[A Cat]

Since 1990, the Police Force of the United Kingdom has been responsible for 1500 deaths which occurred when the victim was in custody or in contact.

Ian Tomlinson was not the only person who was physically abused at the G20 riots, yet media has us believe that he was 'pushed' as opposed to 'killed'.

Jean Charles De Menezes was shot a seven times in the head on flimsy 'information'. The Met police cordoned off the crime scene for six days, meanwhile preventing the IPCC from undertaking any investigations as they are commissioned to in every case of a death at the hands of the police.

6 men (immigrants, does that make them subhuman?) were held by armed terror police due to making a joke. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11360568

Dale Cregan, the man responsible for shooting two police officers, was previously released on bail for committing a grenade attack which ended the life of two people and injuring more.

Between 2010 and 2011, the number of people who had been subject to stop and search powers by police in England and Wales was 60,963, of which the Met Police was responsible for 53,509. Is London really harbouring fifty thousand terrorists?

In 2009/2010, 101,248 stop and searches were made under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000, but only one in every 200 led to an arrest and none of these were terror-related.

These are just a fraction of some reported misdeeds by the police. While they do catch scumbags like Dale Cregan, and their work in detaining dangerous criminals must be praised, I put to you the question whether you trust the police, and whether you think we as a public need them at such a level of power.

My view is that since most humans have a conscience, i.e. that which seperates the act of stroking a cat and snapping its neck, and further attaches feeling to these actions, whether mind-made or real, that we do not need the police at such a level of power. There is a reason that most people do not kill each other or attempt to procure grenades - it is because we know these actions are wrong - not by law, by inner feeling. When the policeman tells you to get off your bike, why should you? Are you doing anything wrong by your conscience's standards? To put the policeman at his simplest, truest form, he is just a man on the street telling you what to do and what not to do.

I think we should have police at some level, since 1% of people are psychopaths and thus predisposed to evil, and it's quite likely that at its present level, there are many psychopaths in the police forces abusing their power. Power which you give to them by recognising an fabricated authority.

I would like to hear your views. Do we need the police? Do we need them at this level of power?

[Cannotbelieveit]

Anarchist?

The Police Service is a vital part of civilisation as we know it, if it wasn't for them there would be chaos on the streets, and people would be afraid to go outdoors into a lawless world.

We, as citizens of the UK, owe them a lot.

[Clip]

(Original post by Samrout)
I think we should have police at some level, since 1% of people are psychopaths and thus predisposed to evil, and it's quite likely that at its present level, there are many psychopaths in the police forces abusing their power. Power which you give to them by recognising an fabricated authority.

I would like to hear your views. Do we need the police? Do we need them at this level of power?

I think you are clearly very misguided.

If you believe this, then the police are the least of your worries.

How about the 1.4 million people in the NHS? Including 200,000 doctors and 350,000 nurses? So there are 2000 psychopathic doctors and 3500 psychopathic nurses - all capable of much greater damage than the police.

How about the 500,000 teachers in the country? Worried much?

[A Cat]

(Original post by Cannotbelieveit)
Anarchist?

The Police Service is a vital part of civilisation as we know it, if it wasn't for them there would be chaos on the streets, and people would be afraid to go outdoors into a lawless world.

We, as citizens of the UK, owe them a lot.

Would you, your friends, your family, incite chaos should the police suddenly disappear? Or do you believe that such an action is wrong, not by law which is a derivative of our conscience and others' special interests, but by an inner power?

If you label me, you negate me.

[A Cat]

(Original post by Clip)
I think you are clearly very misguided.

If you believe this, then the police are the least of your worries.

How about the 1.4 million people in the NHS? Including 200,000 doctors and 350,000 nurses? So there are 2000 psychopathic doctors and 3500 psychopathic nurses - all capable of much greater damage than the police.

How about the 500,000 teachers in the country? Worried much?

Yes, I am. However, I do know that most psychopaths do not see killing and physical abuse as an option to get what they want. Aren't you concerned? Shouldn't we all be?

[Joinedup]

What's your alternative to having a police force and attempting to learn from mistakes when they happen?

