With all the headlines in the last few years, not to mention the news today that vetting has not been up to scratch recently and several people who should have failed didn’t, how trustworthy are the police in the UK?
With all the headlines in the last few years, not to mention the news today that vetting has not been up to scratch recently and several people who should have failed didn’t, how trustworthy are the police in the UK?
My father, from his experience as a county councillor, concluded that most of the police officers he met, had they not been employed by the police, would have been wanted by them.
Recent revelations in the Met have confirmed that verdict.
Yes, trust. If you think that in principle one can never trust the police then there is a big problem which I do not see can ever be resolved, until you actually believe in an anarchist utopia a la "The Dispossessed".
I don't see it as about principle really. I've had some bad experience with cops, so am wary. But I grew up in a rough area, where cops are disliked.
That's completely justified! I am not saying that we must trust the police: the police might be bad police. But @Caissa seemed to be saying that the police can never be trusted, precisely because they are the police.
I don't see it as about principle really. I've had some bad experience with cops, so am wary. But I grew up in a rough area, where cops are disliked.
That's completely justified! I am not saying that we must trust the police: the police might be bad police. But @Caissa seemed to be saying that the police can never be trusted, precisely because they are the police.
That, alas, is the experience of some people in some places at some times.
And if you can never trust the police, then there is much less motivation to improve or reform the police, because they could never on this interpretation be trustworthy no matter what anybody did!
And this would be - and indeed is - a real problem for civic society. And it has broader implications for e.g. politicians, judges, the media etcetera. If you don't trust the authorities on principle, then no authority will ever be any good because no-one will be prepared to make the very considerable efforts necessary to do better.
I don't see it as about principle really. I've had some bad experience with cops, so am wary. But I grew up in a rough area, where cops are disliked.
That's completely justified! I am not saying that we must trust the police: the police might be bad police. But @Caissa seemed to be saying that the police can never be trusted, precisely because they are the police.
Yes, I tend to sympathise with that. How are the police going to be fair in an unfair society? As Lenin said, something or other. Your later point is interesting, is fairness possible? There are phases when it seems so, but inevitably the forces of repression come back. And if you're black, never.
Yes I know. I don't know whether that is a good idea or not. But even if it is, there is still a big difference between saying: "this version of the police is corrupt and needs to be replaced" and "any type of police is necessarily corrupt".
I don't see it as about principle really. I've had some bad experience with cops, so am wary. But I grew up in a rough area, where cops are disliked.
That's completely justified! I am not saying that we must trust the police: the police might be bad police. But @Caissa seemed to be saying that the police can never be trusted, precisely because they are the police.
Yes, I tend to sympathise with that. How are the police going to be fair in an unfair society? As Lenin said, something or other. Your later point is interesting, is fairness possible? There are phases when it seems so, but inevitably the forces of repression come back. And if you're black, never.
That seems like a counsel of despair. Why bother with anything in that case?
I don't see it as about principle really. I've had some bad experience with cops, so am wary. But I grew up in a rough area, where cops are disliked.
That's completely justified! I am not saying that we must trust the police: the police might be bad police. But @Caissa seemed to be saying that the police can never be trusted, precisely because they are the police.
Yes, I tend to sympathise with that. How are the police going to be fair in an unfair society? As Lenin said, something or other. Your later point is interesting, is fairness possible? There are phases when it seems so, but inevitably the forces of repression come back. And if you're black, never.
That seems like a counsel of despair. Why bother with anything in that case?
No, no, there is always my Petula Clark music collection. Well, I don't see it as despair, it's the way society is. I don't have to identify with that.
But then that's also in a context where a disproportionate amount of state funding is spent on the police department and where funding for other activities - including ones which would be preventative - are often cut to bolster spending on law enforcement.
Anarchism is a very interesting idea - and you could argue that certain denominations such as Congregationalism put some anarchist ideals into practice as much as anyone - but I would take a lot of convincing that we should re-model society along anarchist lines in order to solve the problem of corrupt police.
I think the thread title gets the question backwards. Trust isn't something that's owed, it's something that's earned. It might be more effective to ask "have the policed earned the public's trust?" rather than "can we trust the police?"
With all the headlines in the last few years, not to mention the news today that vetting has not been up to scratch recently and several people who should have failed didn’t, how trustworthy are the police in the UK?
Neither of which will explain the state of affairs prior to 1829.
But surely you're not arguing that prior to 1829 there was no "coercive arm of the state"! There has always been a "coercive arm of the state", whether or not an official "police" body existed!
