Was stopped lastnight for speeding and given 3 points..

[pammy]

It's no fun unless we feather them too. Tarring and feathering for all public servants! +1!

lol - not been tarred and feathered for a long time

 

[SimonsMerc]

lol - not been tarred and feathered for a long time

Got any pics? PM is fine...

 

[pammy]

Got any pics? PM is fine...

pmsl

 

[umedc]

lol - not been tarred and feathered for a long time

all this because someone got 3 points

 

[recycled]

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=TWONK

Any need?
http://www.mbclub.co.uk/forums/announcement.php?f=17

 

[st4]

Okay, lets look at in another way, police members seem to make it very clear what they do and even some of their chosen user ID's give their job title, so before even posting we know exactly what they do. So by doing that any critism thats levied towards that profession will be seen to been put towards them.

Its a bit like my user title saying "Investment Administrator". What I do is what I do, but I don't need to shout about it. We have a thread re Lehman brothers and aspects of the financial services sector, and there is another person on here who is a stockbroker, they aren't getting these posts critising their profession directed at them as they don't shout about how they earn their living.

 

[Apial]

The policy that each force adopts is their own decision with respect to communicating with the media. So despite anyones desire to hear them, or not, police officers are prohibited from taking part in public debate without the express permission of their force in certain parts of the country.

You could imagine what potential PR disaster could ensue should a police officer's personal view be mistaken for official Police Policy. Indeed even the manner in which the opinion is delivered along with the interactive nature of the forum media could affect public opinion on the stereotypical police officer. Not any old policeman wearing size 9s can be the press officer!

So, Pammy and David, you are welcome to disagree, but NOT if you identify yourself as a police officer and don't have permission.

Cmarkod,

I do not know your profession, nor do I recognise the term "twonk". I assume it is some perjorative word of Mancunian dialect. As I understand it, Police officers from your area's force can post what they like. In other parts of the country they would be disciplined. Perhaps Manchester's policy should be brought up to modern standards of PC(political correctness).

I did not say all members of a profession should change their usernames, only Police officers should if they indeed they are Police officers and it is in their force's policy to not allow unauthorised public comment. And if they should be posing as police officers... well thats a whole new topic. I accept originally that I did say all Police and this might have been taken to be irrespective of their forces policy, but on a technicality I will let that point pass.

The trouble is, some police officers choose usernames with a police connotation, and so it is very hard for other users to tell whether their postings are police policy or not. To be quite frank. I want the Police to represent a totaly impartial non-political viewpoint and uphold the law written by due democratic processes.

Once a new identity is chosen, they can post just what they like without any problems of throwing a shadow over their profession caused by their personal views. You could even call someone a "twonk"! on a public forum.

 

[st4]

The policy that each force adopts is their own decision with respect to communicating with the media. So despite anyones desire to hear them, or not, police officers are prohibited from taking part in public debate without the express permission of their force in certain parts of the country.

You could imagine what potential PR disaster could ensue should a police officer's personal view be mistaken for official Police Policy. Indeed even the manner in which the opinion is delivered along with the interactive nature of the forum media could affect public opinion on the stereotypical police officer. Not any old policeman wearing size 9s can be the press officer!

So, Pammy and David, you are welcome to disagree, but NOT if you identify yourself as a police officer and don't have permission.

Cmarkod,

I do not know your profession, nor do I recognise the term "twonk". I assume it is some perjorative word of Mancunian dialect. As I understand it, Police officers from your area's force can post what they like. In other parts of the country they would be disciplined. Perhaps Manchester's policy should be brought up to modern standards of PC(political correctness).

I did not say all members of a profession should change their usernames, only Police officers should if they indeed they are Police officers and it is in their force's policy to not allow unauthorised public comment. And if they should be posing as police officers... well thats a whole new topic. I accept originally that I did say all Police and this might have been taken to be irrespective of their forces policy, but on a technicality I will let that point pass.

