Main Edition
US
FR
Credit: Matthew Horwood/Getty
Surely all good feminists should support defunding the police. It has been two years since a serving officer abducted, raped, and murdered 33-year-old Sarah Everard in South London, and it seems there aren’t just one or two “bad apples”. Multiple serving officers are either sexual or domestic abuse offenders. No wonder so many women want to give up on the police completely.
If only it were that simple.
“Defund the police” has been the rallying cry of the progressive Left ever since the death of George Floyd in 2020, and has expanded into a policy about much more than race. Obviously the point many feminists make is that since many male officers are sexual and domestic abuse offenders themselves, women shouldn’t trust them. Another is that a large proportion of 999 calls relate to mental health crises — so why are they referred to law enforcement? Meanwhile, making arrests for minor and non-violent crimes — such as burglary, graffiti and low-level acts of criminal damage and public nuisance — locks citizens into a cycle of criminal justice involvement.
Hard leftists in the UK have a tendency to go further: abolish the police service entirely, is their demand, with one activist arguing recently that, “History makes clear that the police do not exist to protect any of us. They exist to have power over us, and like perpetrators, they will use that power indiscriminately to keep us in our place.” The logical conclusion to this argument would be to also abolish all state agencies – including mental health facilities, child protection, and the government itself. It would be an unmitigated disaster. It’s a nonsense, to argue, as they do, that all crime could be dealt with at a “community level” with solutions such as restorative justice.
I emphatically resist these calls. That’s not to say I support the service in its current form. Where I grew up in Darlington, the police were the enemy and rarely protected working-class, downtrodden communities from violence. I saw how the police were complicit in male violence, refusing to admonish perpetrators they related to, man to man. More recently, I’ve been horrified by Baroness Casey’s interim report, which showed that out of nearly 9,000 Metropolitan police officers and staff accused of misconduct since 2013, only 5% were dismissed from the force. Around 1,800 were accused of multiple crimes; less than 1% were sacked as a result. One officer faced 19 allegations, and another was accused of 11 counts of assault, sexual harassment, sending naked images, fraud and leaking information.
Women have every reason to distrust the police. But the defund the police argument that resources should be reallocated to mental health, homelessness and rehabilitation services makes sense only up to a point. Men do not sexually assault, rape, harass or beat up their female partners because they are homeless, drunk or mentally ill. They do it because they can. Sober, wealthy, landowning men also rape and attack women. In 2021, the chief constable of Merseyside told a reporter that, if he were given £5 billion to cut crime, he would invest only £1 billion in policing, and the rest would go to tackle poverty. But what about those middle-class, affluent, socially respectable men who commit acts of violence against women and children? If we defund the police, who arrests these men?
We know that most violence against women is carried out in the home. More than 100 women are killed every year by former or current male partners, almost always following a pattern of escalating violence and harassment. Reducing police budgets would reduce the capacity for police to respond to domestic violence call-outs and to subsequently implement enforcement measures. Nor can we be sure that funds will be redirected appropriately. In the UK, the majority of police funding comes directly from central government; would you trust our government to make sure those resources are directed to, say, mental health services?
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeDespite the expected misandrist rant, it is good to hear a progressive proposing sensible, properly funded reform of the police rather than the lazy “defund” slogan.
That she focuses on race and gender, rather than the main problem – terrible detection and conviction rates, is perhaps to be expected.
I think it’s worth noting that leadership matters, organisations rot from the head. The Met has been led by a woman for the last 5 years, 30% of its officers are women and 30% of U.K. police forces are now run by women.
No slur intended on their competence just pointing out that this is not the entirely male failing July would like it to be..
Despite the expected misandrist rant, it is good to hear a progressive proposing sensible, properly funded reform of the police rather than the lazy “defund” slogan.
That she focuses on race and gender, rather than the main problem – terrible detection and conviction rates, is perhaps to be expected.
I think it’s worth noting that leadership matters, organisations rot from the head. The Met has been led by a woman for the last 5 years, 30% of its officers are women and 30% of U.K. police forces are now run by women.
No slur intended on their competence just pointing out that this is not the entirely male failing July would like it to be..
“More recently, I’ve been horrifid by Baroness Casey’s interim report, which showed that out of nearly 9,000 Metropolitan police officers and staff accused of misconduct since 2013, only 5% were dismissed from the force. Around 1,800 were accused of multiple crimes; less than 1% were sacked as a result.”
And I am horrified by Julie Bindel’s inability, or refusal, to distinguish between accusation for wrong-doing and conviction for wrong-doing. If she had argued that accusations are not investigated, and had produced evidence to support that contention, then I would take her seriously. But she doesn’t.
“We currently have fewer officers than we had in 2009″
So what? In 2022 there were 164,000 police officers in the UK. In 1959, there were 71,000. (According to Statista and The Home Office). I accept that when looking at such figures, the devil is in the detail, but I doubt that the detail would be of much interest to Julie Bindel.
I suspect that the police force like so many of the institutions in this country, is not fit for purpose, but ranting about the unique wickedness of men, as opposed to the unique wonderfulness of women, does not help – If anything, it hinders.
As a final point. I accept that Julie Bindel hates men. Fair enough. I am not bothered: We all hate something or somebody. But do we have to be subjected to this hate-fest, week after week? Are there not specialist sites that cater for this sort of thing?
It’s important to remember that an accusation of misconduct is not the same as being guilty of misconduct. Police officers are also innocent until proven guilty under the law. Or should be. I imagine that when one is dealing with criminals they have a vested interest in making claims of being treated unfairly. Also, the opportunity for financial compensation exists if one can make a case for it and if your average employment tribunal is anything to go by then wrongdoing is defined by technicalities not by actual harm done.
Speaking personally I agree with Sam Harris assessment of the idea of defund the police: that it is the most idiotic sentence ever spoken in the history of language.
It is also the case that the sort of people the police often have to deal with, i.e. criminals, will have no compunction about making false allegations of misconduct.
Fully aided & abetted by their lawyers!
As is their right…
As is their right…
a pit like Plod then?
Fully aided & abetted by their lawyers!
a pit like Plod then?
It is also the case that the sort of people the police often have to deal with, i.e. criminals, will have no compunction about making false allegations of misconduct.
I was going to say something like this but you said it better.
I have a problem with the ‘all women are innocent’ slant on things. Accepted that violence is never right and can never be justified, I refuse to believe that all men are bad and all women suffer from vague ‘mental problems’. However bad violence is, some women don’t react in time. From the cases I have seen, violence starts in a very small way – here the women can still do something but they carry on, assuming that things will get better. Julie seems to be suggesting that any woman who has these ‘mental problems’, whatever they are, should have instant aid. I foresee a future where there is one psychologist to every woman.
Of course, it goes without saying that men don’t need any help and should be punished in every way. I can understand what the author is saying but she is so extreme in her hatred of men that there is no point in reading her again.
As a woman, I couldn’t agree with you more. Having fought for the right to be considered & treated as a fully independent woman capable of living my life without male assistance (No, I am not a lesbian, just an independent woman!) I can see these very stupid women loosing it piece by piece by claiming special circumstances which do not exist other than as an excuse to claim undeserved victimhood! Rape is totally wrong being wolf-whistled at is actually a compliment and can easily be ignored if you don’t think so!
Yes. Thanks for this comment. My problem is that, as a man, it is all-too-easy to be critical of women without properly understanding.
Luckily, I have my wife who puts me right. She agrees (mostly) with me. Women can fight for independence, for legal equity, to have good jobs, to generally have a say in things. But to imply that being a woman implies having mental issues is just silly and childish.
It is a matter of extremes. To go to one extreme, as does the author of the article, can send ideas hurtling back to the other extreme.
Yes. Thanks for this comment. My problem is that, as a man, it is all-too-easy to be critical of women without properly understanding.
Luckily, I have my wife who puts me right. She agrees (mostly) with me. Women can fight for independence, for legal equity, to have good jobs, to generally have a say in things. But to imply that being a woman implies having mental issues is just silly and childish.
It is a matter of extremes. To go to one extreme, as does the author of the article, can send ideas hurtling back to the other extreme.
As a woman, I couldn’t agree with you more. Having fought for the right to be considered & treated as a fully independent woman capable of living my life without male assistance (No, I am not a lesbian, just an independent woman!) I can see these very stupid women loosing it piece by piece by claiming special circumstances which do not exist other than as an excuse to claim undeserved victimhood! Rape is totally wrong being wolf-whistled at is actually a compliment and can easily be ignored if you don’t think so!
However in 1959 those 71,000 Policemen were very visible, foot patrols being the norm.
Also they were almost universally smart and well turned out with very few if any fatties among them! Off course many had served in the War, and they did have the ultimate sanction Capital Punishment* to back them up, but this was still “a green and pleasant land” for many.
(* A mere six hanged in 1959, thanks to the Homicide Act of 1957, which might now be considered as the genesis of the ‘Woke’.)
Again, something which came from the political class, not the public. The same political class will abolish prisons in the end. Luckily, being a co-WTD I will not be there.
Many Police wer over 5 ft 10 inches tall, had been in combat,often the Guards then Commandos/Parchute Regiment /Special Forces and boxed and played rugby .Consequently two of them could sort out most pub fights. In Glasgow they recruited Police from those who competed in the strength competitions of the highland Games and were Presbyterian as they were free from corruption.
Those who served in the Colonial Police post WW2 normally had the same academic qualifications as officers in the Armed Forces, spoke various languages and had served in Special Branch. The local Inspector of Britain the late 1940s to early 1960s who had been an Inspector in Special Branch say during the Malaya Emergency( requiring fluency in Cantonese, Malay and Tamil) and previously served in the Parachute Regiment in Palestine brought competence to the role which would be unthinkable today.
I suggest the decline in Police competence parallels the reduction of those entering with experience of of combat in WW2 and the various colonial conflicts. Also the pay of Police was allowd to decline especially in the 1960s. Was this a deliberate policy of Labour?
