• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Behavior of UK Police officers.

Archie Gemmill Goal said:
What are the founding principles of UK policing to which you refer? The UK doesn't even have a single set of laws let alone a single way of policing.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing they mean Robert Peel's founding of the Metropolitan Police and the principals of modern policing, whilst ignoring the far from harmonious social conditions that prompted it. I'm sure the Peterloo Massacre isn't on Baylor's radar, because no "brown people" were involved.
 
Information Analyst said:
I'm guessing they mean Robert Peel's founding of the Metropolitan Police and the principals of modern policing, whilst ignoring the far from harmonious social conditions that prompted it. I'm sure the Peterloo Massacre isn't on Baylor's radar, because no "brown people" were involved.
Click to expand...

I think he tends to catagorise people by colour so, to him, for instance, the Irish are just one big, happy homogeonus group...


I've spent a lot of time with people who are a different race / creed / colour to me over the years and what I have most noticed is that those of other races and cultures who I have worked with, who sit in the same bracket on the socio-economic scale as I are people with whom I have far, far more in common than those of my own race who live in a different bracket.

I honestly think that those who are so terrified of other races and nationalities just haven't spent any time with people from them.
 
Last edited:
Information Analyst said:
I'm guessing they mean Robert Peel's founding of the Metropolitan Police and the principals of modern policing, whilst ignoring the far from harmonious social conditions that prompted it. I'm sure the Peterloo Massacre isn't on Baylor's radar, because no "brown people" were involved.
Click to expand...

Or the Irish Constabulary maybe? You know from the time when the UK was completely homogeneous and there was no infighting at all between different groups?!?
 
baron said:
The implication is that the police should prioritise in a fair and reasonable way. When someone is assaulted or burgled and the police force can't send anybody round because half the force is sat on their arses looking for naughty words on Twitter then I see that as a problem, and so does the vast majority of the British public.
Click to expand...

Presumably you have a robust and verifiable source for that.
 
Baylor said:
When the "founding principles" were laid out the UK was homogeneous. The UK is no longer homogeneous so those principles are no longer applicable. That's why most Britons think the police have lost control of their streets.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6787333/half-of-brits-say-police-lost-control/



The current year meme went over the empty heads here but I'll use it again--it's the current year.
Click to expand...

Just how ignorant of British History you are. London (and England) has had a long history of refugees, the area now occupied by Bangladeshis was first Huguenot, then Jewish. London at the time of the foundation of the police was having problems with revolutionaries and terrorists. (Including Irish refugees due to the great hunger.) shortly after Peel the creator of the police was prime minister the son of an East European Jewish refugee became prime minister Benjamin Disraeli. The first asian / Indian MP was elected in Victorian times. Although you may think that Victorian England was homogenous, and 'christian'; a clearly semitic (though irreligious) man could become the leader of the free world (which what the British PM was I guess at that time), a non -christian overtly Indian man could be elected to parliament, - of course not even a white christian woman could be elected.

There is a trivia question that I suspect all English people posting here will know instantly; Who was the last English king? When you know the answer to that you will understand why the idea of a homogenous England is nonsense.
 
Last edited:
Planigale said:
Just how ignorant of British History you are. London (and England) has had a long history of refugees, the area now occupied by Bangladeshis was first Huguenot, then Jewish.
Click to expand...
Yeah, white people, who of course are almost never violent, and who have never sought to impose their religious values on others.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
Or the Irish Constabulary maybe? You know from the time when the UK was completely homogeneous and there was no infighting at all between different groups?!?
Click to expand...

Yes. It's notable that while the RIC very much deviated from Peel's model, the separate Dublin Metropolitan Police was based more firmly on it, and - significantly - were never armed. As a result, they were trusted far more by the population, and were much less likely to be the subject of Republican attack.
 
Information Analyst said:
Yes. It's notable that while the RIC very much deviated from Peel's model, the separate Dublin Metropolitan Police was based more firmly on it, and - significantly - were never armed. As a result, they were trusted far more by the population, and were much less likely to be the subject of Republican attack.
Click to expand...

NOT ARMED?!?! God they probably had their picture taken holding a Bible! Cowards.
 
3point14 said:
I think he tends to catagorise people by colour so, to him, for instance, the Irish are just one big, happy homogeonus group...


I've spent a lot of time with people who are a different race / creed / colour to me over the years and what I have most noticed is that those of other races and cultures who I have worked with, who sit in the same bracket on the socio-economic scale as I are people with whom I have far, far more in common than those of my own race who live in a different bracket.

I honestly think that those who are so terrified of other races and nationalities just haven't spent any time with people from them.
Click to expand...

That's almost exactly what I was going to post.

Except that I was going to say that I have more in common with educated, intelligent, tolerant Muslims than with people like Baylor.
 
jimbob said:
That's almost exactly what I was going to post.

Except that I was going to say that I have more in common with educated, intelligent, tolerant Muslims than with people like Baylor.
Click to expand...

One of the weirdest experiences I had was being on the 'right' side of a racist rant. As a student I went back packing round Scandinavia. Somewhere in northern Norway I was sitting behind the bus driver who was chatting to me in English and extracted how I was a student at Cambridge and was born in North England near the viking town of Yorvick, then some French people got on and tried to speak in French (which I helped translate into English), the bus driver then complained to me (Pakistani ethnicity female) about how useless southern Europeans are and why they did not learn to speak English like everyone else and how us Northern Europeans were different from those useless Southerners. It was really bizarre; colour blind racism!

I am not sure if my experience is unique but North Europe vs. South Europe racism is surprisingly common, it has happened to me at scientific conferences with Dutch colleagues complaining to me about Italians. (Of course northern Italians will then complain about their southern colleagues.) I feel really guilty about getting a warm tingly feeling about being classed as one of the 'good' hard working ethical non nepotistic North Europeans despite visibly being not North European.
 
Planigale said:
Just how ignorant of British History you are. London (and England) has had a long history of refugees, the area now occupied by Bangladeshis was first Huguenot, then Jewish. London at the time of the foundation of the police was having problems with revolutionaries and terrorists. (Including Irish refugees due to the great hunger.) shortly after Peel the creator of the police was prime minister the son of an East European Jewish refugee became prime minister Benjamin Disraeli. The first asian / Indian MP was elected in Victorian times. Although you may think that Victorian England was homogenous, and 'christian'; a clearly semitic (though irreligious) man could become the leader of the free world (which what the British PM was I guess at that time), a non -christian overtly Indian man could be elected to parliament, - of course not even a white christian woman could be elected.

There is a trivia question that I suspect all English people posting here will know instantly; Who was the last English king? When you know the answer to that you will understand why the idea of a homogenous England is nonsense.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I hear that a lot. I know you guys love the "Britain has always been multicultural! Therefore there's nothing to worry about when we import another 450,000 Muslims immigrants this year!" I'm American dude, so believe me when I say you ain't seen nothing yet.
 
Last edited:
Baylor said:
......Muslims know UK law doesn't apply to them.......
Click to expand...

Do people actually believe any of this utter bollocks? What sort of deranged minds make up crap like this?

Anyway, why didn't anyone tell me? I'll just go and rob a bank, then tell them I'm Muslim. That'll work.......
 
MikeG said:
Do people actually believe any of this utter bollocks? What sort of deranged minds make up crap like this?

Anyway, why didn't anyone tell me? I'll just go and rob a bank, then tell them I'm Muslim. That'll work.......
Click to expand...

Chanting anti-semitic slogans on the streets of London is a violation of the Racial and Religious Hatred Act of 2006. Muslims do it with impunity because the law does not apply to them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom