Hatred for police - One of the biggest reasons for the recent UK riots

reply to post by Absorbere


It was the Polices fault.

Text Right, first off let me say that my wife is a police officer in the UK so you might think my view is coloured, but I think I can give an objective overview;

You were wrong. Not objective at all.

Text It also seems to be the fashion to join the "I hate the police" club because it's flavour of the month for the middle classes, oooh it makes me anti-establishment, and edgy, it makes me feel like one of the "people"...please, if someone roughed you up on the tube you'd be pleading for the local copper to help in an instant.

If someone roughed you up on 'the tube' Im sure you would be pleading for your wife to help you in an instant. I on the other hand dont want your wifes help.

The police exist to raise revenue for the government and to protect the government.

The police are disliked more and more because of how they treat people. Never say anything to them, you will incriminate yourself . they are now about to bring out interviews at home also, then if you opt for 1, you have to pay for the solicitor, that is going to be very interesting, just admit your guilt now if you cant afford 1 , tossers(and tosserettes dont want anyone to feel left out) all of them.

Originally posted by JohhnyBGood
And this report was by the Gaurdian and the London school of Economics ie Fabian central, NWO social engineering.

The reason these scum felt hassled by the police is because they were mostly gang members conducting their drug trade etc!

Beg to differ.

www.bbc.co.uk...

The "majority of people" involved in the riots appear not to have been in gangs, the home secretary has said.

Theresa May told MPs it appeared the role of gangs was "not as high as people first thought". In London 19% of those arrested were gang members.

Originally posted by blueorder
Absoloutely NO surprise that the Guardian rag was involved in this "research"- do they really think these criminals are going to give them an honest answer, of course they are going to waffle about being treated as "equals" by the police (what in the name of good frig!?!?!), the Guardianistas love trying to blame the crimes by "urban" "yoof" on some sort of oppression.

Total rot, these people were morally bankrupt, and Id love to see the study on their home lives I am willing to bet a kidney that most came from non stable homes where daddy is not about and mummy likes to bring home a new "uncle" every now and then- the same sort of lifestyle Guardian reading dullards like to promote.

Well how about the Daily mail then? If you don't like the Guardian, here's the opposing paper, with bizarrely a similar viewpoint

www.dailymail.co.uk...

Originally posted by blueorder

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
reply to post by ludwigvonmises003

 

While there's no doubt that Britain carried out some terrible atrocities in India, I have to query that 1.8bn figure and seriously contend that these deaths could be predominantly attributed to British colonisation.

Due to the caste system, India had rampant social inequality long before the British took control, and still has rampant social inequality long after the British have left.

It is an utterly ridiculous suggestion and automatically renders this poster not worthy of serious debate

I've been to India and spent a lot of time there. Sherlock Holmes is right. Have you ever visited India and spent any amount of time with the locals?

Somehow I think not.

I think you would have to be incredibly naive to believe the Monarchy doesn't exercise or have power. In my opinion that's a complete fantasy, pushed by media.

Just because they aren't in the public eye doing it without regard doesn't mean they aren't affecting or influencing British politics and society.

reply to post by JessopJessopJessop

Just because they aren't in the public eye doing it without regard doesn't mean they aren't affecting or influencing British politics and society.

Please give me just one example, a few would be better but we'll settle for one for now, of how this is so and what makes you think this?

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by JessopJessopJessop

 

Just because they aren't in the public eye doing it without regard doesn't mean they aren't affecting or influencing British politics and society.

Please give me just one example, a few would be better but we'll settle for one for now, of how this is so and what makes you think this?

Give you an example that the Monarchy influence British politics - Is that a serious question?

www.dailymail.co.uk...

There you are.

Any suggestion that the Monarchy do not have influence or power is dishwater. They have no power or influence but politicians and media universally love and support them? What are the odds!

But maybe you are right. The Monarchy, bankers and corporations have absolutely no influence in British politics, they hold absolutely no power....................... The politicians serve the people................ Show me one example of that!

I read a lot of police hatred here on ATS.

My question is "What or who would you replace the police with?

It's easy to criticize the police. It's much harder to visualize how we can get the service that society needs in terms of law enforcement without getting some bad apples along with the good.

reply to post by JessopJessopJessop


Well looks like we have a different take on that.

I would suggest that was more of a case of the incumbent Labour government of the time trying to use The Royal Family's foreign reputation to further British interests and gain vitally needed contracts in a foreign country.
It's hardly interfering and dictating government policy.

Surely if they wield so much power and influence you can provide a better example than that.