What sort of life could a British Inspector and his family who had held this rank overseas in the colonial Police enjoy in 1962 and 1972 ? One aspect which is ignored is that closure of grammar schools which meant middle class people moved to counties such as Surrey, Cheshire, and Kent which was detrimental to the Metropolitan Police and other large Police Forces such as Merseyside, West Midlands, etc.
An Inspector who could send their sons and daughters to schools such as to Manchester Grammar, Dulwich College and JAGS ( if one lived in certain areas) or King Edward VIth Grammar, Birmingham could enjoy the some of the best education in the World. Post 1965 to 1975 , the Police either had to pay to attend these former grammar schools or move to counties where they still existed. The Police had been an institution where bright,fit, honest, hard working boys could enter the professional middle classes and especially their children.
“I am not afraid of an army of lions led by a sheep; I am afraid of an army of sheep led by a lion.” ~ Alexander the Great
There were plenty of lions in the 1959 British Police.
Perfectly put Sir!
Thank you.
Thank you.
Perfectly put Sir!
Again, something which came from the political class, not the public. The same political class will abolish prisons in the end. Luckily, being a co-WTD I will not be there.
Many Police wer over 5 ft 10 inches tall, had been in combat,often the Guards then Commandos/Parchute Regiment /Special Forces and boxed and played rugby .Consequently two of them could sort out most pub fights. In Glasgow they recruited Police from those who competed in the strength competitions of the highland Games and were Presbyterian as they were free from corruption.
Those who served in the Colonial Police post WW2 normally had the same academic qualifications as officers in the Armed Forces, spoke various languages and had served in Special Branch. The local Inspector of Britain the late 1940s to early 1960s who had been an Inspector in Special Branch say during the Malaya Emergency( requiring fluency in Cantonese, Malay and Tamil) and previously served in the Parachute Regiment in Palestine brought competence to the role which would be unthinkable today.
I suggest the decline in Police competence parallels the reduction of those entering with experience of of combat in WW2 and the various colonial conflicts. Also the pay of Police was allowd to decline especially in the 1960s. Was this a deliberate policy of Labour?
What sort of life could a British Inspector and his family who had held this rank overseas in the colonial Police enjoy in 1962 and 1972 ? One aspect which is ignored is that closure of grammar schools which meant middle class people moved to counties such as Surrey, Cheshire, and Kent which was detrimental to the Metropolitan Police and other large Police Forces such as Merseyside, West Midlands, etc.
An Inspector who could send their sons and daughters to schools such as to Manchester Grammar, Dulwich College and JAGS ( if one lived in certain areas) or King Edward VIth Grammar, Birmingham could enjoy the some of the best education in the World. Post 1965 to 1975 , the Police either had to pay to attend these former grammar schools or move to counties where they still existed. The Police had been an institution where bright,fit, honest, hard working boys could enter the professional middle classes and especially their children.
“I am not afraid of an army of lions led by a sheep; I am afraid of an army of sheep led by a lion.” ~ Alexander the Great
There were plenty of lions in the 1959 British Police.
Purported comedian Patton Oswald said he’s only happy when he has an enemy. Julie Bindel has an entire sex to hate, but it doesn’t seem to cheer her up any.
As they used to say, a good police force is one that catches more criminals that it employs
Why are you coming up with a figure for the number of police in 1959 when Ms Bindel refers to the number in 2009? Also the link shows 135,300 FTE (full time equivalent) officers in 2021 – seems a jump to 164,000 in 2022?
Agreed, innocent until proven guilty etc, but if 1800 officers have multiple criminal complaints against them, a figure of 1%, ie c.18, dismissed is suspiciously low.
It’s important to remember that an accusation of misconduct is not the same as being guilty of misconduct. Police officers are also innocent until proven guilty under the law. Or should be. I imagine that when one is dealing with criminals they have a vested interest in making claims of being treated unfairly. Also, the opportunity for financial compensation exists if one can make a case for it and if your average employment tribunal is anything to go by then wrongdoing is defined by technicalities not by actual harm done.
Speaking personally I agree with Sam Harris assessment of the idea of defund the police: that it is the most idiotic sentence ever spoken in the history of language.
I was going to say something like this but you said it better.
I have a problem with the ‘all women are innocent’ slant on things. Accepted that violence is never right and can never be justified, I refuse to believe that all men are bad and all women suffer from vague ‘mental problems’. However bad violence is, some women don’t react in time. From the cases I have seen, violence starts in a very small way – here the women can still do something but they carry on, assuming that things will get better. Julie seems to be suggesting that any woman who has these ‘mental problems’, whatever they are, should have instant aid. I foresee a future where there is one psychologist to every woman.
Of course, it goes without saying that men don’t need any help and should be punished in every way. I can understand what the author is saying but she is so extreme in her hatred of men that there is no point in reading her again.
However in 1959 those 71,000 Policemen were very visible, foot patrols being the norm.
Also they were almost universally smart and well turned out with very few if any fatties among them! Off course many had served in the War, and they did have the ultimate sanction Capital Punishment* to back them up, but this was still “a green and pleasant land” for many.
(* A mere six hanged in 1959, thanks to the Homicide Act of 1957, which might now be considered as the genesis of the ‘Woke’.)
