Wishy washy policing

[Chippy_boy]

Firstly, we are policed ‘by consent’ ie ‘the power of the police coming from the common consent of the public, as opposed to the power of the state.’

Secondly, the current UK Govt does not have the police manpower to enforce the ‘power of the state’ even if they, like yourself, would rather they could do this and beat the living shit out of people they do not like.

Thirdly, seriously, move to Hong Kong, you’ll like the police there, and take Patel with you, she’ll be happier than a pig in shit.

Hahahahaha, another Tory bashing post from one of the resident lefties.

First, the "consent" is granted by the duly elected parliament mate. And with such consent the police are able to uphold the laws whether joe public likes it or not.

Second, your hatred of anything to do with a duly elected Tory government shines through everything you post. That you would state the the police would rather beat the living shit out of people? Well that says a lot about you, doesn't it.

Third. As if no proof were needed, you confirm it admirably.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

WTF has China and police states got to do with the price of bread. The law is not a set of optional guidelines. Is it unreasonable to ask the police to uphold it? No, it is not.

It's crap thinking like yours which has got us into this lawless mess.

I cycle to work and I can assure you that a fair proportion of other road users treat the Approved Code of Conduct/guidelines associated with the Road Traffic Act 1988, AKA The Highway Code as 'optional'.

 

[Chippy_boy]

I cycle to work and I can assure you that a fair proportion of other road users treat the Approved Code of Conduct/guidelines associated with the Road Traffic Act 1988, AKA The Highway Code as 'optional'.

I can well believe it!

 

[Nightmare Walking]

Easy, I've seen the pictures and what you wrote. QED.

BTW, did you actually READ my opening post? It would appear you did not.

Is it "unreasonable" for the police to state what the law is, rather than to "ask for people to be supportive"?

Is it "Impractical" for the police to say that people breaking the law may face prosecution?

Is it "impossible" for the police to issue more fines than the typical none which get dished out at present?.

EDIT: Never mind, who cares what you think.

You don't even know whether anyone has broken the law, you don't know the law and have jumped to conclusions.

It's easy to get on your high horse and chuck out soundbytes like lock them all up, or fine them. It is a whole different matter with coming up with a feasible plan to do it.

You used a picture to try and validate your opinion. I asked you to point out any person you could see in the picture who was actually doing anything wrong, you could not do that. I then asked how could the police realistically fine or prosecute everyone in the picture, you could not answer that.

Your solution to what you perceive is a problem is totally impractical and never going to happen.

 

[Chippy_boy]

You don't even know whether anyone has broken the law, you don't know the law and have jumped to conclusions.

It's easy to get on your high horse and chuck out soundbytes like lock them all up, or fine them. It is a whole different matter with coming up with a feasible plan to do it.

You used a picture to try and validate your opinion. I asked you to point out any person you could see in the picture who was actually doing anything wrong, you could not do that. I then asked how could the police realistically fine or prosecute everyone in the picture, you could not answer that.

Your solution to what you perceive is a problem is totally impractical and never going to happen.

"What I perceive is a problem"? Comedy gold. You started out being vaguely reasonable but in your desperation to defend the indefensible, have spiralled down into this la la land of complete nonsense. Mind the step.

 

[Nightmare Walking]

"What I perceive is a problem"? Comedy gold.

Validate you view that people gathering outside poses a threat of civil infection. The government does not think they do, as they are now allowing it.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Validate you view that people gathering outside poses a threat of civil infection. The government does not think they do, as they are now allowing it.

I do not need to validate anything to you. But putting that aside, WTF are you talking about. Are you now suggesting that people should just be free to break the law because they don't agree with it? The law is 6 or two households. Not "as many as you like because there's no evidence it might infect people". You've lost the plot pal.

BTW, I am putting you on ignore now. You've long since ceased to add any meaningful contribution IMO. Enjoy your Easter break.

 

[FantasyIreland]

Your solution to what you perceive is a problem is totally impractical and never going to happen.

There was very much a problem last night at Castlefield bowl,not perception....but fact.

 

[BobKowalski]

Hahahahaha, another Tory bashing post from one of the resident lefties.

First, the "consent" is granted by the duly elected parliament mate. And with such consent the police are able to uphold the laws whether joe public likes it or not.

Second, your hatred of anything to do with a duly elected Tory government shines through everything you post. That you would state the the police would rather beat the living shit out of people? Well that says a lot about you, doesn't it.

Third. As if no proof were needed, you confirm it admirably.

The definition I cited was from the Home Office. It’s a fundamental principle of UK policing namely “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"

Your OP criticised the very notion of public co-operation and bemoaned the lack of ‘fear’ and want such ‘fear’ to be instilled by force, which is not very British.

 

[BobKowalski]

I feel your first two paragraphs are excellent points, I think the third was a little rude and suggests you may be 'a bit of a ****' - and not in a good way like myself.

Yes.