The trouble is, some police officers choose usernames with a police connotation, and so it is very hard for other users to tell whether their postings are police policy or not. To be quite frank. I want the Police to represent a totaly impartial non-political viewpoint and uphold the law written by due democratic processes.

Once a new identity is chosen, they can post just what they like without any problems of throwing a shadow over their profession caused by their personal views. You could even call someone a "twonk"! on a public forum.

But why do police officers on here see the need to identify themselves as one. It has no bearing whatsoever really on the majority of threads here what someone does.

 

[Apial]

But why do police officers on here see the need to identify themselves as one. It has no bearing whatsoever really on the majority of threads here what someone does.

Exactly.

 

[Dieselman]

To be quite frank. I want the Police to represent a totaly impartial non-political viewpoint and uphold the law written by due democratic processes.
.

Are any members doing anything other than that.?

 

[recycled]

Its a bit like my user title saying "Investment Administrator". What I do is what I do, but I don't need to shout about it. We have a thread re Lehman brothers and aspects of the financial services sector, and there is another person on here who is a stockbroker, they aren't getting these posts critising their profession directed at them as they don't shout about how they earn their living.

Is there anyone defending the investment banker? They seem to have taken a really big bash on the forum as well.
How did w go from 3 points to this?

I blame Donza. whu did you lose you licence/ Anyway i have lost mine as well.

 

[cmarkod]

Apial, apologies for the use of the term twonk. Locally it is used as a term to describe someone who is stupid/ an idiot. I have had a hard day at the office and was reacting more to that than to your post, therefore I wish to retract my insult and apologise.

I do however not hold with your arguement of political correctness. PC is starting to do harm in several environments,(see spiral dynamics heory for more info) and I personally don't hold the arguement that people should have freedom od speech denied them because of heir profession. I realise this isn't exactly what you are advocating but there is a bias to police officers not being able to disclose their profession and take part in full and open debate as other people can.

Once again, apologies for any offence caused.

 

[MBManInKen]

Okay, lets look at in another way, police members seem to make it very clear what they do and even some of their chosen user ID's give their job title

Most police members on here have usernames that don't identify them as such. Some members are "out" as police members, not always through their own choice either. I don't see the knowledge of their day job as being a license to abuse them at every possible opportunity. Double glazing salesmen don't get half the bashing that they do... (*)

So despite anyones desire to hear them, or not, police officers are prohibited from taking part in public debate without the express permission of their force in certain parts of the country.

Only in their official capacity. Under no stretch of English law could they be denied as individuals their constitutional right to freedom of speech.

I have never noted any of them making official statements on behalf of the police. They often relate personal experiences and opinions and on more than one occasion have tried to clarified specific points of practice and/or law to help fellow members. Any such posts that I have seen have all been strictly personal statements and opinion.

They are quite free to do so and it would be quite an abomination and injustice to try and silence them on the basis of a misunderstood point of law.

Obviously they cannot comment on specific cases or mention personal or other details, but I never have seen them do that.

In other parts of the country they would be disciplined.

Not where they are speaking solely in their personal capacity.

I want the Police to represent a totaly impartial non-political viewpoint and uphold the law written by due democratic processes.

So, two standards? One for police members and one for the rest of us?


(*) For those who did not get it: I'm not having a go at double glazing salesmen, just using a different stereotype to illustrate the point...

 

[recycled]

anyone who has had a problem with car salemen or dealers, please do not have a go here as there are members of this forum that are car dealers and it could be seen as a personal bash to them.

N.b to clarify the recent posts, not having a go at any member of the police on here on personal terms, but having a go at certain policies of justice system which they may or may not be involved in.

 

[MBManInKen]

anyone who has had a problem with car salemen or dealers, please do not have a go here as there are members of this forum that are car dealers and it could be seen as a personal bash to them.

