Policing for who?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Phil V

Phil V

Suspended / Banned
Messages
26,303
Name
Phil
Edit My Images
No
A day after we're told that South Yorkshire police diverted funds from Paedophile investigations to crimes with published targets, we now find that the police were involved in gathering evidence to make sure lefties couldn't get jobs on building sites.

It's good to know we have got our priorities right. Kids are just asking for trouble but we need to make sure that people interested in climate change or the habitat of rare species are worth serious investigation. Because they might stop some big business making a few quid?
 
Story after story is coming out about South Yorkshire police, from Hillsborough to Rotherham, that they make the Met look cuddly by comparison!

But don't blame business, Phil, whether big or small. Blame the distorted cultures that are rampant in the public sector
 
Looks like institutionalised child abuse in Sheffield was also quietly swept under the carpet.
Those in charge at the time who are still around should be brought to book.
 
The police are an arm of government, just like the judiciary, the tax collectors and the church.
Historically, the role of each has always been to protect the status quo, to protect the haves from the have nots.
The church exists to (literally) put the fear of god into the population, to set a moral standard that teaches them to accept whatever iniquities life throws at them, with the threat of eternal damnation if the moral teachings don't work.
The judiciary are supposedly independent, but are controlled by government and people who want to become judges or existing judges who want to get to the top, have to be the 'right' sort of people.
The police sweep up those who ignore the teaching of the church, and plonk them in from of judges who punish them for stepping out of line.
The police can't be blamed entirely for ignoring sex abuse - after all, most of the victims are low level, low grade girls who aren't worth bothering about (in the opinion of the government) - or at least until the abuse becomes public, when the govenment suddenly becomes outraged.

So, the government set targets for the police that are designed to protect the status quo - designed to prevent theft. They continually widen the role of the police, making their lives more and more complex and making policing more and more expensive, at the same time cutting their budgets to the point where all that the police can really do is to protect the government from the people.

Of course, the government has to appear to be interested, so they set up complaints procedures that protect the police, and make speeches about the failures of the police when necessary.

I doubt whether South Yorkshire is any worse than North Yorkshire, Cleveland or a few others.
 
The question you should be asking is why SYP spent money on other things. Given that how money that Police are given is spent isn't, and shouldn't be a political decision.

There's a number of reasons, the worst one being the fear of senior officers of being accused of being racist. A quick look at the people convicted in SYP that kicked off the latest round of criticism will show you why that was a factor.

It's not the only reason why, pressure from the Home Office and Targets on Burglary, car crime etc don't help, you can only do so much with the pot of cash, so it will inevitably follow the pressure points.

Ask people today in SYP area what they want, they might say Child Abuse, tomorrow, they might say Burglary, the following day it'll be something else.

The Mets Special Demo Squad did a bit more than make sure lefties didn't get jobs on building sites. Spying? yes, in a way, but its called Intelligence gathering. Remember the late 70's, the Unions were only interested in bringing down Governments, so not really a surprise for a long time after they were being watched. If you don't like what they did, then thats fine, but don't get bent out of shape when you and the majority vote one way and a few 100 Union members cause you to have a Government thats impotent or is out of office in a few weeks.
 
Bernie174 said:
The question you should be asking is why SYP spent money on other things. Given that how money that Police are given is spent isn't, and shouldn't be a political decision.

There's a number of reasons, the worst one being the fear of senior officers of being accused of being racist. A quick look at the people convicted in SYP that kicked off the latest round of criticism will show you why that was a factor.

It's not the only reason why, pressure from the Home Office and Targets on Burglary, car crime etc don't help, you can only do so much with the pot of cash, so it will inevitably follow the pressure points.

Ask people today in SYP area what they want, they might say Child Abuse, tomorrow, they might say Burglary, the following day it'll be something else.

The Mets Special Demo Squad did a bit more than make sure lefties didn't get jobs on building sites. Spying? yes, in a way, but its called Intelligence gathering. Remember the late 70's, the Unions were only interested in bringing down Governments, so not really a surprise for a long time after they were being watched. If you don't like what they did, then thats fine, but don't get bent out of shape when you and the majority vote one way and a few 100 Union members cause you to have a Government thats impotent or is out of office in a few weeks.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes: :facepalm: :LOL:
 
Bernie174 said:
The question you should be asking is why SYP spent money on other things. Given that how money that Police are given is spent isn't, and shouldn't be a political decision.

There's a number of reasons, the worst one being the fear of senior officers of being accused of being racist. A quick look at the people convicted in SYP that kicked off the latest round of criticism will show you why that was a factor.

It's not the only reason why, pressure from the Home Office and Targets on Burglary, car crime etc don't help, you can only do so much with the pot of cash, so it will inevitably follow the pressure points.

