Can we trust the police?

[Alf]

It could be worse, we could have a police force like the Russians.

[CL]

Interesting point of view as always Chris! Would you say therefore that corrupt police are are merely a symptom of a wider problem with democracy itself?

Is anarchy the answer?!

It depends on the kind of democracy a country has. There are some basic rights that human beings have that should never be the subject of the vote. The problem is these rights are being gradually eroded through various laws, ironically the 'human rights' bill and also the equality act. When this happens it affects morale in a country very badly and particularly the police who may have to enforce some of these laws. It is these and other injustices that allow corruption to flourish in all areas of life because good people try to correct wrongs even if this means breaking the law.

In answer to your second question. No! anarchy creates gang rule more than a democracy with basic rights.

[OB1]

When this happens it affects moral in a country very badly..

Chris, do you mean 'morale'? if so I concur. If you mean 'morals'/'moral' then I'm not so sure, probably not, public personal morals 'should' be immune to this.

[IainR]

As in all institutions, there are good and bad.

I think the number of rotten law enforcement officers is growing rapidly.

The thing I don't like is how they appear to avoid justice in court for various reasons that are all in their favour.

Exactly... far too many are just scum, they still protect their own, always have, always will. There may be good ones but far too few will nail a colleague.

I played rugby with a few for a few years, always nasty, always wanting action against anyone who punched them, yet when they were charged with assault they'd be off work with stress 'liable to snap and punch someone'.. so case dropped..

Its just not changing.

We had one in North Wales, 100 mph through colwyn bay, lives there, yet tried to get off because the light on the 50 sign was out... I was caught there, I just owned up as clearly I knew it was a 50 so got the fine and points I deserved..

[noel]

CL, are you going to turn this thread into another 76-page affair on the definitions of liberty and freedom?

I watch with interest.

[TheHeathens]

You don't see the contradiction in your position? The standard to which the police work is set by the government and the government is selected by the majority of the people I.e. public.

I'll go further. People who vote do so for the parties that share their views most closely, knowing full well that once their party is elected they will create laws that discriminate against their opponents (very few vote for what is ideologically right). Who ultimately upholds these laws? The police of course.

This is true but I disagree on one point; when you vote for the party that most closely resembles your views you are voting for the party that you think is ideologically right, otherwise you wouldn't hold those views.

So if you have unjust laws you are less likely to attract and more likely to lose higher calibre people into the police force. It's obvious, just look at all dictatorships in history and compare the corruption in those police forces to the corruption in countries with greater freedom. Then you'll realise that what you write above isn't true.

I kind of agree on this bit. There's a lot of stupid laws introduced by bills such as the Bill of Human Rights that demoralise the police force

[CL]

Chris, do you mean 'morale'? if so I concur. If you mean 'morals'/'moral' then I'm not so sure, probably not, public personal morals 'should' be immune to this.

Yes the former.

[CL]

CL, are you going to turn this thread into another 76-page affair on the definitions of liberty and freedom?

I watch with interest.

Was the last one 76 pages? If it was I give you credit for your great memory.

[CL]

This is true but I disagree on one point; when you vote for the party that most closely resembles your views you are voting for the party that you think is ideologically right, otherwise you wouldn't hold those views.



I kind of agree on this bit. There's a lot of stupid laws introduced by bills such as the Bill of Human Rights that demoralise the police force

When I say 'ideologically right' I mean a set of political beliefs whose theory and practice are consistent with the requirements of human life.

A Marxist for instance could never be ideologically right because in both theory and practice it was and is evil.

[TheHeathens]

When I say 'ideologically right' I mean a set of political beliefs whose theory and practice are consistent with the requirements of human life.

A Marxist for instance could never be ideologically right because in both theory and practice it was and is evil.

I know what you mean but ideologies are subjective (they are ideals) so you are never going to get consensus. Four different people on this forum will have four different sets of political beliefs whose theory and practice they BELIEVE are consistent with the requirements of human life.

The definition of what is consistent with human life will vary between people. You and I believe (to differing degrees) in individual freedom whereas Carlos believes in the State being paramount. We will never reconcile those differences.