9 ms·

The Met can choose not to enforce fascist laws if they want to.

switch007 3y ago
Yes and no. What they decide to enforce is largely political. They won’t get away with ignoring things the Home Secretary wants enforced for very long before some chief is called in to a meeting in which they perspire heavily.
born2discover 3y ago
Police does not hold any discretionary powers on whether to enforce a law. In a functional State, Police is a subordinate of the executive branch, not it's willing accomplice. It can't enforce laws it deems "ok" and turn a blind eye on those it deems "meh".
- bearmode 3y ago
  And yet, this happens literally every day. Many individual officers, if not entire forces, have effectively stopped enforcing marijuana posession laws. If that happens, why not refuse to enforce fascist anti-protest laws?
- malnourish 3y ago
  Police absolutely have discretionary powers; it would be logically incompatible for them to not have such powers. They have a chain of command, and at each level decide where to focus their efforts (guided by existing laws, to be sure). Patrol routes are chosen, dispatchers must (effectively) triage calls, and officers make decisions like whether to assess a warning or a citation.
- Guthur 3y ago
  They are not meant to enforce anything, they bring before the courts. Enforcement is a police state.
- harimau777 3y ago
  If that were literally true, then the police would arrest everyone who goes even a mile over the speed limit. Everyone who throws out junk mail addressed to a previous renter.[1] Etc. So there is definitely at least some sense in which the police have discretion. The question is when and how much. [1] I don't actually know if that's illegal in the UK; in the US it's a federal offense.
- aceofspades19 3y ago
  But that is not true, most countries have what is called prosecutorial discretion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecutorial_discretion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecutorial_discretion The police can, for the most part, decide whether or not to enforce laws. They can also choose not to investigate certain crimes as they simply don't have the time to look into absolutely everything. Furthermore, if police had to literally enforced every law on the books to the letter, they would not be able to drive or walk down the street without having to arrest people constantly.
  - jon-wood 3y ago
    I sometimes wonder if this would be a net benefit in the long term. My hunch is that after a week or two of people being constantly arrested, and the accompanying collapse of society, there’d be a push to repeal laws that aren’t relevant anymore and revise those that were overly broad.
    - aceofspades19 3y ago
      Yeah I agree, its kind of silly that we allow ancient irrelevant and overly broad laws to stay on the books, especially in most societies that ignorance of the law is not an excuse. For example, in Canada, the police can issue a DUI if you have a BAC exceeding the limit for driving up to 2 hours after you have parked your car. If they literally went to every bar and drinking establishment (or door to door) and enforced that to the letter, it would be changed in quite a hurry.
  - dotancohen 3y ago
    > Furthermore, if police had to literally enforced every law on the books to the letter, they would not be able to drive or walk down the street without having to arrest people constantly. It sounds to me that addressing that problem at the enforcement level, as opposed to the legislative level, is the wrong place to address it.
    - aceofspades19 3y ago
      Yes of course but I was not describing how things should be, I was describing how they currently are.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- _joel 3y ago
  Incorrect. They absolutely do and I've seen it with my own eyes.
- account-5 3y ago
  Downvoted for pretty much the truth. I think it's a little silly people pointing to the extremely limited "discretion" police have and saying they should have used it to ignore the law. That's not how police discretion works and in modern policing it hardly exists alongside it's counterpoint which is : neglect of duty. Policing is not a job I'd want to do. Damned if you do, damned if you don't; and everyone knows how to do it better than the people actually doing it. But those people given the chance wouldn't do any better.
runsWphotons 3y ago
These laws in general may qualify but specifically is it really fascist not to tolerate protest of the coronation in a monarchy? It isn't fascist just to have rules.
- Retric 3y ago
  Yes, objecting to protests like this is fascist. Read up on how fascist regimes centralize power, arresting people who object was and is a major aspect of it. By outlawing decent you eventually normalize support for your regime such that even people who despise what’s going on are eventually unwilling to say so. They may have gotten external damnation for it, but China’s cracking down on protests worked: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_Tiananmen_Square_protests_and_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_Tiananmen_Square_protests... What seems counterintuitive is the CCP still makes it very clear you’re not allowed to talk about it because they want people to live in fear. Thus, they very much want people to know and not talk about it.
  - vixen99 3y ago
    How about what comes about as a result of this- https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1766760/just-stop-oil-protest-training https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1766760/just-stop-oil-prot...
    - runsWphotons 3y ago
      Something interesting here is whether your right to protest extends to being paid to protest. If it can be shown an NGO is paying you to engage in a disruptive protest, are you really exercising some kind of human right? IDK, that seems new. It doesn't strike me as being in the spirit of the protected right.
      - tuukkah 3y ago
        Free choice of employment is article 23.1 in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: > Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_work https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_work

