my day post” but in my day :)
I was going to say it if you didn't :)

I think a Chief Constable from the 80's would have told the Gov to shove these extra powers. They were politically savvy enough, and independent enough to have seen a poisoned chalice coming their way.

Sad when you look back at the quality of leadership the Police once had and compare it to today's tokens.
 

sharpe

Veteran Contributor
Joined
May 14, 2019
Posts
731
Reaction score
1,287
Biggest power a police officer has is discretion. You have a whole raft of powers but doesn’t mean that you have to use them. Don’t get me wrong if those officers were subject to any violence or abuse they have to react but such a sensitive topic could surely have been dealt with better
 

Captain Muggs

Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2020
Posts
10
Reaction score
14
I do see a pattern with recent politicians. They tend to make things illegal or unlawful on mass, then selectively choose what to enforce and against whom. By the letter of the law, yes people did break them. But these laws should be invalidated unless they are enforced against everyone. Otherwise the Police become open to a charge of being a political enforcement unit by one side or the other.


I was going to say it if you didn't :)

I think a Chief Constable from the 80's would have told the Gov to shove these extra powers. They were politically savvy enough, and independent enough to have seen a poisoned chalice coming their way.

Sad when you look back at the quality of leadership the Police once had and compare it to today's tokens.
Just about anyone can make it into the police now, standards are very low. It’s a shame they act in the way that they do. They’re just an arm of the government now, doing as it demands asking no questions
 

sharpe

Veteran Contributor
Joined
May 14, 2019
Posts
731
Reaction score
1,287
Just about anyone can make it into the police now, standards are very low. It’s a shame they act in the way that they do. They’re just an arm of the government now, doing as it demands asking no questions
Totally disagree, it’s one of the hardest jobs to get into and they’re precluding some of the best candidates.
 

Captain Muggs

Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2020
Posts
10
Reaction score
14
Totally disagree, it’s one of the hardest jobs to get into and they’re precluding some of the best candidates.
Fair enough. I’m going off experience I have with people I know that are now in the police. Some use their conscience, but as a whole I think they stand more on the side of the government than that of the people.
 

sharpe

Veteran Contributor
Joined
May 14, 2019
Posts
731
Reaction score
1,287
Fair enough. I’m going off experience I have with people I know that are now in the police. Some use their conscience, but as a whole I think they stand more on the side of the government than that of the people.
Well good luck in the marines because standing by the side of the government is kind of the idea:confused:
 

Captain Muggs

Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2020
Posts
10
Reaction score
14
Well good luck in the marines because standing by the side of the government is kind of the idea:confused:
It does sound contradictory. I’m fully aware of what I’m joining up for. I’m just concerned on how the government are so hell bent on dispatching with this nations traditions and values, and how the police are showing no resistance to its demands.
 

Ninja_Stoker

Admin
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Posts
35,495
Reaction score
17,950
It does sound contradictory. I’m fully aware of what I’m joining up for. I’m just concerned on how the government are so hell bent on dispatching with this nations traditions and values, and how the police are showing no resistance to its demands.
I think that's the reason service personnel are deemed apolitical. Those who swear the oath allegiance have to carry out the tasks and abide by the regulations even if we don't agree with the politics.

This is increasingly an issue which many struggle with. I have struggled myself at times, being honest. This is increasingly apparent, particularly when the regulations demand a code of defined ethics from the individual but discriminate against those who may struggle with the potential political ethics or moral ethics of the job.

The blasé response is no-one is forced to join but equally I fully endorse those questioning whether the job is right for them prior to joining. In many cases the expectation from the individual is to comply with aged principles which are very often at odds with modern day values.
 

Captain Muggs

Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2020
Posts
10
Reaction score
14
I think that's the reason service personnel are deemed apolitical. Those who swear the oath allegiance have to carry out the tasks and abide by the regulations even if we don't agree with the politics.

This is increasingly an issue which many struggle with. I have struggled myself at times, being honest. This is increasingly apparent, particularly when the regulations demand a code of defined ethics from the individual but discriminate against those who may struggle with the potential political ethics or moral ethics of the job.

