It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Are UK citizens more 'free' than people in the US?

page: 6
15
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 01:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: grainofsand

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: NavyDoc
Not so many shot, or killed by beatings I note.
Smaller country so of course smaller sample, but are you really trying to suggest that UK police are as bad as US cops?


NO, I'm just pointing out that everybody has their problems. US cops are not by and large as awful as media reports/sterotypes and UK cops are not as jolly hail fellow well met as their stereotypes either.


True, but some places are nicer to live than others in the world. It is my opinion that there are far greater incidents of police brutality/killings (per capita) in the US than the UK...do you disagree?

In my police area (Devon & Cornwall Constabulary) in the summer we have less than 20 arresting officers available at any given time for 100,000 citizens. I discussed it here: Is it police numbers or a nice environment that keeps the peace, or is it just a crazy mix?
...and although police areas vary around the UK our stats of killings and beatings by police are much lower than found in the US. Do feel free to provide referenced sources to indicate my assertions are innacurate though, I am always happy to be corrected and learn new information when approriate.


Outside of the big cities, crime and incidents are basically on par with that of the UK. Like your country some crappy places drive up the statistics for the whole. In addition, media coverage can certainly skew the perception, yes?
edit on 25-8-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)


Looks like we average about 250 police per 100,000 people:



The number of full-time sworn personnel per
100,000 residents increased from 250 in 2004 to
251 in 2008.
„„ Fifteen of the 50 largest local police departments
employed fewer full-time sworn personnel in 2008
than in 2004. The largest declines were in Detroit
(36%), Memphis (23%), New Orleans (13%), and San
Francisco (10%).


And interesting to note, our largest crime areas have had a decline in sworn officers.

www.bjs.gov...
edit on 25-8-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)


In your other thread, you said this:



So, in total figures for my local police force, there are 4032 people who can legally detain a suspected criminal, for up to 30 minutes at least, in the biggest police area in England, and a population which fluctuates between 1.5 million in Winter, to 8 million during Summer


So take the average, say 4 million and divide that by 4032 officers with detention powers and you get 992.063 officers per 100,000. It seems that with more men on the street, public order would be expected to be better.
edit on 25-8-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-8-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 01:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Outside of the big cities, crime and incidents are basically on par with that of the UK. Like your country some crappy places drive up the statistics for the whole. In addition, media coverage can certainly skew the perception, yes?

Yes, absolutely.
We can agree that shootings and beatings by, on, and between citizens and police in inner city areas are more likely than in less populated rural or coastal areas.
Can we agree that inner cities in the UK have a much lower per capita police shooting/killing/beating rate than the US?
If not, no worries as I always enjoy reasoned debate, but it's been a UK public holiday today so after a long weekend I'm not into searching stats to support my case tonight. If you feel more awake than me though, please feel free to hit me with referenced sources to shoot me down...like I always say, I'm always happy to be shown as incorrect as I learn something new.



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 02:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: grainofsand

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Outside of the big cities, crime and incidents are basically on par with that of the UK. Like your country some crappy places drive up the statistics for the whole. In addition, media coverage can certainly skew the perception, yes?

Yes, absolutely.
We can agree that shootings and beatings by, on, and between citizens and police in inner city areas are more likely than in less populated rural or coastal areas.
Can we agree that inner cities in the UK have a much lower per capita police shooting/killing/beating rate than the US?
If not, no worries as I always enjoy reasoned debate, but it's been a UK public holiday today so after a long weekend I'm not into searching stats to support my case tonight. If you feel more awake than me though, please feel free to hit me with referenced sources to shoot me down...like I always say, I'm always happy to be shown as incorrect as I learn something new.


Oh, I don't intend to "shoot you down" at all. This has been a very pleasant and educational exchange. Perhaps one reason why you don't need a large police density in the summer months is because people who go to the shore on holiday are less likely to be criminals and trouble makers?

Is there reporting bias? I'm well acquainted with German police and it is VERY common to rough up the arrested, particularly foreigners, but statistically it's a non-event because its not even reported as it is considered "standard" policing in Germany.

(Reminds me of an old joke:

In Heaven all of the police are British, the cooks Italian, and the engineers are German.

In Hell all of the cooks are British, the engineers Italian, and all of the police are German. )



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 02:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc
In your other thread, you said this:



So, in total figures for my local police force, there are 4032 people who can legally detain a suspected criminal, for up to 30 minutes at least, in the biggest police area in England, and a population which fluctuates between 1.5 million in Winter, to 8 million during Summer


So take the average, say 4 million and divide that by 4032 officers with detention powers and you get 992.063 officers per 100,000. It seems that with more men on the street, public order would be expected to be better.


