Author Topic: They don’t say what they mean – UK Police  (Read 514 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Hrvatski Noahid

  • Ultimate JTFer
  • *******
  • Posts: 2582
They don’t say what they mean – UK Police
« on: May 09, 2020, 06:38:31 PM »
https://hesedyahu.wordpress.com/2020/05/07/they-dont-say-what-they-mean-uk-police/

The UK government produced a webpage called Definition of policing by consent. It can be found at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/policing-by-consent/definition-of-policing-by-consent. It set out to “clear up” what is meant by their overused declarations. Some of its representatives also use the phrase “governing by consent,” so what is said on this page may likely shed light on what that means too.

It starts off with this paragraph.

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).

Notice how easily they relate a deception. A list of tenets called in the name of a “Robert Peel” when they were likely made up by someone else. It’s like a child, Child A, attempting to accuse someone else, Child B, of saying something bad, and then asking Child A whether Child B really said it, but, when admitting the truth, Child A say that Child B didn’t really say it and Child A didn’t even hear Child B say it. In the normal world … sorry, I need to restart that as “the normal world” doesn’t agree with the standard I mean to establish. I’ll start again. In a moral world, what Child A did would be considered lying.

Yet, unsurprisingly, it rolls off the tongue of government representative.

Now I could go through each entry in the list of principles, showing how the UK police contradict each one, in their actions and by their very nature, but that has been done quite well in the following youtube video.


No, to make this post shorter than usual, I just want to focus on the last lines of the government webpage.

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.

I personally consider the implications of these lines and their relative distance from the beginning of the article. You see, the title of the page was “policing by consent.” In my mind, doing something by consent means that you do it by the volitional will, the free choice, of someone else, with that other person being able to remove consent. So, if, for example, a man takes a lady to a restaurant by her consent, that means she, of her own free will, wanted to go, and could realistically remove her consent. For him to then continue to act by consent, whenever she chooses to stop the encounter, he must stop. That is what I believe to be a well-accepted position.

But what if I applied the government’s standard of “consent” to the man-woman situation? Now the man may try persuade the woman, he may try to appeal to her fancies, he may used humour and friendliness, and he may promise to treat her nicely and not to use (excessive) force, but she is going to that restaurant whether she likes it or not.

In the moral world, that would be called “kidnap.”

Just imagine using this standard when it comes to sex, claiming to do it by consent by acting regardless. In a moral world, that would be called … do I have to spell this out?

Let me state the fact. The UK government has just let me know that when they claim to police by consent, they don’t actually mean what they say at all. I know, I know. “David, it’s the government, what’s new? That’s life as normal.” But at least I have more evidence of the lie that is government and its standing army of pigs.