Policing By Consent

Joined
11 Jan 2004
Messages
43,859
Reaction score
2,868
Country
United Kingdom
As we have been talking about the police recently, I thought I'd post this from the Gov website.

Definition of policing by consent

Published 10 December 2012


When saying ‘policing by consent’, the Home Secretary was referring to a long standing philosophy of British policing, known as the Robert Peel’s 9 Principles of Policing. However, there is no evidence of any link to Robert Peel and it was likely devised by the first Commissioners of Police of the Metropolis (Charles Rowan and Richard Mayne). The principles which were set out in the ‘General Instructions’ that were issued to every new police officer from 1829 were:

  1. To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment.

  2. To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfil their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.

  3. To recognise always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing co-operation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws.

  4. To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.

  5. To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion; but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour; and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.

  6. To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.

  7. To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

  8. To recognise always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.

  9. To recognise always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.
Essentially, as explained by the notable police historian Charles Reith in his ‘New Study of Police History ‘in 1956, it was a philosophy of policing ‘unique in history and throughout the world because it derived not from fear but almost exclusively from public co-operation with the police, induced by them designedly by behaviour which secures and maintains for them the approval, respect and affection of the public’.

It should be noted that it refers to the power of the police coming from the common consent of the public, as opposed to the power of the state. It does not mean the consent of an individual. No individual can chose to withdraw his or her consent from the police, or from a law.
 
Sponsored Links
Quite so; but re. my post of yesterday, I don't think that policing by consent can work among the British population at present, as so many of the population are un-apprehended criminals, who are not persons of sufficiently good character to give consent.
 
So you share Saddam's views on police powers.

British law and policing is the best, but it has not been applied properly for so long that has fallen into disrepute; the criminals now have the upper hand. We need a period of "emergency powers" to clear up the out-of-hand criminal element, so that we can return to normal policing.
 
Sponsored Links
The police have to do to much nowadays

Dealing with fruit cakes

Dealing with snow flakes

All this anti social behaviour from youngsters that have no respect for the police

Imo police should just give some of these fruit cakes a punch in the ead if there parents object punch them. In the ead as well ;)

Any do gooders object punch them. In the ead as well :LOL:
 
Go about yer business and what happens

Trades people get there vans broken into all. There tools pinched

Where do they end up? At some car boot sale

Vans damaged with disc cutters crow bars etc so. U have to deal with that besides yer pinched tools

Those responsable for breaking into yer van
Break there hands / fingers maximum pain

Those buying the tools at a car boot get a punch in the ead

People are sick and tired of these dead beat scum bags
 
The police have to do to much nowadays

Dealing with fruit cakes

Dealing with snow flakes

All this anti social behaviour from youngsters that have no respect for the police

Imo police should just give some of these fruit cakes a punch in the ead if there parents object punch them. In the ead as well ;)

Any do gooders object punch them. In the ead as well :LOL:
Think you’re had too many punches to the head .
 
She was rightly sacked for breaking ministerial rules and shouldnt be anywhere near the cabinet.

What over some trip to Israel

Who cares I say

U probably object because she is an Immigrant and a woman ;)
 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top