Ah, you must have missed the bit where those 4032 arresting officers have to be divided into either a 12 or 8 hour shift rota which takes into account sickness, weekends, and holidays.
I thought I had researched and presented the information in that thread quite well, I apologise if the information was not clear enough for you good self.

*Edit*
Oh, and there is no 'average' number of people in Devon & Cornwall, there is tourist season and winter.
Tourist season has less than 20 arresting officers available per 100,000 people at any given time. If you disagree with that then shoot my maths down in the other thread. I will enjoy the debate.
edit on 25-8-2014 by grainofsand because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 02:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: grainofsand

originally posted by: NavyDoc
In your other thread, you said this:



So, in total figures for my local police force, there are 4032 people who can legally detain a suspected criminal, for up to 30 minutes at least, in the biggest police area in England, and a population which fluctuates between 1.5 million in Winter, to 8 million during Summer


So take the average, say 4 million and divide that by 4032 officers with detention powers and you get 992.063 officers per 100,000. It seems that with more men on the street, public order would be expected to be better.


Ah, you must have missed the bit where those 4032 arresting officers have to be divided into either a 12 or 8 hour shift rota which takes into account sickness, weekends, and holidays.
I thought I had researched and presented the information in that thread quite well, I apologise if the information was not clear enough for you good self.


No it was clear enough and it was very well done, but you have to compare apples to apples.

Well, sure, but in order to be fair, you have to do the same with the US police. So we have 250 per 100,000. Using your same maths, what does that break down to?
edit on 25-8-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc
I would be interested to find out, and I guess it will be as easy as it was for me with official published figures describing 'arresting officers' not just 'overall staff', if the US publishes such figures.
With an armed police force I would guess less officers needed, but with an armed population that would surely cancel the weapon advantage out?
...all I know is that I read more about police shootings/beatings that happen in the US compared to the UK, and even if we consider that the UK is a fifth of the US population, I would expect close to a fifth of the mobile phone footage if our police were the same as the US.



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 02:23 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc
Missed your post, lol at that joke, I've heard it before, nice one.
You may have a point that my regional population is swelled with people from all over the world wanting a happy time in the summer, and you feel it as you walk around. It rubs off on the cops, they are chilled and friendly enough for the female tourists to take a 'selfie' wearing their caps and helmets.



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 02:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: NavyDoc
I would be interested to find out, and I guess it will be as easy as it was for me with official published figures describing 'arresting officers' not just 'overall staff', if the US publishes such figures.
With an armed police force I would guess less officers needed, but with an armed population that would surely cancel the weapon advantage out?
...all I know is that I read more about police shootings/beatings that happen in the US compared to the UK, and even if we consider that the UK is a fifth of the US population, I would expect close to a fifth of the mobile phone footage if our police were the same as the US.



I don't think that its an armed populace that makes the difference because the vast majority of armed Americans do not get in trouble or commit crimes. I think the additional violence really stems from the brutal nature of the drug trade and the cartels that you really don't have there. As an island, security is easier. In addition British society is smaller, more homogeneous, and always has had a sense of decorum and fair play. We also have racial issues that are not as...intense...in the UK.

As for the original post, I see where the Brits have more freedom than us in some instances and less in others. I'd say it quite difficult to say if one is more free than the other.
edit on 25-8-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 02:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: NavyDoc
Missed your post, lol at that joke, I've heard it before, nice one.
You may have a point that my regional population is swelled with people from all over the world wanting a happy time in the summer, and you feel it as you walk around. It rubs off on the cops, they are chilled and friendly enough for the female tourists to take a 'selfie' wearing their caps and helmets.


More importantly, do they take the selfies topless?



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 02:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: NavyDoc
I would be interested to find out, and I guess it will be as easy as it was for me with official published figures describing 'arresting officers' not just 'overall staff', if the US publishes such figures.
With an armed police force I would guess less officers needed, but with an armed population that would surely cancel the weapon advantage out?
...all I know is that I read more about police shootings/beatings that happen in the US compared to the UK, and even if we consider that the UK is a fifth of the US population, I would expect close to a fifth of the mobile phone footage if our police were the same as the US.



When they say "sworn" officers, it means that they have powers of arrest if that helps.