Purported comedian Patton Oswald said he’s only happy when he has an enemy. Julie Bindel has an entire sex to hate, but it doesn’t seem to cheer her up any.
As they used to say, a good police force is one that catches more criminals that it employs
Why are you coming up with a figure for the number of police in 1959 when Ms Bindel refers to the number in 2009? Also the link shows 135,300 FTE (full time equivalent) officers in 2021 – seems a jump to 164,000 in 2022?
Agreed, innocent until proven guilty etc, but if 1800 officers have multiple criminal complaints against them, a figure of 1%, ie c.18, dismissed is suspiciously low.
“More recently, I’ve been horrifid by Baroness Casey’s interim report, which showed that out of nearly 9,000 Metropolitan police officers and staff accused of misconduct since 2013, only 5% were dismissed from the force. Around 1,800 were accused of multiple crimes; less than 1% were sacked as a result.”
And I am horrified by Julie Bindel’s inability, or refusal, to distinguish between accusation for wrong-doing and conviction for wrong-doing. If she had argued that accusations are not investigated, and had produced evidence to support that contention, then I would take her seriously. But she doesn’t.
“We currently have fewer officers than we had in 2009″
So what? In 2022 there were 164,000 police officers in the UK. In 1959, there were 71,000. (According to Statista and The Home Office). I accept that when looking at such figures, the devil is in the detail, but I doubt that the detail would be of much interest to Julie Bindel.
I suspect that the police force like so many of the institutions in this country, is not fit for purpose, but ranting about the unique wickedness of men, as opposed to the unique wonderfulness of women, does not help – If anything, it hinders.
As a final point. I accept that Julie Bindel hates men. Fair enough. I am not bothered: We all hate something or somebody. But do we have to be subjected to this hate-fest, week after week? Are there not specialist sites that cater for this sort of thing?
Another good measure of misandry for the feminist disciples from Julie Bindel.
Implicit assumptions:
1. All women are innocent and none ever make a false accusation in an attempt to avoid justice.
2. Due process is unnecessary, every man accused is guilty until proven innocent.
Another good measure of misandry for the feminist disciples from Julie Bindel.
Implicit assumptions:
1. All women are innocent and none ever make a false accusation in an attempt to avoid justice.
2. Due process is unnecessary, every man accused is guilty until proven innocent.
I see the bloke in the photo who wants us to defund the police has covered up his face like a good law-abiding citizen (and not at all like a bank robber).
I thought he looked more like a bell-end.
I thought he looked more like a bell-end.
I see the bloke in the photo who wants us to defund the police has covered up his face like a good law-abiding citizen (and not at all like a bank robber).
How have we managed to import this now too!?
I can’t believe defunding the police would have any widespread support in this country. Feels like another distraction.
How have we managed to import this now too!?
I can’t believe defunding the police would have any widespread support in this country. Feels like another distraction.
Good example of why Julie Bindel remains worth reading, for all her anti-male convictions. She lives in the real world and tries to deal with real problems of real people – unlike the general progressive herd who talk about defunding the police, safe spaces, and microaggressions.
“the generally progressive herd who talk about defunding the police”
According to the first line of this article that herd “surely includes every good feminist.”
The whole first paragraph is just a prelude to the rhetorical pivot: “If only it were that simple”.
Surely the most effective means of reducing harm would be to defund the NHS
The whole first paragraph is just a prelude to the rhetorical pivot: “If only it were that simple”.
Surely the most effective means of reducing harm would be to defund the NHS
“the generally progressive herd who talk about defunding the police”
According to the first line of this article that herd “surely includes every good feminist.”
Good example of why Julie Bindel remains worth reading, for all her anti-male convictions. She lives in the real world and tries to deal with real problems of real people – unlike the general progressive herd who talk about defunding the police, safe spaces, and microaggressions.
It’s important to understand that the police have been not only substantially reduced already, but purged and politicised. The dismissal of 30,000 officers and their replacement with 20,000 recruits has greatly changed the character of the police.
It would be better if police recruits were taught that the actual law on the statute book overrides any later woke thoughts.
It would be better if police recruits were taught that the actual law on the statute book overrides any later woke thoughts.
It’s important to understand that the police have been not only substantially reduced already, but purged and politicised. The dismissal of 30,000 officers and their replacement with 20,000 recruits has greatly changed the character of the police.
Just out of curiosity, I checked to see what percentage of low ranking police officers (i.e. you call them constables) in England and Wales are women. It’s 35.5%, which is extraordinary high compared to major cities in the United States (13.3% of law enforcers in U.S. are female). That means that 1/3 of the time that you encounter a constable foot patrolling the street, they’re going to be female.
So, Ms. Bindel’s syllogism (anchored by her favorite premise, nauseatingly repeated in UnHerd, that men are fundamentally bad) doesn’t work. If men are bad, and police officers are all men, then police officers are bad. Therefore, extending her logic, defunding the police isn’t necessary when the policing system can be “reformed” by employing only women. Voila!
So, 1/3 of police patrols are women? Then I might see one this side of Xmas?
So, 1/3 of police patrols are women? Then I might see one this side of Xmas?