[Clip]

(Original post by Samrout)
Yes, I am. However, I do know that most psychopaths do not see killing and physical abuse as an option to get what they want. Aren't you concerned? Shouldn't we all be?

No. I think the whole basis of this idea is fatally flawed.

Where does the idea that 1% of all people are psychopaths come from?

Jon Ronson - a journalist who penned a booked purporting to have developed a test for psychopathy - which 1% of people are apparently detected by.

And what qualifies Jon Ronson to develop this test? Is it his Degree in Media Studies from Westminster Polytechnic by any chance? Or is it more likely that is where he learned that you can become a best-selling author by sensationalising nonsense?

[Hearty_Beast]

Just because most people are happy to live peacefully, and don't necessarily need a police service. (I don't think I've ever needed, or asked the police for anything) doesn't mean we should get rid of them!

The police do more than just 'catch bad guys' - they have many roles (including working with communities, traffic offences, developing community knowledge and more!) and their presence alone is enough to deter a lot of crime in this country.

Also, your assumption that we should reduce the police force because there aren't many criminals is flawed! The reason there isn't horrendous levels of crime (though there's still a fair bit!) is because we have such a good police force acting as a deterrent, combined with a justice system that will ensure you pay for breaking the law.
You presume that the reason most people don't kill each other because they have a conscience - but I'm sure that the fact they know they probably wouldn't be able to get away with it is a factor!

[A Cat]

(Original post by Joinedup)
What's your alternative to having a police force and attempting to learn from mistakes when they happen?

Firstly. Learning from mistakes when they happen? One either does that or they disregard there was ever a mistake, which is often the case in police 'wrongdoing'.

My alternative to the present is a police force which do not use intimidation as a legitimate and learned way of communication. A limited force which does not have the powers of stop-and-search, and can differentiate victim-related crime like physical abuse, murder, rape, child abuse, financial fraud etc, and non-victim related crime like speeding, drug use, and uh.. dogging. At the moment the police have an attitude of 'the public exist to answer to them'. This is not actually the legal case. I advise anyone here, when questioned by the police, to ask them back, "Am I legally obligated to answer?". If you don't get a straight answer from them then you can count on that you're not legally obligated.

[A Cat]

(Original post by Clip)
No. I think the whole basis of this idea is fatally flawed.

Where does the idea that 1% of all people are psychopaths come from?

Jon Ronson - a journalist who penned a booked purporting to have developed a test for psychopathy - which 1% of people are apparently detected by.

And what qualifies Jon Ronson to develop this test? Is it his Degree in Media Studies from Westminster Polytechnic by any chance? Or is it more likely that is where he learned that you can become a best-selling author by sensationalising nonsense?

Ronson actually based a lot of his work on that of Robert Hare who has been given high honours in his home country of Canada for the work he did. Deny the existence of psychopathy all you like, if ignorance is really bliss to you - it's pain to me.

Cleckley in the late 40's followed up by Hare towards the end of the 20th Century accomplished the exhaustive profile of a psychopath. If you would care to read any of their books you would find yourself a little more knowledgable. I do agree that psychopathy is a topic one must be directly affected by/experienced in order to gain an insight or even interest. Since most of us on this forum are very young, in most cases we have yet to meet one.

[Aj12]

Since 1990, the Police Force of the United Kingdom has been responsible for 1500 deaths which occurred when the victim was in custody or in contact.

Well this has to be the most meaningless statistic I have ever seen. As far as I am aware the above will include those who die fleeing from police and a dozen other things. Whilst it sounds a shocking number if you actually see what constitutes custody or contact it's really not.

[MagicNMedicine]

Andrew Mitchell's eloquent call has been the spark that could lead us to revolution and freedom from police oppression!

[flyylikejetz]

(Original post by Samrout)
Would you, your friends, your family, incite chaos should the police suddenly disappear? Or do you believe that such an action is wrong, not by law which is a derivative of our conscience and others' special interests, but by an inner power?

If you label me, you negate me.

When i read this i was like, woaah , deep.

[A Cat]

(Original post by Hearty_Beast)
Just because most people are happy to live peacefully, and don't necessarily need a police service. (I don't think I've ever needed, or asked the police for anything) doesn't mean we should get rid of them!

