But nothing happens in isolation.As I've said above, you just cannot realistically expect any society to behave lawfully if the upholders of the law do not. Every single incidence of illegal and/or heavy-handed police activity erodes their position as upholders of peace and the rule of law a little futher. That is a dangerous thing to happen, and the current situation is in no way unrelated to that fact.
Very very clearly, there are a large number of people involved in the current situation who are just assholes looking for an opportunity to steal and destroy. But the underlying disaffected mood of many people in the UK did not appear overnight, nor did their distrust and anger at authority, and it is not entirely without cause.
(Very very clearly, there are a large number of people involved in the current situation who are just assholes looking for an opportunity to steal and destroy. But the underlying disaffected mood of many people in the UK did not appear overnight, nor did their distrust and anger at authority, and it is not entirely without cause.
mofaha ┐( ˘_˘)┌ ʅ(́◡◝)ʃ,
Tue 9 Aug 2011, 17:33,
archived)
That is verychicken and egg. Do the police overstep the mark causing riots, or do riots cause the police to overstep the mark?
As i rarely break the law, it doesn't seem to affect me much, which might be a clue.
(As i rarely break the law, it doesn't seem to affect me much, which might be a clue.
TheSundaeLunch I'm a fucking shrub, alright?,
Tue 9 Aug 2011, 17:42,
archived)
The answer of course is that the police must not overstep the mark.They are there to uphold the rule of law, and if that means breaking the law themselves, then by definition that can never work, can it?
The UK is a fairly robust democracy, at least on the surface. If the current laws don't work, they can be changed.
Really though, it will make no difference if the methods of policing and enforcement do not change for the better.
If you really don't think there's a problem with current methods then I guess we're never going to find any common ground. Personally though I think there's a situation in the UK now that echoes that in some parts of the US, for instance Baltimore, where the cops are basically at war with a large section of society. You don't have to be a genius to see where that goes: it just escalates.
(The UK is a fairly robust democracy, at least on the surface. If the current laws don't work, they can be changed.
Really though, it will make no difference if the methods of policing and enforcement do not change for the better.
If you really don't think there's a problem with current methods then I guess we're never going to find any common ground. Personally though I think there's a situation in the UK now that echoes that in some parts of the US, for instance Baltimore, where the cops are basically at war with a large section of society. You don't have to be a genius to see where that goes: it just escalates.
mofaha ┐( ˘_˘)┌ ʅ(́◡◝)ʃ,
Tue 9 Aug 2011, 17:57,
archived)
I hear what you say.But to quote an old cliche, with freedom comes responsibility. Yes, the police should follow the law. But so should I. And so should you. And so should Fred down the road. What right do I have to break the law then whinge if the police do the same?
( TheSundaeLunch I'm a fucking shrub, alright?,
Tue 9 Aug 2011, 18:08,
archived)
"Two wrongs don't make a right" comes to mindif we're going to communicate through the medium of cliches.
It would probably be better to drop the cliches and make a nuanced argument, though. Should the police break the law, in a crisis, in order to uphold some other laws? On the face of it, that seems a logical contradiction. It says that one law is more important than the other. Then again, this is possibly true. Both ways of breaking the law are presumably undesirable, though, or supposed to be, otherwise they'd be legal. So what are you actually advocating, that the police do break the law, or that they stick to it, or that they're not treated too harshly if they break the law with good intentions? I suspect you're arguing for the last thing: which is what actually happens, for the police, and for anybody else who breaks the law with good intentions, too. I don't imagine Mofaha would be opposed to lenient treatment of people who break the law in that way, either.
(,
Tue 9 Aug 2011, 18:22,
archived)
It would probably be better to drop the cliches and make a nuanced argument, though. Should the police break the law, in a crisis, in order to uphold some other laws? On the face of it, that seems a logical contradiction. It says that one law is more important than the other. Then again, this is possibly true. Both ways of breaking the law are presumably undesirable, though, or supposed to be, otherwise they'd be legal. So what are you actually advocating, that the police do break the law, or that they stick to it, or that they're not treated too harshly if they break the law with good intentions? I suspect you're arguing for the last thing: which is what actually happens, for the police, and for anybody else who breaks the law with good intentions, too. I don't imagine Mofaha would be opposed to lenient treatment of people who break the law in that way, either.
No, i'm not advocating that.I believe anyone who breaks the law should face justice, police or public. What I'd like is that no-one broke the law. What i'm getting at is the criminals who say 'OK I mugged 20 old ladies but that copper hit me while I resisted arrest! The police are evil and shouldn't be allowed to do that'. Which is actually quite a common statement.
( TheSundaeLunch I'm a fucking shrub, alright?,
Tue 9 Aug 2011, 18:33,
archived)
So to clarifyyou think the police really shouldn't be allowed to do that (assuming there's a law against it) - but they aren't evil. Is that correct?
(,
Tue 9 Aug 2011, 18:36,
archived)
?I don't get your clarification. No, the police are not evil, and yes, if they break the law they should face the consequences. But I also don't expect them to be superheroes. I fully expect that here and there a mugger will get a punch that is illegal. I'm not a mugger so won't lose too much sleep.
( TheSundaeLunch I'm a fucking shrub, alright?,
Tue 9 Aug 2011, 18:44,
archived)
Just trying to work out what the disagreement was.I thought at first you were arguing about what should or shouldn't be allowed, but now it seems more as if the subject was "how likeable are protesters?".
(,
Tue 9 Aug 2011, 18:59,
archived)
Absolutely.In a just society, motive and intention would be taken into account when dispensing justice.
( mofaha ┐( ˘_˘)┌ ʅ(́◡◝)ʃ,
Tue 9 Aug 2011, 18:53,
archived)