The THOUGHT POLICE are coming for YOU.

[12gauge82]

1 hour ago, JohnfromUK said:

Which needs to result in measures against the person who gave the orders to do so, not those carrying out their orders.

No organisation can operate if the people at the 'coal face' only carry out the tasks they 'think' is right.  It can't work.  I agree of course that the police must act within the law and uphold values, but that MUST 'flow down from' the leadership, not be made up or interpreted by those who are 'at the coal face'.  They may not be in possession of the whole story, or may have other influencing factors that should not be involved (for example knowing some of the parties).

I don't know where in this particular case the orders originated;

• The senior officers in the station involved responding to a complaint?
• The Chief Constables Team/Office (possibly acting under pressure from the 'offended' councillors - and who should be 'politically unbiased')?
• The Police and Crime Commissioner (who as a nominally politically affiliated appointee seems suspiciously likely) who (I guess) should not be able to order police staff directly as they report to the Chief Constable, but is bound to have 'influence' over the Chief Constable - since he appoints that post - which is very questionable in itself having the Chief Constable appointed by a (locally elected) politically affiliated person.

Once again, it seems to be police 'seniors' making up the rules as they go along.

I agree the leaders should be held to account. But there is also a responsibility on individual officers to ensure what they do is for a lawful policing purpose. It's not good enough to hide behind the excuse I was just following orders. On the extreme end I know, but many Nazis tried that after the war and many hung, for it. 

[JohnfromUK]

8 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

I agree the leaders should be held to account. But there is also a responsibility on individual officers to ensure what they do is for a lawful policing purpose. It's not good enough to hide behind the excuse I was just following orders. On the extreme end I know, but many Nazis tried that after the war and many hung, for it. 

The problem there is that the huge number of laws - and their complexity makes it totally unsuitable for interpretation by junior and often inexperienced police officers.  In my view - individual officers need to follow orders.  The time for questioning is when they are given those orders.  The police 'system' must have a police force that is led from the top and not led by every individual's own views and conscience.  Clearly - in the very unlikely event that they were asked to do something very obviously seriously illegal - it should be challenged there and then, but in most instances that would not apply.

Just for an example, police officers who agree with actions taken to limit hunting, or use of fossil fuels, or consumption of cannabis might simply not choose to take action even though the law is being broken - on the grounds that they personally don't agree with the law.

That is not right, not what they are paid to do, and must not be tolerated.  They must follow orders - and if not prepared to do so - maybe they are in the wrong job?

It is also true that where the 'seniors' up the chain are issuing orders for their staff to carry out illegal actions - they should be disciplined without delay.

[clangerman]

the abc of policing Assume nothing Believe nobody and Challenge everything is cast in stone so the probs come from police applying THEIR rules to everybody else except their own! 

[old man]

Seemingly the conflict between common sense and stupidity is driven by the fact that the premise of them policing by consent is eroded by a political push from the usual suspects?

[welsh1]

37 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

The problem there is that the huge number of laws - and their complexity makes it totally unsuitable for interpretation by junior and often inexperienced police officers.  In my view - individual officers need to follow orders.  The time for questioning is when they are given those orders.  The police 'system' must have a police force that is led from the top and not led by every individual's own views and conscience.  Clearly - in the very unlikely event that they were asked to do something very obviously seriously illegal - it should be challenged there and then, but in most instances that would not apply.

Just for an example, police officers who agree with actions taken to limit hunting, or use of fossil fuels, or consumption of cannabis might simply not choose to take action even though the law is being broken - on the grounds that they personally don't agree with the law.

That is not right, not what they are paid to do, and must not be tolerated.  They must follow orders - and if not prepared to do so - maybe they are in the wrong job?

It is also true that where the 'seniors' up the chain are issuing orders for their staff to carry out illegal actions - they should be disciplined without delay.

I think you are confusing not doing something because the officer personally doesn't like it, and the refusal of an order because it is wrong.
Police offiers should be impartial and fair, they are there to enforce law not their feelings, but if an order given is not lawful the officer should be able to challenge and even refuse the order, if he does just blindly obey an order knowing it was not lawful then he would leave himself open to prosecution.
Ignorance of the law is no defence.

[JohnfromUK]

20 minutes ago, welsh1 said:

I think you are confusing not doing something because the officer personally doesn't like it, and the refusal of an order because it is wrong.
Police offiers should be impartial and fair, they are there to enforce law not their feelings, but if an order given is not lawful the officer should be able to challenge and even refuse the order, if he does just blindly obey an order knowing it was not lawful then he would leave himself open to prosecution.
Ignorance of the law is no defence.

I accept that - as shown in in the section below;

1 hour ago, JohnfromUK said:

Clearly - in the very unlikely event that they were asked to do something very obviously seriously illegal - it should be challenged there and then, but in most instances that would not apply.

But I cannot see how a police force can operate unless they are prepared to carry out (legal) orders.  The orders should always be for tasks that are fully legal but the responsibility for that needs to rest with the 'seniors' not the officer on the front line.

It should be very rare that anyone is asked to carry out something that is not legal.  'Seniors' are in a position of authority because they should have the knowledge and access to legal advice in preparing their orders for their staff to carry out.

One of the problems we have in many walks of life (not just police) is that we have 'seniors' who are incompetent, or otherwise 'untrustworthy' in politics, the clergy, business and the it seems the police.  Our neighbouring force has been in troubles recently;

https://www.itv.com/news/westcountry/2024-10-28/suspension-of-senior-police-figures-a-huge-knock-admits-acting-top-officer

[murray smith]

“Starmer’s AI tsar invested in firm given £2.3 million government contract to snoop on social media” – The Government’s AI tsar was an investor in a company awarded £2.3 million of taxpayers’ money to create a platform that trawls social media for “concerning” posts, reports the Telegraph.