←back to thread

170 points flanked-evergl | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
HPsquared ◴[] No.43619828[source]
We've fallen quite far from the tradition of policing by consent as developed by Sir Robert Peel:

- Whether the police are effective is not measured on the number of arrests, but on the lack of crime.

- An effective authority figure knows trust and accountability are paramount. Hence, "The police are the public and the public are the police."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_principles

Edit: another choice quote from that article, from the Home Office itself in 2012:

"The Home Office defined the legitimacy of policing, in the eyes of the public, as based upon a general consensus of support that follows from transparency about their powers, their integrity in exercising those powers and their accountability for doing so."

replies(2): >>43619989 #>>43620263 #
p0w3n3d ◴[] No.43619989[source]
The problem is the people nowadays can be easily convinced that everything should be accessible, because

Ekhm

They have nothing to hide and...

Ekhm

They will be more safe

Thus the arguments about fighting terrorism and paedophilia...

replies(2): >>43620008 #>>43621328 #
johnisgood ◴[] No.43620008[source]
And in reality it has nothing to do with terrorism, nor paedophilia.
replies(1): >>43620063 #
dkdbejwi383 ◴[] No.43620063[source]
What does it have to do with in reality?
replies(3): >>43620069 #>>43629481 #>>43642765 #
Gud ◴[] No.43620069[source]
Obedient workers.
replies(2): >>43620142 #>>43622403 #
1. tim333 ◴[] No.43622403[source]
I don't buy that. I've met uk politicians and they are not really like that. However it may be more about being able to say to the voters that we are taking action against terror and paedos than actually catching any.
replies(1): >>43631297 #
2. johnisgood ◴[] No.43631297[source]
It is definitely partly about just to be able to claim "we did something".