Head To Head
Log In
Register
U-Know! Forum »
Guess what verdict the cop got
Log In to post a reply

52 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
Squid Tempest
Squid Tempest
8761 posts

Re: Guess what verdict the cop got
Apr 07, 2010, 19:52
Daminxa wrote:
Yeah well like I say, that particular copper got it badly wrong - yes they are supposed to be able to deal with a physical assault without giving someone a damn good pasting. I'm just not a fan of these sweeping generalisations. That copper was a wanker, a tosser, a twat of the highest order, but that wasn't BECAUSE he was a copper, he'd have been a tool whatever his profession. To me, he doesn't necessarily represent ALL policemen.

I've had far more dealings with the police in my time than I would've liked. Some of them have been cumstains of the highest order, like the twatting little tosspot who threatened me with his truncheon (oooh-er) because I didn't look properly before I crossed the road on my way to the station one morning. Most of them, however, have been completely professional and some of them have been downright stars. You can't generalise about people just on the grounds that they're in the police force, and the same should be said of protestors.

Most protestors DO want to protest and make their point peacefully, but some of them are there just to kick off, and I've met the latter, unfortunately. I don't condone it, but if you're there just to have a fight with a copper or to see how far you can push/test them before they lash out, part of me thinks you can't really complain if you get a slap (not at all pc of me I know). The fact that not all coppers DO rise to the bait is to their credit, surely?


In this case their job was, I assume, to keep the peace. As I see it, if any one of them caused violence, it reflects on them as a force - they failed in their objective. At the very least the person in charge was culpable.

On the other hand, the protesters are not in the pay of the public, they have no public duty as such. Apart, that is, from upholding the image of whatever their cause is, which is a nebulous thing and not easy to define.

Although I agree that sweeping genralisations are not helpful, in this case it is not so much a generalisation as a recognition of the purpose of the police at this demonstration. The purpose of the force as a whole. The misbehaviour of any one is failure of the discipline of the force as a whole.

Does that make sense? I'm not really very good at expressing these things!
Topic Outline:

U-Know! Forum Index