The wording of this sentence strikes me as particularly intriguing. It does not simply imply a respectful deference to the police force of your country, but possibly even a subservience. Perhaps I am misinterpreting what you mean by 'talk back'.. it seems to me to suggest an impudent or rude response to a social superior.

If that is so, then we have an enormous cultural gulf between us. Firstly, in England, the Police serve the community not the other way round. Secondly, they're relatively badly paid, and unfortunately if you pay peanuts you get monkeys. Seldom a week goes by without some new outrage or stupidity perpetrated by the police covering multiple column inches in the broadsheets.

This is not to say that I, or the community at large, is habitually rude to the Police, or that I do not appreciate the extremely valuable services they provide. I just don't trust them. And we English don't put our police on a pedestal. They are ordinary citizens, just like the rest of us - they just have a specific job and slightly advanced powers of arrest (any of the rest of us are able to arrest someone with what is known as a citizen's arrest - the police just have more jurisdiction). Just as it is none of my next door neighbour's business where I'm going when I walk down the street, so it is none of the business of the local policeman.

I hope the above goes some way to explaining the difference....

Well, you've managed to answer all of my questions, including "Is 'talk back' the right term to use?".

Even though the police are not socially superior, they are competent enough, so if a policeman asks me what am I doing, I'll reply. I suppose this is because we value safety above liberty, so I just cannot imagine anyone refusing to cooperate with a police officer. Because that by itself is very suspicious.

So as a Mancunian I can say that the GMP use very unorthodox approaches, but they work. Policing in Manchester is more akin to policing in an American city than a British one, we have armed police on the streets alot, and we have wonderful ways of dealing with the mass drunken brawls that break out (we call them the Bootle Street Boys or Bootle Street Brutality Squad). But to be honest, I have always been happy for them to be there.

And the reason the Singaporean Police get more respect than the British, is because the judicial system in Singapore results in actual deterrance. Admittedly this is using principals that most people would consider a breech of basic rights (presumption of guilt for certain offences, for example).

The only place I feel safer than when I am back in Manchester is when I am back in Singapore.

They're issued with the same level of security than money bills I think. Just no electronics. Not easy to forge (of course, I am not an expert on forging).

The things is, it grants me rights against any crazy policeman taht might think I look like a terrorist and must be brought to the police station for identification. It also serves to prove my age and my right to use my credit cards (If I don't show it, I cannot pay with them in shops... More difficult for somebody to try to buy stuff using my stolen cards but with internet now that's not a big worry) and enter places. It's mandatory to carry the ID because you must be identificable at all times, but I've forgotten it at home plenty of times. In fact, I've been asked for it most often by security guards at pubs that wanted to check my age than by policemen.

I can also "talk back" to policemen here. Then, if a policeman asked me what I am doing and I told him "none of your bussiness" it's probable the guy become nasty and tries to intimidate me and everything, but that's because a lot of people who need to feel important and in charge are policemen. As a sidenote, I have never been asked what I am doing randomy on the middle of the street, because policemen know better than to harrass citizens for no reason. The same right they have to ask for my ID I have to ask for their license and police-ID and issue a complaint at the nearest police station

And on the subject of ID cards, I spend half my time in Singapore, I have a Singaporean IC (though mine is blue, I assume Caerulo's is pink like my wife's), and I honestly like them, they really make everday dealings with the government, orders of magnitude faster and easier than dealing with the British government. I really am not against them being introduced in Britain, because I have seen how they work. But then I am a person who generally has no issues with small losses in civil liberties for certain things, we really don't have much personal freedom in Britain anyway, just a very good illusion of it, the ID card won't change that.

I just don't get people who want the right to "talk back" to police officers.

It just seems entirely counter productive to me.

Here is a person who literally put their life on the line to help others. After all, they aren't getting well paid. The least you can do is be nice to them and give them the benefit of the doubt. Why waste an officer's time by giving them lip?

Honestly, Daganev, Aiakon has given reasonable answers that explained exactly why he would view police officers that way.

I don't think they are reasonable at all. They sound very circular, and prejudice.

Except for the very rare, really corrupt cop, more often than not, these news making stories are caused by people "talking back" to the cops and making them stressed out and angry. I am not saying it is a justification for the actions, but is does seem to be a major factor in the cause.

So disrespecting the police because of "outrage or stupidity perpetrated by the police covering multiple column inches in the broadsheets." which are just events which are caused by people disrespecting the police, seems to be very circular and not reasonable thinking.

To assume that "since they don't get paid well, they are incompetent" just furthers the problem. Teachers are paid peanuts also, should we assume they are monkeys and distrust them?

You never read things properly, Daganev. If I wasn't sitting at my desk alternately sweating and freezing with a tremendous headache and a supremely awful hangover, I'd probably flame you. That and Gwylifar accused me of exactly the same crime yesterday (i.e not reading properly) and I'd hate to look too hypocritical.




This does not mean that I want to 'disrespect' (horrible, ugly word) Police. It just means that I can and I value the fact that I can.



This is clearly a generalisation. It should be perfectly plain that I do not think that all police are monkeys because they are not paid enough, because it should be perfectly plain that I am not wholly retarded.