Remember what the origins of a police force is all about: the protection of the rich person's property. Here in the United States that included bringing the slaves back to the slave owner. As such the system's bias is largely conservative. It's big stick, as it were, is the use of penal justice. Here in the US, police associations do not know how to use restorative justice/
Over time the American police force has taken on more responsibilities that should have been the responsivity of another agency. As pointed out above, conservatives will likely defund helping agencies to overfund the police. The challenge is to rebalance all helping agencies including the police.
I once had two neighbors who were police. They were great neighbors and were very involved in the neighborhood and in the community. But I do recall a couple of times when they were called out because an officer was shot. Their families would experience a lot of stress until the incident was resolved. They always knew when the father put on the uniform, he was putting his life at risk.
Nevertheless, there are always officers who are bullies, basically. I have had some confrontations with those type of officers over the years. I just find the basic way to stand up to them is to do it with respect.
But surely rich people protected their property even before police forces existed. They did this with private security (a.k.a. bodyguards, heavies, hired mercenaries) or branches of the armed forces (a.k.a. guardsmen, retainers, knights etcetera etcetera). Surely one good thing about police forces is that they might be better than these alternatives!
(Which as far as I can see is very much the line Terry Pratchett takes in his books about the Ankh-Morpork Watch. Pratchett is really interested in civics!)
Following backstage discussion, we feel this thread would be more appropriately situated in Epiphanies. Please be mindful of the guidance for that forum on transfer.
The question, surely, isn’t the (ad hominem) question of whether the view is held by communists or not, but whether it is an accurate viewpoint.
The fact that it is one adopted by communists is nether here nor there in relation to its accuracy. Like anyone else, communists are right about some things and wrong about others.
If you’re intending to disagree with/refute this viewpoint it behaves you to say why. The mere fact that communists hold this view doesn’t prove anything about it, one way or the other.
Over time the American police force has taken on more responsibilities that should have been the responsivity of another agency. As pointed out above, conservatives will likely defund helping agencies to overfund the police. The challenge is to rebalance all helping agencies including the police.
Random members of the public should not be required to have the expertise or knowledge to know what service is required. If there's someone yelling and banging on cars in your street, you probably feel unsafe. You need this unsafe situation to end. You don't know whether the person is angry at someone, or on drugs, or drunk, or mentally ill, and it's not your job to figure that out.
You want one "there's a problem that needs help I can't provide" number to call, and someone needs to come out and diagnose the problem. Who should those people be? Right now, that's the police, and they're not terribly good at it.
The question, surely, isn’t the (ad hominem) question of whether the view is held by communists or not, but whether it is an accurate viewpoint.
The fact that it is one adopted by communists is nether here nor there in relation to its accuracy. Like anyone else, communists are right about some things and wrong about others.
If you’re intending to disagree with/refute this viewpoint it behaves you to say why. The mere fact that communists hold this view doesn’t prove anything about it, one way or the other.
I don't trust communists to be objective about how good a Police Force is.
The question, surely, isn’t the (ad hominem) question of whether the view is held by communists or not, but whether it is an accurate viewpoint.
The fact that it is one adopted by communists is nether here nor there in relation to its accuracy. Like anyone else, communists are right about some things and wrong about others.
If you’re intending to disagree with/refute this viewpoint it behaves you to say why. The mere fact that communists hold this view doesn’t prove anything about it, one way or the other.
I don't trust communists to be objective about how good a Police Force is.
Neither of which will explain the state of affairs prior to 1829.
But surely you're not arguing that prior to 1829 there was no "coercive arm of the state"! There has always been a "coercive arm of the state", whether or not an official "police" body existed!
Yes but 'the coercive arm of the state' was not what the OP was basing his argument on.
But surely you're not arguing that prior to 1829 there was no "coercive arm of the state"! There has always been a "coercive arm of the state", whether or not an official "police" body existed!
It depends of course on what you count as a state. (A society in which power is based on vassalage is arguably not a state since the vassals have considerable independence of the central power.)
It's certainly not true that in every society the coercive power of the central authority was deployed to maintain law and order among the populace. Generally it was deployed to keep the elites in check.
While local power centres may have employed people to keep order those people weren't acting as agents of a state.
The question, surely, isn’t the (ad hominem) question of whether the view is held by communists or not, but whether it is an accurate viewpoint.
The fact that it is one adopted by communists is nether here nor there in relation to its accuracy. Like anyone else, communists are right about some things and wrong about others.
If you’re intending to disagree with/refute this viewpoint it behaves you to say why. The mere fact that communists hold this view doesn’t prove anything about it, one way or the other.
I don't trust communists to be objective about how good a Police Force is.
Why ? All communist states had police.
Police that are there to support the state rather than the people.