Yes and no. What they decide to enforce is largely political. They won’t get away with ignoring things the Home Secretary wants enforced for very long before some chief is called in to a meeting in which they perspire heavily.

born2discover 3y ago

Police does not hold any discretionary powers on whether to enforce a law. In a functional State, Police is a subordinate of the executive branch, not it's willing accomplice. It can't enforce laws it deems "ok" and turn a blind eye on those it deems "meh".

bearmode 3y ago
And yet, this happens literally every day. Many individual officers, if not entire forces, have effectively stopped enforcing marijuana posession laws. If that happens, why not refuse to enforce fascist anti-protest laws?
malnourish 3y ago
Police absolutely have discretionary powers; it would be logically incompatible for them to not have such powers. They have a chain of command, and at each level decide where to focus their efforts (guided by existing laws, to be sure). Patrol routes are chosen, dispatchers must (effectively) triage calls, and officers make decisions like whether to assess a warning or a citation.
Guthur 3y ago
They are not meant to enforce anything, they bring before the courts. Enforcement is a police state.
harimau777 3y ago
If that were literally true, then the police would arrest everyone who goes even a mile over the speed limit. Everyone who throws out junk mail addressed to a previous renter.[1] Etc. So there is definitely at least some sense in which the police have discretion. The question is when and how much. [1] I don't actually know if that's illegal in the UK; in the US it's a federal offense.
aceofspades19 3y ago
But that is not true, most countries have what is called prosecutorial discretion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecutorial_discretion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecutorial_discretion The police can, for the most part, decide whether or not to enforce laws. They can also choose not to investigate certain crimes as they simply don't have the time to look into absolutely everything. Furthermore, if police had to literally enforced every law on the books to the letter, they would not be able to drive or walk down the street without having to arrest people constantly.
- jon-wood 3y ago
  I sometimes wonder if this would be a net benefit in the long term. My hunch is that after a week or two of people being constantly arrested, and the accompanying collapse of society, there’d be a push to repeal laws that aren’t relevant anymore and revise those that were overly broad.
  - aceofspades19 3y ago
    Yeah I agree, its kind of silly that we allow ancient irrelevant and overly broad laws to stay on the books, especially in most societies that ignorance of the law is not an excuse. For example, in Canada, the police can issue a DUI if you have a BAC exceeding the limit for driving up to 2 hours after you have parked your car. If they literally went to every bar and drinking establishment (or door to door) and enforced that to the letter, it would be changed in quite a hurry.
- dotancohen 3y ago
  > Furthermore, if police had to literally enforced every law on the books to the letter, they would not be able to drive or walk down the street without having to arrest people constantly. It sounds to me that addressing that problem at the enforcement level, as opposed to the legislative level, is the wrong place to address it.
  - aceofspades19 3y ago
    Yes of course but I was not describing how things should be, I was describing how they currently are.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
_joel 3y ago
Incorrect. They absolutely do and I've seen it with my own eyes.
account-5 3y ago
Downvoted for pretty much the truth. I think it's a little silly people pointing to the extremely limited "discretion" police have and saying they should have used it to ignore the law. That's not how police discretion works and in modern policing it hardly exists alongside it's counterpoint which is : neglect of duty. Policing is not a job I'd want to do. Damned if you do, damned if you don't; and everyone knows how to do it better than the people actually doing it. But those people given the chance wouldn't do any better.

runsWphotons 3y ago

These laws in general may qualify but specifically is it really fascist not to tolerate protest of the coronation in a monarchy? It isn't fascist just to have rules.

Retric 3y ago
Yes, objecting to protests like this is fascist. Read up on how fascist regimes centralize power, arresting people who object was and is a major aspect of it. By outlawing decent you eventually normalize support for your regime such that even people who despise what’s going on are eventually unwilling to say so. They may have gotten external damnation for it, but China’s cracking down on protests worked: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_Tiananmen_Square_protests_and_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_Tiananmen_Square_protests... What seems counterintuitive is the CCP still makes it very clear you’re not allowed to talk about it because they want people to live in fear. Thus, they very much want people to know and not talk about it.
- vixen99 3y ago
  How about what comes about as a result of this- https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1766760/just-stop-oil-protest-training https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1766760/just-stop-oil-prot...
  - runsWphotons 3y ago
    Something interesting here is whether your right to protest extends to being paid to protest. If it can be shown an NGO is paying you to engage in a disruptive protest, are you really exercising some kind of human right? IDK, that seems new. It doesn't strike me as being in the spirit of the protected right.
    - tuukkah 3y ago
      Free choice of employment is article 23.1 in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: > Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_work https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_work