Just out of curiosity, I checked to see what percentage of low ranking police officers (i.e. you call them constables) in England and Wales are women. It’s 35.5%, which is extraordinary high compared to major cities in the United States (13.3% of law enforcers in U.S. are female). That means that 1/3 of the time that you encounter a constable foot patrolling the street, they’re going to be female.
So, Ms. Bindel’s syllogism (anchored by her favorite premise, nauseatingly repeated in UnHerd, that men are fundamentally bad) doesn’t work. If men are bad, and police officers are all men, then police officers are bad. Therefore, extending her logic, defunding the police isn’t necessary when the policing system can be “reformed” by employing only women. Voila!
Perhaps an all-female police force is the answer?
Gals in uniforms eh, Julian?
Irma Grese & Co?
Rather niche, I think.
Rather niche, I think.
Irma Grese & Co?
With a few male support people to perform the body searches?
G/d forbid!
Gals in uniforms eh, Julian?
With a few male support people to perform the body searches?
G/d forbid!
Perhaps an all-female police force is the answer?
The first sentence and the initial premise of the Article – for goodness sake you have to be completely potty to believe society could be a better if we stopped paying for our Police force. Worth reading up on what happened when Montreal Police went on strike in 69 – riots, robberies etc exploded. Interesting was one of the events that Stephen Pinker often refers to as changing his ‘younger’ views – we descend quickly into disorder when no Police.
So the whole ‘defund’ thing is childish and immature.
However there is a culture in parts of our Police force that needs to sort itself out and get into the 21stC. At best it’s a huge embarrassment in this day and age some men think these attitudes are clever or acceptable. ‘Inadequates’ the lot of them who think like this. At worst it’s toxic and hugely undermining of public trust.
Rowley seems of a higher calibre than Cressida d**k. Their gender doesn’t come into it. His statements to date have been what we need to hear and more confidence he’ll fix this given time.
But in many regards the Police merely mirror society and there remains a strata of ‘male-dom’ that’s stuck in the Dark Ages and needs to rapidly grow up.
Well said. Unfortunately, a police force is precisely the type of career option that might well seem attractive to males with a toxic attitude. They may be in a minority, but the damage they do is overwhelming for the integrity of the police as a trusted institution.
Well said. Unfortunately, a police force is precisely the type of career option that might well seem attractive to males with a toxic attitude. They may be in a minority, but the damage they do is overwhelming for the integrity of the police as a trusted institution.
The first sentence and the initial premise of the Article – for goodness sake you have to be completely potty to believe society could be a better if we stopped paying for our Police force. Worth reading up on what happened when Montreal Police went on strike in 69 – riots, robberies etc exploded. Interesting was one of the events that Stephen Pinker often refers to as changing his ‘younger’ views – we descend quickly into disorder when no Police.
So the whole ‘defund’ thing is childish and immature.
However there is a culture in parts of our Police force that needs to sort itself out and get into the 21stC. At best it’s a huge embarrassment in this day and age some men think these attitudes are clever or acceptable. ‘Inadequates’ the lot of them who think like this. At worst it’s toxic and hugely undermining of public trust.
Rowley seems of a higher calibre than Cressida d**k. Their gender doesn’t come into it. His statements to date have been what we need to hear and more confidence he’ll fix this given time.
But in many regards the Police merely mirror society and there remains a strata of ‘male-dom’ that’s stuck in the Dark Ages and needs to rapidly grow up.
Our police are an an embarrasing mess of lack of discipline, training, intelligence, and most particularly leadership and honesty.
I have had some very interesting conversations with ex Army armed policemen at airports who said, to a man, that their Inspectors and above, were pitiful, jobsworh, box ticking careerists who were a million miles away from the Officers whom they had served under in the army.
I have been universally appalled almost every time that I have come into contact with police men and women, most especially the way that they aggressively and arrogantly defend their lack of knowledge of the law and their own powers.
One only has to look at how disgracefully and joyously they exceeeded their powers during covid, relishing these abused and often non existant powers.
It ought to be a prerequisite that anyone seeking to join the Police must first have served in HM Forces* for at least three years.
It is the ONLY organisation that has the necessary discipline, training and courage ( both moral & physical) to undertake such an onerous task as Policing in the modern world.
Historically it served the Romans well, where to achieve high office three years with the Legions was almost mandatory.
(* Preferably the Army.)
Spot on! AND Sir Robert Mark ( like most plod a ” Super Pooter”) disconnected the formal mechanism between The Met and The Household Division, for recruiting of leaving soldiers.
‘Sic Gloria transit Mundi’, and we’ve been paying the price ever since.
Very interesting. A family friend who was ex detective City of London Fraud Squad Police said they used recruit the pick of ex Guards and Royal Marine Commandos sergeants. Those which do not meet their requirements went into The Met’. A Garrison Sergeant Major told me that today the Police prefer not to recruit ex -military.
I think there used to be a system where those who had been Sergeants in the Armed Forces entered the Police as Sergeants, Captains as Inspectors and Majors as Superintendants.
It appears to me that the former close relationship between Armed Forces and The Police has been deliberately obscured.