Ask people today in SYP area what they want, they might say Child Abuse, tomorrow, they might say Burglary, the following day it'll be something else.

The Mets Special Demo Squad did a bit more than make sure lefties didn't get jobs on building sites. Spying? yes, in a way, but its called Intelligence gathering. Remember the late 70's, the Unions were only interested in bringing down Governments, so not really a surprise for a long time after they were being watched. If you don't like what they did, then thats fine, but don't get bent out of shape when you and the majority vote one way and a few 100 Union members cause you to have a Government thats impotent or is out of office in a few weeks.
Click to expand...
"Unions only interested in bringing down governments"
Is that a joke?

Unfortunately I don't think it is, I think it's just part of the paranoid situation @Garry Edwards alluded to above. The ruling class are afraid that an organised working class might get organised enough to get their 'fair share'.

I witnessed enough political policing in the 80's to have a full understanding of the feelings on both sides, and whilst the NUM would happily have brought down the government, their 'aim' was just to keep their jobs. Bringing down a government would have been one of the outcomes, but it wasn't the aim, they just wanted to put food on the table.

They aren't a bunch of Marxists who had a plan for alternative government, 99% of the effort a union expends is to keep their members safe. Hardly revolutionary, in fact is close to the opposite, they're often dinosaurs who want to maintain the status quo.
 
Phil V said:
"Unions only interested in bringing down governments"
Is that a joke?
Click to expand...


So Scargill & the Tory Government in the 1970's didn't happen? 3 day week? Power cuts?
What do you think the 80's minors strike was all about? It had little to do with his members Jobs, it was about getting rid of Thatcher.

They were not all going to keep their jobs, they'd priced themselves out of the market. I'm not sure that protecting miners that may well have agreed with Scargill, but wanted him to play by the rules was 'political' policing. I don''t call stopping miners on motorways with boots full of weapons political policing either.

I don't call either of those 2 things peaceful picketing. I don't call the abuse given out to the minors at the pit I was at, which was working, peaceful, nor the threats reasonable. The only 'political' policing I saw during that year was being told NOT to arrest 'peaceful pickets' for threating working miners kids.

For every one thing you can bring up about the "Government side" I can bring up a counter Phil. The point here is that no, the NUM were not paragons of virtue, far from it. Was that sponsored by the NUM, yes, I believe it was.

Was everything lilly white on the other side, no, it wasn't, but it could have all been avoided, by Scargill sitting down at the start, not at the end when he'd lost it.


Red Robbo? BL, lets have a strike cause Management wont let us sleep on Night shifts?
Did they build cars? Eventually, if you didn't want one that worked. That was another figment of imagination was it?

Almost every big UK industry was crippled on a regular basis by Unions being greedy, and self centered.

The Union movement has changed, and I accept that, but it wasn't all nice and cuddly in the past, and so it's no surprise there wasn't a great deal of trust for a long time afterwards.
 
Last edited:
......................and they're off.
 
Bernie174 said:
So Scargill & the Tory Government in the 1970's didn't happen? 3 day week? Power cuts?
What do you think the 80's minors strike was all about? It had little to do with his members Jobs, it was about getting rid of Thatcher.

Red Robbo? BL, lets have a strike cause Management wont let us sleep on Night shifts?
Did they build cars? Eventually, if you didn't want one that worked.

The Union movement has changed, and I accept that, but it wasn't all nice and cuddly in the past, and so it's no surprise there wasn't a great deal of trust for a long time afterwards.
Click to expand...
I suppose it's all about perspective. I don't have rose tinted glasses about the Unions, but nor do I believe the lies told by politicians and their media puppets*. Instead I rely on conversations I've had, things I've witnessed and union meetings I've attended.

You might believe that the Police were doing a great job of maintaining public order and protecting the country from falling to a Soviet sponsored regime. I just saw ordinary family men fighting for their jobs who were arrested for 'resisting arrest' and 'assaulting a police officer' usually the assault occurred by the formerly peaceful father of 2 wantonly head butting some poor coppers** truncheon.

Whilst 3 day weeks and power cuts aren't my idea of paradise, neither are the sink estates that replaced villages full of families with a breadwinner.

* historical! as nowadays the politicians are more likely to be the puppets of the media moguls.

**i say copper, but it was just as likely to be a soldier in a police uniform with no badge number;).
 
Phil V said:
I suppose it's all about perspective. I don't have rose tinted glasses about the Unions, but nor do I believe the lies told by politicians and their media puppets*. Instead I rely on conversations I've had, things I've witnessed and union meetings I've attended.
Click to expand...


I agree, it is very much a perspective thing. And I certainly don't wouldn't and never have trusted Politicians, the press or union leaders.

One exception to that, was a Union leader who at the time of the miners strike I went out with his daughter. Nice bloke but was horrified at Scargill's antics.

I heard stories about Troops, but only ever from people who weren't there. Do I believe them? No. A copper you can tell from a mile off. A soldier you can also tell from a mile away., The 2 are very different animals, really very very different. If there were any, Police, when they have nothing else to do will gossip, it would have been out and in public in a way that couldn't be silenced.

You have to remember that many Police in places like Notts, Yorks, Kent and Wales had relatives in the Mines, or had worked in them themselves, they knew what was going on in the Mining Communities as well as in the Policing, if there was anything like that, it would have been out in public.
 
Bernie174 said:
I agree, it is very much a perspective thing. And I certainly don't wouldn't and never have trusted Politicians, the press or union leaders.

One exception to that, was a Union leader who at the time of the miners strike I went out with his daughter. Nice bloke but was horrified at Scargill's antics.

I heard stories about Troops, but only ever from people who weren't there. Do I believe them? No. A copper you can tell from a mile off. A soldier you can also tell from a mile away., The 2 are very different animals, really very very different. If there were any, Police, when they have nothing else to do will gossip, it would have been out and in public in a way that couldn't be silenced.

You have to remember that many Police in places like Notts, Yorks, Kent and Wales had relatives in the Mines, or had worked in them themselves, they knew what was going on in the Mining Communities as well as in the Policing, if there was anything like that, it would have been out in public.
Click to expand...

I know someone I'd trust with my life describe a coach full of 'young blokes' in civvies go into a local police station and come out in 'police uniform', now they could have been policemen, but he was fairly sure they weren't. Like you said, squaddies and policemen look different and move differently.

It's also a rumour I'd heard before that, from people who had no axe to grind on either side.

I was in that village on the day he described (I was visiting my mum on a day off work), there were pitched battles on the streets, it wasn't a hotspot of any description, miles away from any picket line, I'm not sure what drew the 'police' there, but I saw the results, and they weren't what I'd describe as 'policing'.

I often hear the 'it wasn't us guv, plenty of us had sympathy with miners' from local policemen, but it holds no water, I saw plenty of local coppers behave badly, there was a definite feeling that they were part of 'the establishment' that was defending itself.
 
Nope, no soldiers joined in the minors strike, I was in Doncaster at the time. Coppers arrived to work in civies to avoid being recognised on the way, such was the strength of feeling at the time.
They didn't need soldiers, plenty of overtime then for the coppers pulled in from other forces, especially the met.
Whilst I didn't see the start of it, I saw plenty of scores being settled on both sides. I then saw plenty of similar tactics by the met during the wapping dispute.
 
Back to the OP; once again we have children's abuse being systematically ignored because (like all other public services) there's no target.
 
Byker28i said:
Nope, no soldiers joined in the minors strike, I was in Doncaster at the time. Coppers arrived to work in civies to avoid being recognised on the way, such was the strength of feeling at the time.
They didn't need soldiers, plenty of overtime then for the coppers pulled in from other forces, especially the met.
Whilst I didn't see the start of it, I saw plenty of scores being settled on both sides. I then saw plenty of similar tactics by the met during the wapping dispute.
Click to expand...
Whole coach full of coppers in civvies arriving at work together? I suppose they could have been from the Met, but the eyewitness I trust was convinced they were squaddies he'd seen
 
I saw lots of coaches carrying the coppers around. Some were quartered on the base I was on. They often went to a police station for briefing, possibly equipping. Local paper said they were travelling in civies to avoid being attacked.
The strikers used to drop rocks onto cars as they went under bridges. I remember someone was killed.

Armed forced had no involvement in the miners strike. We did go in behind the wire at greenham as a second line of defence behind the coppers.
 
Last edited:
Phil V said:
"Unions only interested in bringing down governments"
Is that a joke?

Unfortunately I don't think it is, I think it's just part of the paranoid situation @Garry Edwards alluded to above. The ruling class are afraid that an organised working class might get organised enough to get their 'fair share'.
.
Click to expand...

This is way out. The "working class" have more than "their fair share". The pay less in taxes both absolutely and relatively to higher earners. Some don't even pay at all. Its argued high networth people don't get their fair share on the basis I have laid out.

Some people are rich, some are poor, some are capable, some are weak. Its life.
 