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 03:04 PM
link   
Hmmm. I would say freedom is relative. You may have more freedom to move around, but then you have more burdens like taxes. In another place, you may have more restrictions upon you, but you have an easier time meeting basic needs. There's always a tradeoff wherever you go.
edit on 25-8-2014 by DaboiaAlien because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 03:08 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc
I certainly agree with much of what you said, we of course have two different societies, but I would expect all developed societies to have similar expectations of police behaviour toward its citizens.

...regarding 'selfies' yep I've seen a few topless pics with genuine police caps/helmets on lol
Our police are chilled as # in Devon & Cornwall, and I have actually lived in rough inner city places of the UK as well and still think they are less likely to give me a beating in a dispute than the average US cop.
Perhaps I should look into some referenceable US stats for a bit and come back in a day or two with some figures to support or deny my suggestions.



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 03:16 PM
link   
a reply to: DaboiaAlien
May I ask your opinion on the back-taxes the USG can demand on earnings of a US citizen while living, working, and paying taxes in another country, as mentioned in the OP?
A UK citizen can live, work, and pay taxes in another country for as long as they want, but on their return to the UK the government does not demand any back-taxes.
It appears nobody wishes to address that in this thread.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 09:28 PM
link   
I was sort of hoping to see some solid rebuttals on the OP and his examples, but most of the replies are just obscure and vague responses about surveillance and taxes....



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 03:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: KingIcarus
I don't believe we're more 'free' in any meaningful sense than our friends in the US - but I also don't think Americans are really any 'freer' than anyone else in pretty much all the first world either.

I've never heard a convincing argument to support the idea that American Freedom is substantially different or better.


From what I can tell... as a 20 year old US college student who has friends from the UK.

There are two kinds of freedom in the world.

Freedom from (insert word)

-and-

Freedom to (insert word)

Most people from the US focus on the latter while most people from the UK focus on the former.

This is for good reason.

The US has way more "Freedom to..." ie: Freedom to say whatever we want (regardless of how stupid it may be), freedom to own firearms (regardless of how mentally stable we might be), freedom to smoke cigarettes (regardless of how dangerous that might be), freedom to eat ridiculous things like a taco wrapped inside a pizza. (i kid you not).

So people here think of THAT stuff as the only type of freedom.

The UK has way more "Freedom from..." ie: Freedom from three different levels of taxation (i'm amazed at how simple your tax code is), Freedom from overt displays of racism (no place is truly free from racism but selling racist material and holding racist demonstrations are illegal. the BNP probably dreams of the freedoms groups like the KKK get in the US), Freedom from Religion (i'm a little jealous of this. no one i've met from the UK so much as even blinks when I tell them I am an atheist), Freedom from completely legal anti-LGBT discrimination in housing and employment (hey, we're working this, but the US is a big country and it moves slow), Freedom from ubiquitous nationalism (look, I love my country but there is no reason why kids should have to pledge allegiance to it every day in school. that is usually something only required in dictatorships like N. Korea typically. I also like watching soccer but I don't need to hear the national anthem before every match when i go to see my city's club with my boyfriend - nationalism in England pretty much is reserved for things like royal weddings, the Olympics and World Cup from what I can tell).

So people in the UK look at their countries in comparison and see a lot more "Freedom froms" compared to the US so they focus on that.


In reality I'd give the edge to the UK but neither the UK nor the US are truly free.

This video below would be illegal to make in the UK. Wanna guess why?

And yes the band's name is a reference to Libertarian scholar Ayn Rand's essay "The Fountainhead". Not bad for some poor kids from Atlanta huh?


edit on 30-7-2015 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 09:13 AM
link   
a reply to: JadeStar

I really liked your distinction between 'freedom from' and 'freedom to' in your reply, there appears to be a lot of truth in what you suggested.

The video though, first thanks for sharing it here, never heard of the band before, played it a few times now, excellent track.


...I can't see or hear anything which would make it illegal to produce in the UK though?
Swear words are allowed in the right context, and even the message on one guy's chest "Lazy oreo" is hitting back at people who use such insults as far as I interpret it. That would be acceptable in the UK.

Everything is about context regarding speech here, the intention is what is important, did the person intend to insult or cause distress sort of thing.
Even then, it requires an actual complaint by someone to the police before they will even consider the context of the message.

Example, it is perfectly legal for someone to say publicly that they hate all black people, but it is not legal to say all blacks should die or whatever.
Yep, our freedom of speech is not at all like the US, but it is reasoned and personally I am quite happy with such laws as they stand right now. I don't want to live in a society where it's okay for people to hurt others with hate filled vocal attacks.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join