‘Sic Gloria transit Mundi’, and we’ve been paying the price ever since.
Very interesting. A family friend who was ex detective City of London Fraud Squad Police said they used recruit the pick of ex Guards and Royal Marine Commandos sergeants. Those which do not meet their requirements went into The Met’. A Garrison Sergeant Major told me that today the Police prefer not to recruit ex -military.
I think there used to be a system where those who had been Sergeants in the Armed Forces entered the Police as Sergeants, Captains as Inspectors and Majors as Superintendants.
It appears to me that the former close relationship between Armed Forces and The Police has been deliberately obscured.
Spot on! AND Sir Robert Mark ( like most plod a ” Super Pooter”) disconnected the formal mechanism between The Met and The Household Division, for recruiting of leaving soldiers.
RSM Lord served in the Guards, left, joined the Police and then re-joined. I think the Police would benefit from the training provided by RSM Lord.
The Lord Down Here: Discipline Lessons from RSM Lord MVO MBE (thearmyleader.co.uk)
It ought to be a prerequisite that anyone seeking to join the Police must first have served in HM Forces* for at least three years.
It is the ONLY organisation that has the necessary discipline, training and courage ( both moral & physical) to undertake such an onerous task as Policing in the modern world.
Historically it served the Romans well, where to achieve high office three years with the Legions was almost mandatory.
(* Preferably the Army.)
RSM Lord served in the Guards, left, joined the Police and then re-joined. I think the Police would benefit from the training provided by RSM Lord.
The Lord Down Here: Discipline Lessons from RSM Lord MVO MBE (thearmyleader.co.uk)
Our police are an an embarrasing mess of lack of discipline, training, intelligence, and most particularly leadership and honesty.
I have had some very interesting conversations with ex Army armed policemen at airports who said, to a man, that their Inspectors and above, were pitiful, jobsworh, box ticking careerists who were a million miles away from the Officers whom they had served under in the army.
I have been universally appalled almost every time that I have come into contact with police men and women, most especially the way that they aggressively and arrogantly defend their lack of knowledge of the law and their own powers.
One only has to look at how disgracefully and joyously they exceeeded their powers during covid, relishing these abused and often non existant powers.
“… making arrests for minor and non-violent crimes — such as burglary, graffiti and low-level acts of criminal damage and public nuisance — locks citizens into a cycle of criminal justice involvement.”
This I do not understand. It may lock criminals into criminal justice involvement, but isn’t that the idea of having the Police: to enforce the law.
Well, yes… but NOT committing crimes of that nature (and anyone who thinks burglary is a minor crime, has never had to deal with the after-effects of it) DOESNT “lock people into a cycle of criminal justice involvement”.
Well, yes… but NOT committing crimes of that nature (and anyone who thinks burglary is a minor crime, has never had to deal with the after-effects of it) DOESNT “lock people into a cycle of criminal justice involvement”.
“… making arrests for minor and non-violent crimes — such as burglary, graffiti and low-level acts of criminal damage and public nuisance — locks citizens into a cycle of criminal justice involvement.”
This I do not understand. It may lock criminals into criminal justice involvement, but isn’t that the idea of having the Police: to enforce the law.
Well, not sure I ever expected to agree with this author but I do.
I have always believed that there are 3 types of people who become cops or soldiers. First, the good people who actually want to serve and to make a difference. Second, the type that simply crave power. Third, those who are just looking for a decent government job.
I am convinced that we do not do enough to cull out the second type, a type that is highly dangerous when given power and authority. Not that I think they make up the majority by any means, but even a few are extremely dangerous.
We need to do a better job of identifying them before they are hired and an even better job of getting rid of the ones that slip through.
That seems reasonable to me. But I’m also concerned about those who might shift from the first to the second group, due to the sheer taxing brutality of the job, which can elicit cruelty or indifference in would-be Dudley Do-right types. Police need to be quite tough and strong, but maybe there’s a way to soften or warm up the culture so that stoicism and the blue code of silence doesn’t eat so many of its own, so to speak.
In the US, there’s an additional problem that I don’t think the UK faces: large scale militarization of police equipment and attitudes. Granted, our violent nation has way too many guns and bold criminals, but tanks and riot gear as a routine or preemptive strategy? And many are recently returned from war zones, bringing an actual battlefield, us vs. them mentality into the communities they are meant to protect & serve, along with (likely) untreated PTSD. On this side of the pond at least, we need to screen for this more carefully too, and provide more help to those willing to make the brave efforts needed to “de-compress” or “face their demons”.
I think we need more total police officers in America right now–the good and brave kind–but it is hard to attract the “good-guy servant” type when cops are group-associated with their worst uniformed counterparts by many citizens, recruited out of war zones, and pretty much told to shut their mouths about what they see and feel from their first days on the job. I’d welcome pushback or clarification from anyone who’s actually served on a police force.
Very good points. The advantage of recruiting the ex segeant from Commandos or Airborne is that they have had power so they most likely are innoculated against a lust for it. Also they know when to diffuse the conflict with a joke or go in fast and hard which is only possible when the person had successfully controlled more violent situations. Over reaction is largely due to poor selection, training and a lack of experience. Also ex military have a military pension so corruption is less tempting.
