Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Peelian Principles

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–48 of 48 posts

Re: Peelian Principles

#41

Post by andyjohnson0 »

watmough wrote: post #39
threeseed wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

UK police officers don't want to carry guns because they really don't need to. The most likely threat they are going to face is from a youth carrying a knife (gangs are an issue in outer London boroughs). And since police officers are wearing protective vests a knife attack isn't going to be hitting major organs.

If you notice though, everywhere, including the UK, now has vans full of armed SWAT-type cops, ready to roll at a moments notice. Un-armed my foot! (pun intended)

Armed response vehicles do exist in the major cities in the UK, although the number of incidents in which they are used is declining. In England and Wales for the year ending March 2012, the police discharged firearms at a total of five incidents [1]. That's for a population of 56 million.

[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/statistics-on-police-...

Re: Peelian Principles

#42

Post by coolsunglasses »

tehwalrus wrote: post #23
PaulKeeble wrote: post #18

I wouldn't say all these principles are in force in the UK today. The very fact that our police is routinely used to break up peaceful demonstrations, to stop demonstrations from occurring in areas were our politicians might see them is kind of a perversion of one of the key points. The officers do still wear the numbers but they are routinely covered up to hide their identities, especially when they are dealing with…

Some of the positives of this system of justice do still remain - Personally, I would still approach a UK police officer in the street to ask for help without fear[1], whereas I don't think I'd ever go and ask for help from a US cop except in the direst of circumstances (mainly because of their reputation, and that they are all armed). That said, your criticisms of the current force are definitely valid ones, and I w…

> I don't think I'd ever go and ask for help from a US cop except in the direst of circumstances

Pretty silly. Most, if not all, cops I've encountered have been decent and helpful human beings.

The primary source of ongoing friction with cops usually has to do with racial tensions in inner cities, especially in LA.

Their being armed doesn't change anything, plenty of everyday non-police citizens walking around armed too. No reason for fear.

Re: Peelian Principles

#43

Post by tehwalrus »

coolsunglasses wrote: post #42
tehwalrus wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some of the positives of this system of justice do still remain - Personally, I would still approach a UK police officer in the street to ask for help without fear[1], whereas I don't think I'd ever go and ask for help from a US cop except in the direst of circumstances (mainly because of their reputation, and that they are all armed). That said, your criticisms of the current force are definitely valid ones, and I w…

> I don't think I'd ever go and ask for help from a US cop except in the direst of circumstances Pretty silly. Most, if not all, cops I've encountered have been decent and helpful human beings. The primary source of ongoing friction with cops usually has to do with racial tensions in inner cities, especially in LA. Their being armed doesn't change anything, plenty of everyday non-police citizens walking around armed…

> plenty of everyday non-police citizens walking around armed too.

This is not a reason not to be afraid. I'll spare you my big rant, though, as I probably won't convince you.

Re: Peelian Principles

#44

Post by midas007 »

rjknight wrote: post #13
cstross wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So kindly explain what's wrong, in principle, with defining book ideals and then using these as criteria to evaluate the success of organizations? The Peelian principles have been largely obscured or ignored in recent decades, and arguably they were always a bit hollow -- but the history of British policing since the 1830s has had significantly less emphasis on raw offensive firepower than other police systems: even…

Indeed, I think there's something a bit too fatalistic about the idea that the police must automatically be bad because the very nature of authority is corrupting. It's somewhat similar to genetically-deterministic evo-psych, or arguments that group X will behave in a certain way because of their privileges or sufferings. There might be a tendency toward that pattern of behaviour, but tendencies can be overcome. In s…

How many police officers have you interacted with?

Re: Peelian Principles

#45

Post by midas007 »

cstross wrote: post #6
midas007 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a book ideal that doesn't recognize reality: the fallibility and self-interests of individuals.

So kindly explain what's wrong, in principle, with defining book ideals and then using these as criteria to evaluate the success of organizations? The Peelian principles have been largely obscured or ignored in recent decades, and arguably they were always a bit hollow -- but the history of British policing since the 1830s has had significantly less emphasis on raw offensive firepower than other police systems: even…

Because it's divorced from reality for one.

Re: Peelian Principles

#46

Post by midas007 »

brg wrote: post #11
pjc50 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some areas of the US are more "3rd-world country" than the people care to acknowledge. Mostly due to the legacy of colonialism. Economy based on manual labour for resource extraction or farming? Yup. History of racial conflict from the time of slavery? Yup. Poor rule of law linked to family and business corruption? Yup. Excessively violent policing as a result of those factors? Yup.

I dispute this claim. In the last two decades, the most high profile cases of police malfeasance are coming from LA and Seattle. These have nothing to do with colonialism, but with complete lack of oversight and responsibility.

Exactly. The pattern is:

1. cops do whatever they want 2. they become more and more emboldened 3. something awful happens to an "innocent" person 4. temporary measures are put in place 5. delay 10 6. goto 1

Re: Peelian Principles

#47

Post by midas007 »

cstross wrote: post #21
rjknight wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, I think there's something a bit too fatalistic about the idea that the police must automatically be bad because the very nature of authority is corrupting. It's somewhat similar to genetically-deterministic evo-psych, or arguments that group X will behave in a certain way because of their privileges or sufferings. There might be a tendency toward that pattern of behaviour, but tendencies can be overcome. In s…

The real question is how we design robust institutional cultures that don't deteriorate over time, and adhere to the original mission goals. (And also how we free ourselves from the tyranny of low expectations, so that we can set good goals rather than accepting bad outcomes as inevitable.) Note that Peel's Principles were in no small part to address the public order aftermath of the Peterloo Massacre: http://en.wiki…

The only way is if police are held to account. That there is some sort of oversight committee, separate from the police force, that can fire officers.

For example, Mountain View PD has this female police officer that is just plain nutters in a dangerous way (aggressive and crazy with a gun).

Re: Peelian Principles

#48

Post by midas007 »

maxerickson wrote: post #34
cstross wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So kindly explain what's wrong, in principle, with defining book ideals and then using these as criteria to evaluate the success of organizations? The Peelian principles have been largely obscured or ignored in recent decades, and arguably they were always a bit hollow -- but the history of British policing since the 1830s has had significantly less emphasis on raw offensive firepower than other police systems: even…

I like that you called them ideals. A lot of what I consider weirder political thought seems to come from treating some set of principles as inviolate. It's harder to make that mistake of thought with an ideal. (and any system involving more than 1 human seems likely enough to require compromise somewhere)

Yeah, it's usually the inexperienced and the privileged that take on a meritocratic, neat-and-simple worldview. It's the intellectual equivalent of sticking one's head in the sand.

"Shit happens" isn't a bumper sticker for no reason.

Post reply on HN