ST4 said:
This is way out. The "working class" have more than "their fair share". The pay less in taxes both absolutely and relatively to higher earners. Some don't even pay at all. Its argued high networth people don't get their fair share on the basis I have laid out.
.
Click to expand...

but they pay less in taxes because they earn less , this means they also have less left after tax

someone who earns the 'living wage' in a full time job - roughly £15k pa - pays 20% tax on circa 5k of it and thus has roughly 14k take home

someone who earns say 45k oin a full time job pays 20% tax on 30 grand , and 40% tax on 5 grand and thus hsas roughly 37 k take home

How is the person taking home nearly twice as much for the same hours worked not getting their fair share ?
 
big soft moose said:
but they pay less in taxes because they earn less , this means they also have less left after tax

someone who earns the 'living wage' in a full time job - roughly £15k pa - pays 20% tax on circa 5k of it and thus has roughly 14k take home

someone who earns say 45k oin a full time job pays 20% tax on 30 grand , and 40% tax on 5 grand and thus hsas roughly 37 k take home

How is the person taking home nearly twice as much for the same hours worked not getting their fair share ?
Click to expand...

They earn less, due to lesser skills, abilities, education, etc or desire to have as much. Not everyone is equal and should be treated the same.

You are a manager, you earn more than your staff. Do they get their fare share or are you over renumerated? Your boss will earn more than you.

Just because people are poor doesn't mean they matter more than someone who is richer. Its this automatic sense of entitlement to things that poor people have to things that they cannot afford without hand outs from the tax man that bugs me.
 
OldCarlos said:
I blame Maggie's Tories for many (not all) of the ills & divisions in society today. (n)
Click to expand...
Correct and the Tory mugs still can't barely buy a vote up here, a generation on because of her and her government in the 80's.
 
Think you're missing the point of the OP Steve, funds were diverted from the investigation into children's abuse because they were deemed not important enough
 
LCPete said:
Think you're missing the point of the OP Steve, funds were diverted from the investigation into children's abuse because they were deemed not important enough
Click to expand...

My post was in reply purely to a comment that caught my eye in this thread "the ruling class are afraid that an organised working class might get organised enough to get their 'fair share'.

I felt oblidged to weigh in.

Its a terrible case but at the end of the day, policing this is very difficult and South Yorkshire, along with most other sess pit constabularies had problems of its own day to day to try and deal with.
 
ST4 said:
This is way out. The "working class" have more than "their fair share". The pay less in taxes both absolutely and relatively to higher earners. Some don't even pay at all. Its argued high networth people don't get their fair share on the basis I have laid out.

Some people are rich, some are poor, some are capable, some are weak. Its life.
Click to expand...
Steve.
You can count, you only pretend to be a moron.
 
ST4 said:
You are a manager, you earn more than your staff. Do they get their fare share or are you over renumerated? Your boss will earn more than you.
Click to expand...

Fair point, but because i earn more i expect to be taxed more - you won't find me crying about not getting my fair share because I pay a few grand more in tax than someone who earns less than me
 
ST4 said:
I've given you a logical break down of my view point, can you counter it with facts and reason, rather than personal comments?
Click to expand...
Use your imagination Steve, stop pretending to be a simple right wing knuckle dragger, it stopped being funny months ago. :D
 
big soft moose said:
Fair point, but because i earn more i expect to be taxed more - you won't find me crying about not getting my fair share because I pay a few grand more in tax than someone who earns less than me
Click to expand...

No, but if you earn into 40% tax thresholds you pay more relatively and absolutely than someone who doesn't. I am ok with paying more tax if earning more, but banding taxes to make them more relatively the more you earn is punitive and unfair.

Someone who earns over £400k pays the bulk of their salary at 40%, someone who earns £20k pays half their salary at 20%. The relative amounts are unfair. Tax is taken from the rich people at a higher rate and pretty much all spent on the poorer ones who pay in at a much lower rate? How is that remotely fair?

It isn't, and it stems from people who have less having blatantly false expecations of what they should and shouldn't expect to have on what they make themselves?

ST4 said:
I've given you a logical break down of my view point, can you counter it with facts and reason, rather than personal comments?
Click to expand...

Phil V said:
Use your imagination Steve, stop pretending to be a simple right wing knuckle dragger, it stopped being funny months ago. :D
Click to expand...

Right, so I take that as a no then :D
 
Last edited:
simon ess said:
I'd like to see the statistics that support that assertion.
Click to expand...
It works perfectly well....



If you ignore indirect taxes, and ignore tax incentives for certain industries (like the financial sector) and ignore the tax status of private education, grants from the EU for major landowners... etc etc.
 
ST4 said:
Right, so I take that as a no then :D
Click to expand...
See above, have a read of some Economics experts instead if trashy right wing so called newspapers. It's amazing what you could learn if you're prepared to have your prejudices challenged.
 
Last edited:
ST4 said:
Hmrc website. Look up personal allowances and income tax. It's all there.
Click to expand...
As above, you need to dig a little deeper and think a lot wider.

If you earn £20k how much of it will you spend on 'living', if you earn £200k how much will be left unspent?

There's more to a 'tax burden' than income tax. Surely you're more intelligent than this?
 
Can we?
Phil V said:
Back to the OP; once again we have children's abuse being systematically ignored because (like all other public services) there's no target.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top