Oh Dear, Mr PoliceMan In A Little Bit More Trouble Than First Thought.
23 April 2009, 12:49 AM
#91
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Pot Belly HQ
Posts: 16,694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pride
Integrity
Guts
Despite all of the hatred shown towards cops on SN, I must admit, I do love my job and am proud to serve the community. I think it must be the job which has the most nicknames associated with it.
The old principles of Robert Peel have already been posted and it has been suggested that times have changed since Peels day. True. If you look at the uniform from say 20 years ago, compared to the current kit.
I know cops who joined 20 years ago, and there uniform and kit consisted of tunic, shirt, trousers, flexible handcuffs, truncheon, helmet and pocket notebook. As the severity of crime and the risk of danger has increased, so has the uniform. As a response cop, I wear trousers, shirt, fleece (tunic for court) body armour (knife and bullet proof), rigid handcuffs, extandable friction lock Asp, CS spray, limb restraints, re-enforced helmet and tactical boots with re-enforced toe-caps. If we didn't need it, it wouldn't be issued to us as the money would rather be spent on employing more officers.
A brief history and the principles of good policing:
The period from 1674 - 1834 "Hue and Cry" Those who witnessed a felony had an obligation to arrest those responsible for the crime. If summoned by a constable to join the hue and cry, the public were required to join in the pursuit of the felon.
1739 saw the advent of the Bow Street Runners who were sent out to detect and apprehend culprits. This was introduced in order to deter criminals by increasing certainty that they would be prosecuted and detected.
1829 saw Robert Peel set up the Met.
1914 - Women Police Service set up by Margaret Dawson, an anti-white slavery campaigner and Nina Boyle, a militant suffragette.
Principles of Good Policing
-------------------------
The following set of principles, which lay out in the clearest and most succinct terms the philosophy of policing by consent, appeared as an appendix to A New Study of Police History by Charles Reith (London: Oliver and Boyd, 1956). Reith was a lifelong historian of the police force in Britain, and this book covers the early years of Metropolitan Police following the passage of Sir Robert Peel's 'Bill for Improving the Police in and near the Metropolis' on 19 June 1829. Reith notes that there are particular problems involved in writing police history, owing to the loss or destruction of much early archive material, and, probably for this reason, the principles appear without details of author or date.
However, it seems most likely that they were composed by Charles Rowan and Richard Mayne, as the first and joint Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police. Rowan was a military man and Mayne, fourteen years his junior, a barrister. Rowan retired in 1850 leaving Mayne as sole Commissioner until his death in 1868. The sentiments expressed in the 'Nine Principles' reflect those contained in the 'General Instructions', first published in 1829, which were issued to every member of the Metropolitan Police, especially the emphasis on prevention of crime as the most important duty of the police.
Reith notes that Rowan and Mayne's conception of a police force was 'unique in history and throughout the world because it derived not from fear but almost exclusively from public co-operation with the police, induced by them designedly by behaviour which secures and maintains for them the approval, respect and affection of the public' (p. 140).
The Nine Principles of Policing
1. To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment.
2. To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfil their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.
3. To recognise always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing co-operation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws.
4. To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.
5. To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion; but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour; and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.
6. To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.
7. To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that 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 on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
8. To recognise always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.
9. To recognise always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.
-----------------------
I was talking to my barber who was in the military at the time of the Miners Strikes, he revealed to me that many of his colleagues were given Police uniforms and sent in to break the strike. The question here is, who is at fault here, the police or the Government for issuing this order? Should the Government break the first principle of policing (To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force)? How would it look for the Government to turn it's military forces on it's own public? Would that dop more damage than dressing up a few soldiers in police uniform? Would they do it again? Have they done it again? That would certainly explain why collar numbers were not visible as soldiers wouldn't have collar numbers to hide...
Integrity
Guts
Despite all of the hatred shown towards cops on SN, I must admit, I do love my job and am proud to serve the community. I think it must be the job which has the most nicknames associated with it.
The old principles of Robert Peel have already been posted and it has been suggested that times have changed since Peels day. True. If you look at the uniform from say 20 years ago, compared to the current kit.
I know cops who joined 20 years ago, and there uniform and kit consisted of tunic, shirt, trousers, flexible handcuffs, truncheon, helmet and pocket notebook. As the severity of crime and the risk of danger has increased, so has the uniform. As a response cop, I wear trousers, shirt, fleece (tunic for court) body armour (knife and bullet proof), rigid handcuffs, extandable friction lock Asp, CS spray, limb restraints, re-enforced helmet and tactical boots with re-enforced toe-caps. If we didn't need it, it wouldn't be issued to us as the money would rather be spent on employing more officers.
A brief history and the principles of good policing:
The period from 1674 - 1834 "Hue and Cry" Those who witnessed a felony had an obligation to arrest those responsible for the crime. If summoned by a constable to join the hue and cry, the public were required to join in the pursuit of the felon.
1739 saw the advent of the Bow Street Runners who were sent out to detect and apprehend culprits. This was introduced in order to deter criminals by increasing certainty that they would be prosecuted and detected.
1829 saw Robert Peel set up the Met.
1914 - Women Police Service set up by Margaret Dawson, an anti-white slavery campaigner and Nina Boyle, a militant suffragette.