The question, surely, isn’t the (ad hominem) question of whether the view is held by communists or not, but whether it is an accurate viewpoint.
The fact that it is one adopted by communists is nether here nor there in relation to its accuracy. Like anyone else, communists are right about some things and wrong about others.
If you’re intending to disagree with/refute this viewpoint it behaves you to say why. The mere fact that communists hold this view doesn’t prove anything about it, one way or the other.
I don't trust communists to be objective about how good a Police Force is.
Why ? All communist states had police.
Police that are there to support the state rather than the people.
Which was exactly how Peel's proposals were seen by the public.
Are the Police to be trusted? Some members yes, others - perhaps. The remainder on no account.
There used to be claims that the Police went easy on Masons owing to common membership of both groups/. Now the Lodge is at out of fashion as the church, what non Police groups enjoy favour?
The question, surely, isn’t the (ad hominem) question of whether the view is held by communists or not, but whether it is an accurate viewpoint.
The fact that it is one adopted by communists is nether here nor there in relation to its accuracy. Like anyone else, communists are right about some things and wrong about others.
If you’re intending to disagree with/refute this viewpoint it behaves you to say why. The mere fact that communists hold this view doesn’t prove anything about it, one way or the other.
I don't trust communists to be objective about how good a Police Force is.
Why ? All communist states had police.
Police that are there to support the state rather than the people.
Which was exactly how Peel's proposals were seen by the public.
Are the Police to be trusted? Some members yes, others - perhaps. The remainder on no account.
I would put it the other way round. Almost all of them...Yes
There used to be claims that the Police went easy on Masons owing to common membership of both groups/. Now the Lodge is at out of fashion as the church, what non Police groups enjoy favour?
I never favoured any group. I was never a Mason and never wanted to be a Mason.
But surely you're not arguing that prior to 1829 there was no "coercive arm of the state"! There has always been a "coercive arm of the state", whether or not an official "police" body existed!
It depends of course on what you count as a state. (A society in which power is based on vassalage is arguably not a state since the vassals have considerable independence of the central power.)
It's certainly not true that in every society the coercive power of the central authority was deployed to maintain law and order among the populace. Generally it was deployed to keep the elites in check.
While local power centres may have employed people to keep order those people weren't acting as agents of a state.
Oh OK sure I was not thinking about the definition of the term "state". I thought the point of the quote was to say "well the police are bad because they are the big stick that the powers-that-be use to keep you in line". My point is that there has always been some sort of big stick used by the powers-that-be of the era, whether they were nation-states, barons or local gang lords. The police might be a less objectionable stick than some alternative sticks that have been used from time to time. As @Telford says they are at least supposed to have an ideal of public service, whether or not they live up to it in reality.
Should we trust the police force? Well, look at our judicial system. The police collect evidence and present it to the prosecutor. The prosecutor authorizes the arrest. The arrested person gets a preliminary hearing where the judge determines if there is enough evidence to proceed to trail. The trial happens--here in the US an accused person has the right to trial by jury, The jury decides the guilt or innocence of the accused. Then there is the appeals process, and the clemency process. In other words, there are a number of checks on the power of the police. We built the system because, frankly, we do not trust the police.
? Another mysterious abbreviation. It appears to stand for some sort of jewellery company or linked to cryptocurrency.
G*psy, Roma, and Travellers. It is an abbreviation that has been used on here quite a bit wrt recent Tory policy so didn't think it would be mysterious, sorry.
Should we trust the police force? Well, look at our judicial system. The police collect evidence and present it to the prosecutor. The prosecutor authorizes the arrest. The arrested person gets a preliminary hearing where the judge determines if there is enough evidence to proceed to trail. The trial happens--here in the US an accused person has the right to trial by jury, The jury decides the guilt or innocence of the accused. Then there is the appeals process, and the clemency process. In other words, there are a number of checks on the power of the police. We built the system because, frankly, we do not trust the police.
No I think that is a complete mischaracteristation of the situation! The police are part of the system that has been built - they are not some pre-existing part of the "state of nature"!
Comments
My father, from his experience as a county councillor, concluded that most of the police officers he met, had they not been employed by the police, would have been wanted by them.
Recent revelations in the Met have confirmed that verdict.
That's completely justified! I am not saying that we must trust the police: the police might be bad police. But @Caissa seemed to be saying that the police can never be trusted, precisely because they are the police.
That, alas, is the experience of some people in some places at some times.
And this would be - and indeed is - a real problem for civic society. And it has broader implications for e.g. politicians, judges, the media etcetera. If you don't trust the authorities on principle, then no authority will ever be any good because no-one will be prepared to make the very considerable efforts necessary to do better.