The blasé response is no-one is forced to join but equally I fully endorse those questioning whether the job is right for them prior to joining. In many cases the expectation from the individual is to comply with aged principles which are very often at odds with modern day values.
The aged principles and traditions has been a large reason for why I want to join the marines. They’re hard to come by in this day and age and especially amongst my generation; People are just softer now. I came to the conclusion a while ago that I will have to put up with things that I don’t agree with during service, but the reward far outweighs that for me.

Covid regulations have just thrown the spanner in the works, that’s all. I’m sure when I head down to lympstone in July I’ll know I’m in the right place.
 

1919

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2019
Posts
104
Reaction score
136
Well good luck in the marines because standing by the side of the government is kind of the idea:confused:
Parliament, actually. And the monarch's power invested in it.

It's possible there would be grounds for the prosecution of armed forces personnel for carrying out ministerial decrees that are later found to be illegal/anti-constitutional.
 

1919

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2019
Posts
104
Reaction score
136
On the whole, pandemics are generally handled a lot better through total authoritarian decision making. Too many people in the west are seeing this argument as some sort of Trojan Horse to surrendering all other liberties but COVID/pandemics should be viewed as an isolated/compartmentalised aspect, not as a bigger picture about civil liberty. Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam, China etc have all displayed some of the lowest death tolls and are all back to relative normality as a result of getting very strict very early. Likewise Western style democracies like Aus and NZ took the authoritarian approach and are also back to normality, save the occasional circuit-break lockdown. The UK and much of Europe, the US and Canada, and basically any country that has attempted to balance safety with liberty, have suffered as a consequence.

Asia was bound to have handled it better, as they have, because they were the front line of SARS, Swine Flu, Bird Flu etc before and there were lessons learnt. Having lived in Hong Kong myself I can say that the knock-on affects of SARS when I was there about 15 years later were still obvious - masks were commonplace and considered good manners if you felt a little poorly, the subway (MTR) was disinfected 2-3x per day with lots of strict hygiene rules, interestingly many Hong Kongers were quite averse to human contact too, with handshakes mainly being an expat thing. But, totally unrelated post-2019 democracy issues aside, there was still a real sense of freedom and liberty in HK when I was there. In fact I'll throw a fox amongst the birds and say I honestly felt more free (and carefree) as a man there than I have felt in the UK for a long time before COVID. Yes, I've come back to rejoin and finally serve the UK and its interests, but when it comes to the whole liberties and freedoms thing I found many countries feel a lot more free than here in the UK and once I've made a career in the military and decide it's time to leave I reckon I'll be itching to get away again.


Unrelated to the rest of my post - someone said it was a crazy conspiracy that COVID was created in a lab. I'll just chip in on that to say it's not even a conspiracy at this point - the WHO is actively investigating whether the virus is a product of the Biowarfare lab in Wuhan. My dad is one of the senior civilian staff at NATO and has been ranting online since March last year about how it's also something NATO hopes to investigate/raise on the international stage, as there are many senior individuals within NATO that believe it is man-made. Does this mean it was deliberately released as a weapon? Well that we have no idea and maybe never will. It could genuinely have been a lab mistake and a total accident. It also may NOT be man-made. But don't doubt the possibility that it is because there's BIG players on the international stage that are at least investigating whether it is.
It's a question of proportion though. Totalitarian societies are, almost always, physically safer. See North Korea's life expectancy relative to its GDP. The National Socialists were great at public health measures -- persecution of groups was an extension of this also, and done in the language of public health; infections and parasites in the body-politic needing intervention from above, hence so much support from the medical professions.

You can't switch in and out of granting government arbitrary power. Who would start a business in Australia now? Knowing that it can be pulled from underneath you at any point on the whim of a minister. If this attitude becomes entrenched there, they will be a much more unfree society and much more dependent on government. Will it really have been worth it, just to stamp out a disease with 99.97 percent survivability? (lowering resistance to others in the process)

Freedom and liberty are not absolute values, but we're behaving as if we have almost no worth for the dignity afforded to us by them. Nietzsche's last men.
 