The Royal Family are far too much in the public eye to surreptitiously determine policy etc....now if we are talking about the people who control the banks, multi-national corporations and senior civil servants then we may just have some common ground.

reply to post by mr-lizard


""burning down your community"" thats the thing there is no sense of community anymore accept in the rural villages were they still smoke in pub tap rooms because no one in the village gives a # about what EUROPE thinks

our national pride is gone even our football teams are 50 50 off shore they ruined our country all thats left is to tear down the buildings and act out our anger at our government for failing us

Originally posted by Wildbob77
I read a lot of police hatred here on ATS.

My question is "What or who would you replace the police with?

It's easy to criticize the police. It's much harder to visualize how we can get the service that society needs in terms of law enforcement without getting some bad apples along with the good.

I'd replace the police with people who actually want to stop cime and protect the public. I'd employ a force who do not protect goverment interest and who do not exist soley to raise money for goverments and investors in the police force. If the police weren't willing to go against what is right, and actually said "no, this is wrong, I shouldn't treat everyone as a criminal, I shouldn't harrass innocent folk just to see if they may incriminate themselves in some way so I can arrest them and I should tell any superior who tells me to do this, to shove it".

Thing is, of course we need a police force, but we have a police force at present, which represents a corrupt system, and are activley helping to uphold a corrupt system. The very moment you have a police force with private investors who want a cash return on their investments, that's the very moment you loose what the police are. The whole of the police force is rotten to its very core. There is NO trust for the police. I know i could never trust a copper, and I know pretty much everyone else I know thinks the same way. That, in todays world is a survival essential. Do not trust the police. Do not talk to them for they will try their best to find a reason to arrest you. (they have figures to meet don't you know)

I hate what the police are today, as they are not a police force who are here to help us. They are here to raise money, and to control by fear and intimidation. They presume everyone is a criminal and treat people like scum. I will never respect that, I can never respect that.

Originally posted by trustnothing
reply to post by Twiptwop

 

you mind you own business and go back to G and Ts on your balcony in Mayfair, this is about oppression, about police brutality, about racism and about inequality in general. Remember, shooting dead a black boy started it. If you are too "comfortable" to understand then no need to be involved. Leave that to the 99%

You are the racist, introducing race into it, suppose if it had been a chinese fella shot you wouldn't have cared- people like you are the problem, people like you are like putty in the hands of those in charge, so easily led

Originally posted by mr-lizard

Originally posted by JohhnyBGood
And this report was by the Gaurdian and the London school of Economics ie Fabian central, NWO social engineering.

The reason these scum felt hassled by the police is because they were mostly gang members conducting their drug trade etc!

Beg to differ.

www.bbc.co.uk...

The "majority of people" involved in the riots appear not to have been in gangs, the home secretary has said.

Theresa May told MPs it appeared the role of gangs was "not as high as people first thought". In London 19% of those arrested were gang members.

key word there is "appear", ffs do you think this criminal scum are just going to admit their gang membership when asked, how naive!

reply to post by Twiptwop


If you have nothing to hide, then you have done nothing wrong...so then why do the police feel the need to search you as though you are a suspected criminal?

I simply object to being treated as a potential threat or criminal simply because I exist, and that's exactly what random searches do.

The only other conclusion is that there is no a-priori assumption that I am a potential criminal or threat, and then that becomes a situation where the police are flagrantly and directly wasting tax payer money and harassing the populace.

Originally posted by blueorder

Originally posted by mr-lizard

Originally posted by JohhnyBGood
And this report was by the Gaurdian and the London school of Economics ie Fabian central, NWO social engineering.

The reason these scum felt hassled by the police is because they were mostly gang members conducting their drug trade etc!

Beg to differ.

www.bbc.co.uk...

The "majority of people" involved in the riots appear not to have been in gangs, the home secretary has said.

Theresa May told MPs it appeared the role of gangs was "not as high as people first thought". In London 19% of those arrested were gang members.

key word there is "appear", ffs do you think this criminal scum are just going to admit their gang membership when asked, how naive!

edit on 5-12-2011 by blueorder because: (no reason given)

Well, if you'd have bothered to read either the link to the guardian or the mail then you'd have realised these criminal scum admitted to a lot more than just gang membership. But obviously you know that already since you read both the links and didn't just come to this thread flapping your virtual jaw about.

Originally posted by mr-lizard

Well, if you'd have bothered to read either the link to the guardian or the mail then you'd have realised these criminal scum admitted to a lot more than just gang membership. But obviously you know that already since you read both the links and didn't just come to this thread flapping your virtual jaw about.

Yes, I read it before I saw this thread thank you very much


I do not think these thieves/criminals are to be trusted is my point- for my money the most important study would be on their home lives, I suspect absent father/mother with "uncles" would be quite predominant- this is not to say that all people from single parents are criminals, just that, on a society wide basis it results in a lot of ills- it is also one of, if not the biggest, reasons why much of the black population in the UK has so many problems