Are the Police the Public?

**John Little** · 11-Oct-11, 20:27

The principles of policing are the acid test;

Principles of policing

The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.
The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon the public approval of police actions.
Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observation of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.
The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.
Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.
Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice, and warning is found to be insufficient.
Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions, and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.
The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.

Discuss....

**Leanne** · 11-Oct-11, 20:36

I blame the parents!

**John Little** · 11-Oct-11, 20:39

[QUOTE=Leanne;895140]I blame the parents![/QUOTE

So do I!

**John Little** · 11-Oct-11, 20:43

Oink- Oink?

**Leanne** · 11-Oct-11, 20:59

Originally Posted by John Little

Oink- Oink?

Oh don't - 2 kg more and she's ready for the freezer

**John Little** · 11-Oct-11, 21:00

But that is neither compulsory nor inevitable...

**orkneycadian** · 11-Oct-11, 21:07

You forgot Item 10 - Supporting local doughnut shops!

**John Little** · 11-Oct-11, 21:09

LOL! I would rep you again for that if I could!!!

**David Banks** · 11-Oct-11, 21:20

Originally Posted by John Little

7. Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

Tell us more about this historic tradition.

I thought the police received specialised equipment and training, and are authorised to use force including deadly force when circumstances deem necessary.

Do the police "preach" that taking actions in the same way as they do is "incumbent upon every citizen" ?

**ducati** · 11-Oct-11, 21:20

You forgot helpfulness in negotiating stairs.

**John Little** · 11-Oct-11, 21:31

Originally Posted by David Banks

Tell us more about this historic tradition.

I thought the police received specialised equipment and training, and are authorised to use force including deadly force when circumstances deem necessary.

Do the police "preach" that taking actions in the same way as they do is "incumbent upon every citizen" ?

David - I think that's how they would like to be perceived. Those points are supposed to be Robert Peel's principles when he set the police up in 1828 though authorship is disputed. Personally I could dispute every one of them in my own dealings with Kent police. They are not the public imho but an arm of the state whose purpose is social control. The rest is propaganda and wishful thinking.

**oldmarine** · 12-Oct-11, 02:51

Originally Posted by Leanne

I blame the parents!

Responsible parents should be the first line of defence.

**Aaldtimer** · 12-Oct-11, 03:34

Originally Posted by Leanne

I blame the parents!

Isn't it a commonly held belief that police don't have fathers?

**sandyr1** · 12-Oct-11, 15:59

Originally Posted by John Little

David - I think that's how they would like to be perceived. Those points are supposed to be Robert Peel's principles when he set the police up in 1828 though authorship is disputed. Personally I could dispute every one of them in my own dealings with Kent police. They are not the public imho but an arm of the state whose purpose is social control. The rest is propaganda and wishful thinking.

Awesome... awesome!

Perhaps I shud add to my awesome...Totally (Adjective) awesome attitude! You should be proud!

**Gronnuck** · 12-Oct-11, 17:44

Originally Posted by Aaldtimer

Isn't it a commonly held belief that police don't have fathers?

I'm the father of a policeman and proud of the job he tries to do. Currently he's working in the 'response' role. Unfortunately because of manning levels he often has to attend incidents unaccompanied, with doubtful possibilities of any backup. He's dealt with the dead and the dying. He's faced all manner of verbal and physical abuse. Every incident generates a myriad of paperwork to support a 'report' which means he spends more time filling in paperwork than he does preventing crime and disorder. Even when a report leads to a court appearance the case can be dismissed out of hand because the court is over-booked. People have walked away from a court scot-free because there wasn't time in the schedule for the case against them to be heard!
The police are hard pressed to do a thankless job and things are getting worse. Little wonder cynicism sets in.
The next time you decide to have a 'pop' at a policeman or women because they are not giving you their full attention think on this - have they really just come from a donut shop or have they just come from telling a mother her child has been killed in an RTA.

**John Little** · 12-Oct-11, 17:49

The problem, in a nutshell, is here.

I recognise what is said in this document very well indeed...

http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/PublicAndThePolice.pdf

**sandyr1** · 12-Oct-11, 19:31

[QUOTE=John Little;895168]David - I think that's how they would like to be perceived. Those points are supposed to be Robert Peel's principles when he set the police up in 1828 though authorship is disputed. Personally I could dispute every one of them in my own dealings with Kent police. They are not the public imho but an arm of the state whose purpose is social control. The rest is propaganda and wishful thinking.[/QUOTE]

Gronnuck
At first I wasn't going to comment on this 'Garbage Statement', but I am glad that someone else understands..
The originator of this thread has done this before/ totally anti Police, and to our detriment this man is supposed to be a 'Super Educator'.. A Professor..perhaps this is why so many people have an attitude towards Police. This is a man who lauded himself in one thread for getting some kindergarten child to graduate!

I personally think that this 'junk writing', this anti Police stance does no one any good, particularly our younger people.
Yes there are problems but the Police are human beings like the rest of us. They have their good and bad days and some interpret the law differently. I supervised many over the years, and as long as the job is done then we have been successfull.
If some people have issues with the Law/ the way it is being enforced or any other issues, they should contact the appropriate authorities
and get it resolved there, not bring up a totally Anti Police Thread. As I said this is not the first time...but I am sure this person will again complain about me to his Buddy the Mod, and perhaps I shall get another Official Warning...The last time it was for asking who he was. It is patently obvious who this man is as he says so himself, with 'letters' behind his name, with his occupation etc etc connected to Facebook, but the reason I asked was that I could not believe one who is supposed to be a Professional, could think up such drivel!
I hate getting into this, but someone has to say enough is enough.

**Gronnuck** · 12-Oct-11, 20:20

All the high minded principles don’t count for diddlie-squat when you’re struggling with a junkie who’s about to leap from a ten storey window while his neighbours (the public?) yell encouragement. It’s easy for the armchair pundits to criticise a policeman who has been a bit off hand with them when he’s spent the morning cutting down a young mother to try and save her after she’s hung herself from her upstairs landing. Many members of our police service witness appalling behaviour every day, many are visited by tragedy every day – how can they possibly be ‘the public.’ The world is very different from the one Robert Peel knew when he started out.
As for the critics - there's always the Police Complaints Commission.

**John Little** · 12-Oct-11, 20:56

Gronnuck - I do not disagree with what you say, and I'm glad that you ask 'how can they possibly be the public?' The answer of course is that they cannot be.

My cousin is a policeman and he would agree with what you say.

The Peelian principles are clearly out of date.

But I would be very curious to know what you think of Hannah Sergeant's executive summary - not the whole document for it is just a re-statement of what is in the summary.

Would we have better policing if local control were re-instated, and would public perception of the Police be improved if they were not under direct Home Office control?

What she says about Middle class Middle aged people losing faith in the Police is, in my experience, very true.

The Police Complaints Commission refers complaints to the force being complained about for resolution. It does not provide independent resolution but accepts as default what the complained about force does. It is not a satisfactory mechanism for the actions of a minority of officers who, in our case, were way out of line. The PCC resolved our problem but in the process they destroyed my faith in our local force. If you are curious I can tell you more thought it's a bit tedious.