Yes, I tend to sympathise with that. How are the police going to be fair in an unfair society? As Lenin said, something or other. Your later point is interesting, is fairness possible? There are phases when it seems so, but inevitably the forces of repression come back. And if you're black, never.
That seems like a counsel of despair. Why bother with anything in that case?
No, no, there is always my Petula Clark music collection. Well, I don't see it as despair, it's the way society is. I don't have to identify with that.
But then that's also in a context where a disproportionate amount of state funding is spent on the police department and where funding for other activities - including ones which would be preventative - are often cut to bolster spending on law enforcement.
That misses the point, or points.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/nov/02/met-officers-jailed-for-sharing-offensive-messages-with-wayne-couzens
There's no art to find the mind's construction in the face, as the doomed King remarks in the Scottish play.
Otherwise apparently trustworthy coppers are betrayed by such as this egregious pair.
Anarchism and anarchy are different things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism
And here's the one on Anarchy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy
Different things, as @Pomona says.
OK. Take your pick.
Ralph Miliband's The State in Capitalist Society does a good job of discussing the police's role as the coercive arm of the state.
The OP gets close, but doesn't quite get there.
Neither of which will explain the state of affairs prior to 1829.
But surely you're not arguing that prior to 1829 there was no "coercive arm of the state"! There has always been a "coercive arm of the state", whether or not an official "police" body existed!
Over time the American police force has taken on more responsibilities that should have been the responsivity of another agency. As pointed out above, conservatives will likely defund helping agencies to overfund the police. The challenge is to rebalance all helping agencies including the police.
I once had two neighbors who were police. They were great neighbors and were very involved in the neighborhood and in the community. But I do recall a couple of times when they were called out because an officer was shot. Their families would experience a lot of stress until the incident was resolved. They always knew when the father put on the uniform, he was putting his life at risk.
Nevertheless, there are always officers who are bullies, basically. I have had some confrontations with those type of officers over the years. I just find the basic way to stand up to them is to do it with respect.
(Which as far as I can see is very much the line Terry Pratchett takes in his books about the Ankh-Morpork Watch. Pratchett is really interested in civics!)
Hold on to your hats !
Doublethink, Admin
A communist's viewpoint if that's what you want
Only if you think I am attacking Mr Milliband for being a communist
The fact that it is one adopted by communists is nether here nor there in relation to its accuracy. Like anyone else, communists are right about some things and wrong about others.
If you’re intending to disagree with/refute this viewpoint it behaves you to say why. The mere fact that communists hold this view doesn’t prove anything about it, one way or the other.
Random members of the public should not be required to have the expertise or knowledge to know what service is required. If there's someone yelling and banging on cars in your street, you probably feel unsafe. You need this unsafe situation to end. You don't know whether the person is angry at someone, or on drugs, or drunk, or mentally ill, and it's not your job to figure that out.
You want one "there's a problem that needs help I can't provide" number to call, and someone needs to come out and diagnose the problem. Who should those people be? Right now, that's the police, and they're not terribly good at it.
I don't trust communists to be objective about how good a Police Force is.
Yes, it's not ad hominem it's Bulverism. Different fallacy.
Why ? All communist states had police.
Yes but 'the coercive arm of the state' was not what the OP was basing his argument on.
It's certainly not true that in every society the coercive power of the central authority was deployed to maintain law and order among the populace. Generally it was deployed to keep the elites in check.
While local power centres may have employed people to keep order those people weren't acting as agents of a state.
Police that are there to support the state rather than the people.
Which was exactly how Peel's proposals were seen by the public.
Not by Roma themselves
There used to be claims that the Police went easy on Masons owing to common membership of both groups/. Now the Lodge is at out of fashion as the church, what non Police groups enjoy favour?
If that's true, the public got it wrong.
I would put it the other way round. Almost all of them...Yes I never favoured any group. I was never a Mason and never wanted to be a Mason.
Oh OK sure I was not thinking about the definition of the term "state". I thought the point of the quote was to say "well the police are bad because they are the big stick that the powers-that-be use to keep you in line". My point is that there has always been some sort of big stick used by the powers-that-be of the era, whether they were nation-states, barons or local gang lords. The police might be a less objectionable stick than some alternative sticks that have been used from time to time. As @Telford says they are at least supposed to have an ideal of public service, whether or not they live up to it in reality.
G*psy, Roma, and Travellers. It is an abbreviation that has been used on here quite a bit wrt recent Tory policy so didn't think it would be mysterious, sorry.
No I think that is a complete mischaracteristation of the situation! The police are part of the system that has been built - they are not some pre-existing part of the "state of nature"!