The police do more than just 'catch bad guys' - they have many roles (including working with communities, traffic offences, developing community knowledge and more!) and their presence alone is enough to deter a lot of crime in this country.

No, I don't think they should be eliminated either, as a group is needed to keep the peace. However this working with communities ****e - what a load of toss. Cops are tasked with keeping the peace, preventing crime, and resolving disputes. They are more often than not, away from the right place at the right time, and most of my experiences with them has been less than beneficial. It is also what constitutes a 'crime' that we must look to change.

Also, your assumption that we should reduce the police force because there aren't many criminals is flawed! The reason there isn't horrendous levels of crime (though there's still a fair bit!) is because we have such a good police force acting as a deterrent, combined with a justice system that will ensure you pay for breaking the law.
You presume that the reason most people don't kill each other because they have a conscience - but I'm sure that the fact they know they probably wouldn't be able to get away with it is a factor!

We should look to synthesis in that, if one were to disregard their conscience, there is the safety net of society and the police to ensure that the person is reponsible for their actions.

However what I believe is different. I do not think we need this system. It (the parasites) needs us. Just remember who the parasites are: "an animal or plant that lives in or on another (the host) from which it obtains nourishment. The host does not benefit from the association and is often harmed by it". This is a test of how brainwashed you are. Did you think of benefits claimants or the monetary elite?

Did the stop and searches of 2011 act as a deterrent to crime? Recognise that the London riots happened that same year.

[A Cat]

(Original post by Aj12)
Since 1990, the Police Force of the United Kingdom has been responsible for 1500 deaths which occurred when the victim was in custody or in contact.

Well this has to be the most meaningless statistic I have ever seen. As far as I am aware the above will include those who die fleeing from police and a dozen other things. Whilst it sounds a shocking number if you actually see what constitutes custody or contact it's really not.

You are a man on the street. I am a man on the street.

You say to me, 'stop! I want to search your pockets!".

I say, "No" and proceed to run away.

You give chase, catch me because I smoke too many cigs, and pound my head in so that I am unable to recieve life. Justified? Shocking? This is what happens at its simplest level. (Albeit some cops may have good reason to search someone, that does not mean they should be killed).

[Architecture-er]

(Original post by Samrout)
Since 1990, the Police Force of the United Kingdom has been responsible for 1500 deaths which occurred when the victim was in custody or in contact.

Source please.

[Architecture-er]

(Original post by Samrout)
You are a man on the street. I am a man on the street.

You say to me, 'stop! I want to search your pockets!".

I say, "No" and proceed to run away.

You give chase, catch me because I smoke too many cigs, and pound my head in so that I am unable to recieve life. Justified? Shocking? This is what happens at its simplest level. (Albeit some cops may have good reason to search someone, that does not mean they should be killed).

You're spouting bull**** hyperbole in order to try and justify your ludicrous claims.

[A Cat]

(Original post by Architecture-er)
Source please.

Opinion, please.

(Original post by Aj12)
this may be of interest to you

http://inquest.gn.apc.org/website/st...police-custody

There is data for police custody and pursuit etc whatever.

[A Cat]

(Original post by Architecture-er)
You're spouting bull**** hyperbole in order to try and justify your ludicrous claims.

What is bull ****? What is hyperbole? What is a ludicrous claim? Look at the stats anyway.

[lightburns]

(Original post by Clip)
No. I think the whole basis of this idea is fatally flawed.

Where does the idea that 1% of all people are psychopaths come from?

Jon Ronson - a journalist who penned a booked purporting to have developed a test for psychopathy - which 1% of people are apparently detected by.

And what qualifies Jon Ronson to develop this test? Is it his Degree in Media Studies from Westminster Polytechnic by any chance? Or is it more likely that is where he learned that you can become a best-selling author by sensationalising nonsense?

Huh? Jon Ronson is a journalist who talked about psychologists in the field. He didn't develop a test. Why would he?! He's a journalist!

No, the figure comes from people like Robert D. Hare. What qualifies him? Is it his PhD in experimental psychology, or maybe his 35 years researching psychopathy?

Ronson, as a journalist, wrote a book basically reporting on this. As is kind of in the job description as a journalist.