Peelian Principles
I wonder if these principles are taught to British police officers in training. I wonder if they are taught and the meaning and the weight behind the meaning. I saw a fellow dragged from a wheelchair last night on the news by a gang of thugs dressed as police. He was protesting against the government. It wasn't in Chille or China or South America. It was in London, England - 2010.
The Peelian Principles, attributed to Sir Robert Peel, speak of a police force where rampant lawlessness and vile Mafia-ism would never thrive. But alas, in much the same way as the Catholic Church has for many years provided a perfect hiding place for paedophiles to wreak havoc, so the British police force has become the perfect place for thugs, criminals and bullies of the worst kind to hide out. This is what happens when we forget the Blair Peache' and Jean Charles De Menenzes of the world. WIll somebody please remind them: You cannot enforce the law and break it at the same time. That way lies fucking chaos!!!
- The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.
- The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon the public approval of police actions.
- Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observation of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.
- The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.
- Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.
- Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice, and warning is found to be insufficient.
- Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
- Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions, and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.
- The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it
I think if you were to read ALL the story concerning "the fellow dragged from his wheelchair" & not just cherry pick the facts that are in unison with you twisted little mind, you may find (though you may not) that the police were merely acting in self defence against this evil wheelchair wielding lazy arsed student protesting bastard. What you fail to mention is the pointed sticks this nasty quadriplegic had attached to his chair (or asked someone else to)if he hadn't been such a slothful money grabbing twat in the first place & got out of his fucking chair & ran at the police like a proper protester I may have had more respect for him, but as it were to simply sit there in his nice comfy chair calling them nnnnnnames was just embarrassing, filling his tyres with piss was also the kind of trick only a cunt would think of, let alone carry out. John "hotpiss wheels" mcgintty as he is not called is most definitely not the kind of person I would like to see driving a tank up mine, or anyone else garden path, I do hope after reading this you shall come to the error of your ways & cease & desist from publishing this tired & outdated publication of yours before it gets you & the goldfish in to more trouble than you can wave a halibut hat. The only thing more irratating than these kinds of blogs are the people that read & reply to them in a pathetic attempt to get a little bit of attention, you wont see me doing that.
ReplyDeleteYours, mine & everybody else's, SteMoonShineMcGee
Unfortunately, and as much as I respect your right to your opinion, I must say that it is the policy of Twitter N Bisted not to enter into debate on the why's or wherefore's of the published opinion.
ReplyDeleteSo piss off.