Last edited:

Johnny_Anonie

Moderator
Joined
Mar 17, 2019
Posts
1,741
Reaction score
2,671
In my experience The Met are a very large force that can afford to just throw numbers at a problem. You can make your own mind up regarding what I might think about quality v quantity. Must stress that although I’ve worked with them I’ve never worked for them.

Do I personally think The Met have got this wrong- Yep, I do. But it comes with caveats. The main one being I wasn’t there (Not Met). And just like when people judge the actions of soldiers from an armchair there are many many factors that aren’t taken into consideration. That’s why I feel so uncomfortable commenting on it.

For me I believe that the role of the Police in policing sensitive protests/demonstrations is not to question or query the determinations of government but to uphold the rule of law, and to police lawfully, proportionately and resolutely. It’s a tough old gig. And cops can and do get it wrong. Putting aside the fact I don’t know what the officers on this vigil were briefed, what intelligence they received, what other elements were within the crowd, what happened directly before and after the clips that have been uploaded for social media consumption, what combat indicators (to borrow a military term) the arresting bobbies picked up on and what actually went through their heads.

The way I see it is Officers have a general duty to preserve the Queens peace and have a host of powers to carry out that duty. Nonetheless as @sharpe has rightly highlighted Police also have a wide discretion as to how they go about that function. I’ve found discretion to be my most powerful tool in the job. Like anyone I tend to make mistakes but on the whole I like to think a dose of common sense goes a long way. Just a personal observation but I find my ex military colleagues tend to use discretion far more effectively than say, a probationary officer just out of uni. This isn’t me hinting at anything and is just a personal thought based of some real experiences.

Public Order policing and dare I say it, C-19 based legislation requires a balancing of the individual rights of the people involved against the wider interests of public safety/health, the maintenance of public order and prevention of crime. If you are public order trained (above basic level) you are taught that when you are exercising discretionary powers to prevent disorder you will be expected to focus your attention on those who are likely to pose the actual threat of violence/disorder. In theory arrests are made in these heated and crowded scenarios when there is an imminent threat to public order/safety. Think about it, is it really a good tactical idea to go to the ground whilst attempting to restrain someone with an angry mob standing over you?

Again , personally, I think police must only react during these type of incidents when they reasonably believe that there is no other means whatsoever to prevent an imminent threat. It is a tightrope that needs to be walked as the second an officer puts hands on a person they are curtailing the lawful exercise of that person’s rights and freedom of expressions. I don’t know what went wrong at the vigil and I wonder what care around the minimum use of force and human rights considerations were embedded in the operational thinking and deployment for that group of officers?
Watching it I can agree that this has undermined the effectiveness and confidence in The Met and Policing in general.
What I find sad though is this social media side show that is overtaking the real tragedy. A horrific murder and a grieving family. Justice prevailing should be the agenda here.
I’m absolutely not a dyed in the wool supporter of all things blue line either by the way. I’m merely throwing out some observations.
 

GreyWing

Nobody
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Posts
5,887
Reaction score
4,666
It is interesting to look back at similar precedents with the Police and civil liberties. Notts Police used to stop anyone that looked like a miner driving down the motorway. Looking at the video of this Chief Constable, It just fills me with so much more confidence that he can articulately justify his decisions. "Yes we are infringing civil liberties" then explains why. Reasoning that people can get behind. I don't get the sense of leadership in the Force today.

Starts at 04:36


What I find sad though is this social media side show that is overtaking the real tragedy. A horrific murder and a grieving family. Justice prevailing should be the agenda here.
It's starting to look like the poor girl is being used as a vehicle for others to launch their political careers. The ginger girl that was arrested is said have her own photographer following her to the vigil.

With today's media I think the truth is probably that the country is quickly becoming ungovernable, and unpoliceable (if there is such a word). I haven't sensed any leadership in this whole country 20 odd years.
 

GreyWing

Nobody
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Posts
5,887
Reaction score
4,666
What on earth is this? Home Secretary says Sarah Everard "was just walking home"

What if this guys defence is that she started on him and it was self defence. Is she trying to get the guy acquitted because he can't get a fair trial? Insane!

 
Top