Your comments re this observation of mine are not born from a failure to read, they are born from your over fertile imagination. You are not English, you do not read the English broadsheets on a daily basis, you are not qualified to comment. I fulfill these criteria, and I am. Should anyone on this forum also read the English Papers on a regular basis and disagree with me, then I would welcome their contribution. I do not welcome the groundless inclinations of a man who has nothing to substantiate his comments. The statement that these are just "events which are caused by people disrespecting the police" is, in almost every instance of police misbehaviour which immediately comes to mind, completely false.



Quis custodiet ipsos custodes

Whatever was in your initial, post, the conversation after that post, seemed to be heading in another direction.

Though, I would say that "not trusting the police" is probably the number one reason sited for why police officers manhandle the public. I have a hard time believing that English police are all that different than police in America, or Israel, or South Africa. Completely different police cultures in both San Francisco and Los Angeles, still have the same tensions of police brutality and a statements from the public that you have to watch the police closely, because they can not be trusted.

To open up with saying that "they serve us" not the other way around, is either just ignorant of all police forces, or is just a style of attitude that leads to the belief that it is not needed to talk politely to people who do you a service because you pay them. I would consider the statement "None of your business" to be disrespectful and rude regardless of the relationship.

edit:

In all honesty even comparing any of the police to monkies or the like shows a general disrespect for the profession. It doesn't matter if you don't mean 100% of them, the statement implies a >50% which is just as nasty.

I can understand a general distrust of the government and the people who make the policies but when talking about the police on the street, who ask you "what are you doing" I just don't see the "reasonableness" of it.

Daganev, you have once again turned this into a semantics argument, which will almost certainly take up the next forum page or two discussing what implied what in the earlier posts. Aiakon knows what he meant. You're simply stating in a very long way that his initial post implied, in some schizophrenic reality, that something meant this, that or the other, when it has already been said that it didn't. So shall we just drop this argument now and carry on with our lives, be they "real" or virtual?

Yeah, yay for crowd control! I'm all for unorthodox approaches that work, but unfortunately, not when they involve violating people's rights. Besides, this last initiative of theirs seems doomed to failure.
Yes, it's surprising how threatening people with rattan canes and hanging works as a deterrent to crime. And yay for assuming people are guilty! That way we avoid all the drudgery of having a real legal system and can just throw people in jail. It doesn't matter that we can't prove he did anything, he's probably guilty of something, right?


The fact that the police manhandles people at all is probably a major reason why it's not trusted. Policemen need to realise that even though their job is necessary, they are being unpleasant and intrusive at times and generally dealing with people not happy to see them; tax men are probably hated even more, but you don't see accounts of IRS brutality in the papers - Because tax collectors aren't put in a position of so-called authority and handed big sticks to beat people with!

No, wrong, they serve us. The bloody motto of the LAPD is "To protect and serve". Police officers may be armed and very well-trained to do their jobs (Or at least we hope so) but they are certainly no different from any other kind of public servant. Do you walk to random people on the street and ask them, "What are you doing?" And do you expect them to reply anything but "None of you godamn business?"

Well his post clearly showed that he didn't know what I meant, so I tried to explain myself, but whatever.

Wrong? What the hell?

EVERY SINGLE POLICE DEPARTMENT IN THE WORLD IS THERE TO PROTECT AND SERVE THE PEOPLE!

There is no difference in culture in the idea that some places you serve the police, the police don't serve you. It is a straight out erroneous statement to say "they serve us, therefore blah blah blah..." There is no therefore about it. Its a fundamentally flawed statement/argument.

It may not be in the papers, but I know plenty of people who have been harassed and abused by the IRS via their audit powers. Such abuses happen all the time, especially when people "give them lip" about questions on thier tax returns.

What the hell are you saying? You say, "Every police department in the world is there to serve you", then you say there's no difference in the idea that in some places you serve the police (?) and then you say it's wrong to start an argument with "They serve us, therefore" because it's flawed? Please try to be more coherent than the time cube guy. I know you think failing to communicate your opinion and being misunderstood makes you look clever, but it really doesn't.

I've decided to start a weekly special on the forums offering sources as to why Britain should be nuked before Iran, and next week's has the idiocy of British police as the primary topic. I'd show it to you now, but if I don't spread it out, I'll run out of sources before I can find more.

Your first one would be the rejects that America accepts but we implictly don't, I imagine.

There's good, dedicated, hard working policemen.

There's also pigs in human bodies that go into the police because they get a stick and the right to beat and abuse people and autorithy backs them. They get to carry a gun and look violent and dangerous. They're happy to have power. They're also proud to boast about it in bars with friends/colleagues. Incidentally, this also happens in the army. Those cause the newspapers (I read british ones as well as spanish ones) to have stuff to write about negatively, and cause people like me to be wary of any policeman asking somebody "WTF Who do you think you are show me your papers or you're going to get your ass raped in the police station" (this is a translation, it was more colorful in spanish) because said somebody looked north-african and clearly didn't understand what he was being asked to do.

Claiming that all policemen are there to serve and protect is like saying that all politicians are there for the improvement of the country and to serve the voters.