Large numbers of Police benefits the unions as their income is greater. Also it is easier for politicians to control the Police if they do not have better job offers. The ex military persons who have job offer to run security for oil installation, mine, airport, hotel, warehouse/ factories, etc can leave the Police if they dislike the left wing policies for better pay. Many ex- militry used to join the Police because it was a job in the home country after spending years overseas.
In general having large numbers of people working for the state who could not get better paid jobs elsewhere is a very effective from of gerrymandering and politcal control by Labour/Democrat politicians. Over taxation and employing too many state employees led to the collpse of Roman, Mughal and Chinese Empires.
That seems reasonable to me. But I’m also concerned about those who might shift from the first to the second group, due to the sheer taxing brutality of the job, which can elicit cruelty or indifference in would-be Dudley Do-right types. Police need to be quite tough and strong, but maybe there’s a way to soften or warm up the culture so that stoicism and the blue code of silence doesn’t eat so many of its own, so to speak.
In the US, there’s an additional problem that I don’t think the UK faces: large scale militarization of police equipment and attitudes. Granted, our violent nation has way too many guns and bold criminals, but tanks and riot gear as a routine or preemptive strategy? And many are recently returned from war zones, bringing an actual battlefield, us vs. them mentality into the communities they are meant to protect & serve, along with (likely) untreated PTSD. On this side of the pond at least, we need to screen for this more carefully too, and provide more help to those willing to make the brave efforts needed to “de-compress” or “face their demons”.
I think we need more total police officers in America right now–the good and brave kind–but it is hard to attract the “good-guy servant” type when cops are group-associated with their worst uniformed counterparts by many citizens, recruited out of war zones, and pretty much told to shut their mouths about what they see and feel from their first days on the job. I’d welcome pushback or clarification from anyone who’s actually served on a police force.
Very good points. The advantage of recruiting the ex segeant from Commandos or Airborne is that they have had power so they most likely are innoculated against a lust for it. Also they know when to diffuse the conflict with a joke or go in fast and hard which is only possible when the person had successfully controlled more violent situations. Over reaction is largely due to poor selection, training and a lack of experience. Also ex military have a military pension so corruption is less tempting.
Large numbers of Police benefits the unions as their income is greater. Also it is easier for politicians to control the Police if they do not have better job offers. The ex military persons who have job offer to run security for oil installation, mine, airport, hotel, warehouse/ factories, etc can leave the Police if they dislike the left wing policies for better pay. Many ex- militry used to join the Police because it was a job in the home country after spending years overseas.
In general having large numbers of people working for the state who could not get better paid jobs elsewhere is a very effective from of gerrymandering and politcal control by Labour/Democrat politicians. Over taxation and employing too many state employees led to the collpse of Roman, Mughal and Chinese Empires.
Well, not sure I ever expected to agree with this author but I do.
I have always believed that there are 3 types of people who become cops or soldiers. First, the good people who actually want to serve and to make a difference. Second, the type that simply crave power. Third, those who are just looking for a decent government job.
I am convinced that we do not do enough to cull out the second type, a type that is highly dangerous when given power and authority. Not that I think they make up the majority by any means, but even a few are extremely dangerous.
We need to do a better job of identifying them before they are hired and an even better job of getting rid of the ones that slip through.
Local police and magistrates’ courts should be community justice. That is what they were set up for. Now small and even medium-sized towns have neither police stations nor magistrates’ courts and, as in every other public sector organisation, local justice follows a detached, computer-driven process.
Where there were stable communities, especially those with heavy industry and the men were tough,violence and criminal activity was confined to a very few, small rough areas which were easily avoided. Where criminal activity took place were in few pubs surrounded by council estates where men were largely un-employed.
When undertaking heavy industrial work it is often dangerous and if someone is careless peole will be killed or crippled. Therefore someone who is hungover or on drugs will not be wanted plus they will have problems getting up for the morning shift.
The tough, practical, Chapel and Sunday School going, hymn singing,alottment digging, boxing,rugby and cricket playing communities had very low levels of crime. The male violence was channelled through very hard games of rugby and week day training.
And towards their wives and daughters, but that didn’t count.
Andy Capp was based on reality.
What an astonishing view of society! Only four areas partly conform to your description: South Wales, Bristol, Lancashire and Yorkshire (except that cricket wasn’t a working class sport in Wales, nor rugby in Lancashire, much anyway). ‘council estates where men were largely un-employed’ – not when there was heavy industry going strong! Council estates took over from private slum landlords to give homes to working men and there families. And men in heavy manual jobs didn’t have the time or energy for ‘week day training’. And of course there was no gang crime anywhere. I do wonder where you get your ideas from, but it ain’t real life!
I violence and criminal activity was confined to a very few, small rough areas which were easily avoided. Where criminal activity took place were in few pubs surrounded by council estates where men were largely un-employed.
I did not say ALL council estates.
Much of Yorkshire and Lancashire plus some of Cheshire is Rugby League territory. Many compnies used to employ people who played RL, they were allowed to leave early on training nights and were payed for Saturday morning. The fitness and teamwork of the RL players meant they did the same amount of work as others who worked longer hours.
Crime was centred on a few areas such Liverpool Docks which is not RL territory.
Wigan was in Lancashire, Widness in Cheshire
Wigan 1988-1995-Invincibles-Challenge Cup Finals… – YouTube
Widnes Vs Wigan 1989 Championship Decider at Naughton Park ( Part 1 ) – YouTube
There was hardly any trouble at RL matches, ladies could attend without worrying about being attacked by hooligans.
Caroline, my experience of living and working in Lancashire was that ladies expected respect and recieved it. Ladies worked in the mills, ran their own businesses such pubs, cafes, canteens and market stalls. You have slandered a large group of people. Would you find it acceptable to make a similar comment on coloured men?
I violence and criminal activity was confined to a very few, small rough areas which were easily avoided. Where criminal activity took place were in few pubs surrounded by council estates where men were largely un-employed.
I did not say ALL council estates.
Much of Yorkshire and Lancashire plus some of Cheshire is Rugby League territory. Many compnies used to employ people who played RL, they were allowed to leave early on training nights and were payed for Saturday morning. The fitness and teamwork of the RL players meant they did the same amount of work as others who worked longer hours.
Crime was centred on a few areas such Liverpool Docks which is not RL territory.
Wigan was in Lancashire, Widness in Cheshire
Wigan 1988-1995-Invincibles-Challenge Cup Finals… – YouTube
Widnes Vs Wigan 1989 Championship Decider at Naughton Park ( Part 1 ) – YouTube
There was hardly any trouble at RL matches, ladies could attend without worrying about being attacked by hooligans.
Caroline, my experience of living and working in Lancashire was that ladies expected respect and recieved it. Ladies worked in the mills, ran their own businesses such pubs, cafes, canteens and market stalls. You have slandered a large group of people. Would you find it acceptable to make a similar comment on coloured men?
And towards their wives and daughters, but that didn’t count.
Andy Capp was based on reality.
What an astonishing view of society! Only four areas partly conform to your description: South Wales, Bristol, Lancashire and Yorkshire (except that cricket wasn’t a working class sport in Wales, nor rugby in Lancashire, much anyway). ‘council estates where men were largely un-employed’ – not when there was heavy industry going strong! Council estates took over from private slum landlords to give homes to working men and there families. And men in heavy manual jobs didn’t have the time or energy for ‘week day training’. And of course there was no gang crime anywhere. I do wonder where you get your ideas from, but it ain’t real life!
Where there were stable communities, especially those with heavy industry and the men were tough,violence and criminal activity was confined to a very few, small rough areas which were easily avoided. Where criminal activity took place were in few pubs surrounded by council estates where men were largely un-employed.
When undertaking heavy industrial work it is often dangerous and if someone is careless peole will be killed or crippled. Therefore someone who is hungover or on drugs will not be wanted plus they will have problems getting up for the morning shift.
The tough, practical, Chapel and Sunday School going, hymn singing,alottment digging, boxing,rugby and cricket playing communities had very low levels of crime. The male violence was channelled through very hard games of rugby and week day training.
Local police and magistrates’ courts should be community justice. That is what they were set up for. Now small and even medium-sized towns have neither police stations nor magistrates’ courts and, as in every other public sector organisation, local justice follows a detached, computer-driven process.
No silver bullet for the paradox of policing BUT worth looking at how other societies do it. Spain seems to have hit a decent balance though clearly not perfect: Guardia – equivalent to Orwell’s “rough men stand ready to do violence on their [peaceful citizens] behalf” Policia Nacional – next step down dealing with “ODCs” as thieves, dealers and conmen were once known in UK. Policia Local – mainly aimed at low level anti-social nuisances and usually with a specialist domestic crime arm (Spain still leads UK in violence at home) The latter’s purpose is to prevent criminals from rising from crime to crime and using up the resources of the cuerpos Guardia and Nacional. They are seperated powers with the same aim – sure there is competition but they co-operate in crime and harm reduction. A far cry from the crooks and thugs of the 50s-70s and before.
“But the defund the police argument that resources should be reallocated to mental health, homelessness and rehabilitation services makes sense only up to a point.”
Certainly, some resources do need to be allocated to deal with the mental health of the “defund the police” mob.
Defund the police , and while we are at it, defund the NHS and MPs
Defund the MPs and the other two bodies will look after themselves 🙂 I’m being flippant there BUT its a serious point: Police and Health Pros should manage their own services with regulatory oversight from politicians and their mandarins but WTF are these politicos doing thinking they can tell a cop or doctor how to do their jobs! It’s beyond arrogance – it’s total delusion.
Defund the MPs and the other two bodies will look after themselves 🙂 I’m being flippant there BUT its a serious point: Police and Health Pros should manage their own services with regulatory oversight from politicians and their mandarins but WTF are these politicos doing thinking they can tell a cop or doctor how to do their jobs! It’s beyond arrogance – it’s total delusion.
Defund the police , and while we are at it, defund the NHS and MPs