4 ms·

If this would've been in the US, absolutely. The quality of connection between UK citizens, and law enforcement is significantly different, due to actions on b

by sdrinf 12y ago

If this would've been in the US, absolutely. The quality of connection between UK citizens, and law enforcement is significantly different, due to actions on both sides: specifically: * UK police tends to seek full understanding prior to taking any action * The standard police unit is not armed, and their legal rights are significantly limited * In general, their strategy aims for avoiding situations to escalate This allows for the vast majority of situations to be resolved peacefully, and in mutual respect. I leave drawing conclusions, and comparisons to the US armed force to the dear reader.

polemic 12y ago
On that topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_Principles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_Principles "In the British model of policing, police officers are citizens in uniform. They exercise their powers to police their fellow citizens with the implicit consent of their fellow citizens. Policing by consent is the phrase used to describe this. It denotes that the legitimacy of policing in the eyes of the public is based upon a general consensus of support that follows from transparency about their powers, demonstrating integrity in exercising those powers and their accountability for doing so."
- switch007 12y ago
  Oh, please. Ethical?! I certainly don't consent to kettling and acts such as the brutal killing of Ian Tomlinson.
Crito 12y ago
What incentive would the author have to talk with the police (let alone invite them into his home) in this instance? I understand that the police in the UK may not be as menacing as they are in the US, but if nothing is in it for him (and as far as I can tell, nothing was), then why would he allow himself to be questioned in such a way? If I have nothing to gain from talking with the police, I never would, even if I also felt that I had nothing to lose.
- iaskwhy 12y ago
  Not the author but if I were him I would have done the same just because I'm terribly affraid of the police and could imagine it only being worse by not acting as normal as possible. While I'm perfectly conscious I shouldn't be like this, really bad past experiences with the police force got me into this kind of mental workflow whenever I see a police uniform. I must say being in the UK for the past years is slowly making me change this perception, I do feel much better just knowing they don't carry guns. And whenever I talked to a PC they were always very friendly and interested in what I had to say (which, as you can imagine by now, is a very different experience from the ones I had in some other countries).
- sdrinf 12y ago
  | What incentive would the author have to talk with the police (let alone invite them into his home) in this instance? I understand that the police in the UK may not be as menacing as they are in the US, but if nothing is in it for him (and as far as I can tell, nothing was), then why would he allow himself to be questioned in such a way? Incentive boils down to negative externalities: * In the UK, understanding is attempted by the police; in this case, they probably received a complaint, heard out both sides, and made the judgement call of case having no legal basis. Not hearing the cops out have a potentially significant downside, in them understanding the situation incorrectly. * In the US, the same level of understanding requires the interplay of a prosecutor, a defense counsel, and a judge (on top of the contestant & defendant), and several man-days of sweat. Talking with the cops can, by law, only weaken your position: anything you say can only be used against you. The cultural trade-off is a question of variance: the UK system presumes low-variance situations, such that understanding can be built by reasonable individuals; while the US is geared to being tolerant towards people living on the edges, at the cost of longer due process.
- prawn 12y ago
  What incentive? He got a heads up regarding his opponent.
- DanBC 12y ago
  When they come round and ask for a chat you can easily decline to let them in. That's just a personal choice. Personally I would prefer to keep them out becuase of my belief (which may be wrong) about warrants to search. The reason you talk to them is to get information. "We've had this complaint. We're letting you know." In this case I genuinely have no idea why the police felt it was appropriate to get involved and I would send a complaint in, even though they had been very polite. In other cases they may tell you that some person feels harassed by you. Ignoring what the police say could lead to you being arrested for them to question you about the harrassment; or maybe the other person will get a non-molestation order; or etc. Tl;dr in England we're policed with our consent and most people kind of feel that policing should be collaborative. Most people don't mind polite chats; it's petty little officious police being obnoxious during a traffic stop that is annoying.

by sdrinf 12y ago

polemic 12y ago

On that topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_Principles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_Principles "In the British model of policing, police officers are citizens in uniform. They exercise their powers to police their fellow citizens with the implicit consent of their fellow citizens. Policing by consent is the phrase used to describe this. It denotes that the legitimacy of policing in the eyes of the public is based upon a general consensus of support that follows from transparency about their powers, demonstrating integrity in exercising those powers and their accountability for doing so."

switch007 12y ago
Oh, please. Ethical?! I certainly don't consent to kettling and acts such as the brutal killing of Ian Tomlinson.

Crito 12y ago

What incentive would the author have to talk with the police (let alone invite them into his home) in this instance? I understand that the police in the UK may not be as menacing as they are in the US, but if nothing is in it for him (and as far as I can tell, nothing was), then why would he allow himself to be questioned in such a way? If I have nothing to gain from talking with the police, I never would, even if I also felt that I had nothing to lose.

iaskwhy 12y ago
Not the author but if I were him I would have done the same just because I'm terribly affraid of the police and could imagine it only being worse by not acting as normal as possible. While I'm perfectly conscious I shouldn't be like this, really bad past experiences with the police force got me into this kind of mental workflow whenever I see a police uniform. I must say being in the UK for the past years is slowly making me change this perception, I do feel much better just knowing they don't carry guns. And whenever I talked to a PC they were always very friendly and interested in what I had to say (which, as you can imagine by now, is a very different experience from the ones I had in some other countries).
sdrinf 12y ago
| What incentive would the author have to talk with the police (let alone invite them into his home) in this instance? I understand that the police in the UK may not be as menacing as they are in the US, but if nothing is in it for him (and as far as I can tell, nothing was), then why would he allow himself to be questioned in such a way? Incentive boils down to negative externalities: * In the UK, understanding is attempted by the police; in this case, they probably received a complaint, heard out both sides, and made the judgement call of case having no legal basis. Not hearing the cops out have a potentially significant downside, in them understanding the situation incorrectly. * In the US, the same level of understanding requires the interplay of a prosecutor, a defense counsel, and a judge (on top of the contestant & defendant), and several man-days of sweat. Talking with the cops can, by law, only weaken your position: anything you say can only be used against you. The cultural trade-off is a question of variance: the UK system presumes low-variance situations, such that understanding can be built by reasonable individuals; while the US is geared to being tolerant towards people living on the edges, at the cost of longer due process.
prawn 12y ago
What incentive? He got a heads up regarding his opponent.
DanBC 12y ago
When they come round and ask for a chat you can easily decline to let them in. That's just a personal choice. Personally I would prefer to keep them out becuase of my belief (which may be wrong) about warrants to search. The reason you talk to them is to get information. "We've had this complaint. We're letting you know." In this case I genuinely have no idea why the police felt it was appropriate to get involved and I would send a complaint in, even though they had been very polite. In other cases they may tell you that some person feels harassed by you. Ignoring what the police say could lead to you being arrested for them to question you about the harrassment; or maybe the other person will get a non-molestation order; or etc. Tl;dr in England we're policed with our consent and most people kind of feel that policing should be collaborative. Most people don't mind polite chats; it's petty little officious police being obnoxious during a traffic stop that is annoying.