Principles of Good Policing
-------------------------
The following set of principles, which lay out in the clearest and most succinct terms the philosophy of policing by consent, appeared as an appendix to A New Study of Police History by Charles Reith (London: Oliver and Boyd, 1956). Reith was a lifelong historian of the police force in Britain, and this book covers the early years of Metropolitan Police following the passage of Sir Robert Peel's 'Bill for Improving the Police in and near the Metropolis' on 19 June 1829. Reith notes that there are particular problems involved in writing police history, owing to the loss or destruction of much early archive material, and, probably for this reason, the principles appear without details of author or date.
However, it seems most likely that they were composed by Charles Rowan and Richard Mayne, as the first and joint Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police. Rowan was a military man and Mayne, fourteen years his junior, a barrister. Rowan retired in 1850 leaving Mayne as sole Commissioner until his death in 1868. The sentiments expressed in the 'Nine Principles' reflect those contained in the 'General Instructions', first published in 1829, which were issued to every member of the Metropolitan Police, especially the emphasis on prevention of crime as the most important duty of the police.
Reith notes that Rowan and Mayne's conception of a police force was 'unique in history and throughout the world because it derived not from fear but almost exclusively from public co-operation with the police, induced by them designedly by behaviour which secures and maintains for them the approval, respect and affection of the public' (p. 140).
The Nine Principles of Policing
1. To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment.
2. To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfil their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.
3. To recognise always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing co-operation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws.
4. To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.
5. To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion; but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour; and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.
6. To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.
7. To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that 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 on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
8. To recognise always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.
9. To recognise always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.
-----------------------
I was talking to my barber who was in the military at the time of the Miners Strikes, he revealed to me that many of his colleagues were given Police uniforms and sent in to break the strike. The question here is, who is at fault here, the police or the Government for issuing this order? Should the Government break the first principle of policing (To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force)? How would it look for the Government to turn it's military forces on it's own public? Would that dop more damage than dressing up a few soldiers in police uniform? Would they do it again? Have they done it again? That would certainly explain why collar numbers were not visible as soldiers wouldn't have collar numbers to hide...
Last edited by ScoobyWon't; 23 April 2009 at 01:10 AM.
23 April 2009, 12:06 PM
#92
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Wanting the English to come first in England for a change!
Posts: 2,091
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ROFLCOPTER @ all the coppers on here trying to justify pushing someone from behind, lashing out at women with batons, twatting people with their shields, etc etc! 
Ill tell you what, ill go and push a copper from behind, nick his baton then randomly tw@ a woman with it and she how hard the law comes down on me, and ill bet its much harder that it will come down on one of its own brethren.
Yet again, its one rule for us and one rule for them!
The G20 coppers acted like complete *****, theres no two ways about it, so stop trying to make it all seem as if its been blown out of all proportion!
Ill tell you what, ill go and push a copper from behind, nick his baton then randomly tw@ a woman with it and she how hard the law comes down on me, and ill bet its much harder that it will come down on one of its own brethren.
Yet again, its one rule for us and one rule for them!
The G20 coppers acted like complete *****, theres no two ways about it, so stop trying to make it all seem as if its been blown out of all proportion!
23 April 2009, 12:26 PM
#93
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Disco, Disco!
Posts: 21,825
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ROFLCOPTER @ all the coppers on here trying to justify pushing someone from behind, lashing out at women with batons, twatting people with their shields, etc etc!
Ill tell you what, ill go and push a copper from behind, nick his baton then randomly tw@ a woman with it and she how hard the law comes down on me, and ill bet its much harder that it will come down on one of its own brethren.
Yet again, its one rule for us and one rule for them!
The G20 coppers acted like complete *****, theres no two ways about it, so stop trying to make it all seem as if its been blown out of all proportion!
Ill tell you what, ill go and push a copper from behind, nick his baton then randomly tw@ a woman with it and she how hard the law comes down on me, and ill bet its much harder that it will come down on one of its own brethren.
Yet again, its one rule for us and one rule for them!
The G20 coppers acted like complete *****, theres no two ways about it, so stop trying to make it all seem as if its been blown out of all proportion!
Are you saying all the cops at the G20 protests where out of control???
I do not agree with what happend to the protester who died, there does seem to be more to it than meets the eye. As for the female protester tw@tted by a cop, she swore right in his face and hit him, seems like she got what she deserved. Too many people who know their rights but not thier responsibilities in this country and we are all suffering for it in one way or another.
Oh and a little less tarring with the same brush, it show a real lack of intelligence and common sense!
23 April 2009, 03:54 PM
#94
Scooby Regular
Are you saying all the cops at the G20 protests where out of control???
I do not agree with what happend to the protester who died, there does seem to be more to it than meets the eye. As for the female protester tw@tted by a cop, she swore right in his face and hit him, seems like she got what she deserved. Too many people who know their rights but not thier responsibilities in this country and we are all suffering for it in one way or another.
Oh and a little less tarring with the same brush, it show a real lack of intelligence and common sense!
I do not agree with what happend to the protester who died, there does seem to be more to it than meets the eye. As for the female protester tw@tted by a cop, she swore right in his face and hit him, seems like she got what she deserved. Too many people who know their rights but not thier responsibilities in this country and we are all suffering for it in one way or another.
Oh and a little less tarring with the same brush, it show a real lack of intelligence and common sense!
What kind of post did you expect from someone who lists his location as "in a cloud of weed smoke"
GC8WRX - aka "swampy"?...
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post