You're missing a vital point though. People can express personal opinions and personal experiences without reverting to bullying or bashing. Unfortunately, when it comes to talking about the police force, it very quickly ends up in bullying, bashing and acrimonious debate.

I have not seen anyone argue against polite, constructive debate on matters of justice and policing.

 

[Apial]

I like that word, twock.

Well the issue about Police is rather special. Let us take a hypothetical case where the Police appealled more to supporters of one political party more than their rivals.

How might you expect the outcome to be at a political demonstration when the rival party members were being policed by Police supporting the opposing party?

You can campaign and demonstrate, but when the other side are the Police too, then things can get very intimidating, if not life threatening.

Lets not be hypothetical. Zimbabwe and China spring to mind, but there are plenty more parts of the World were the Police are anything but apolitical.

In the UK, even writing a letter to the local newspaper about a road alteration proposal might be a disciplinary matter should the police officer have written it without permission.

On the face of it you might wonder why? Road schemes become very political. It involves businesses, green interests, peoples jobs, interests that are aligned to political parties. An opinion that might appear anti-motorist would then reflect on the whole Police Force and create difficulties when dealing with members of the public, or indeed suggest that the Police were taking the side of one political party. Certainly, locally, some pressure groups would dearly have loved the Police to take their side, but instead they stood back and refused to be drawn.

The same letter but signed by "Member of the Public" would cause no such difficulties for the Police, yet have equally as strong a case, or not.

A lot of the speed cameras are run by "Accident Reduction Partnerships" and not the Police. This is fortunate for the Police, otherwise they would be getting even more flak from motorists who feel that they have been "taxed" rather than broken the law. A smart PR move in my view.

 

[recycled]

You're missing a vital point though. People can express personal opinions and personal experiences without reverting to bullying or bashing. Unfortunately, when it comes to talking about the police force, it very quickly ends up in bullying, bashing and acrimonious debate.

I have not seen anyone argue against polite, constructive debate on matters of justice and policing.

Am i? I believe the perceived bullying /bashing is in direct response to bullying / bashing of those that are trying initially to get their point across.

I think people try to legitimately put a point across but are quickly shouted down as being bashers e.t.c , maybe i am wrong but the anti- bashing tone is just loud as the bashing tone.

 

[MBManInKen]

The same letter but signed by "Member of the Public" would cause no such difficulties for the Police, yet have equally as strong a case, or not

I think the point is that forum members do post as members of the public and individual citizens, not police officers.

That does not mean they cannot be known to be police officers in their professional life.

Some overeager legal departments have taken the matter just that bit too far and some might even have issued guidelines that could be interpreted as not allowing them to voice any opinion remotely related to policing if they are known to be police officers but frankly that would not stand up in court IMHO.

 

[Dieselman]

Well the issue about Police is rather special. Let us take a hypothetical case where the Police appealled more to supporters of one political party more than their rivals.

How might you expect the outcome to be at a political demonstration when the rival party members were being policed by Police supporting the opposing party?

You can campaign and demonstrate, but when the other side are the Police too, then things can get very intimidating, if not life threatening.

Lets not be hypothetical. Zimbabwe and China spring to mind, but there are plenty more parts of the World were the Police are anything but apolitical.

Is it happening on here that the Police members are leveraging some political power from their 'powers'.? If it is, it's passed me by.
I also think to align this forum to the situations in hightly political countries is somewhat extreme.

A lot of the speed cameras are run by "Accident Reduction Partnerships" and not the Police. This is fortunate for the Police, otherwise they would be getting even more flak from motorists who feel that they have been "taxed" rather than broken the law. A smart PR move in my view.

They already are on this forum.

 

[pammy]

It would only be relevant if they were writing, either to a newspaper or this forum, as PC XXXXX giving the impression that this is the view/opinion/position of the force they worked for. They are entitled to their opinion and to their voice as Joe Bloggs. The fact they happen to be a police officer is a side issue.

I work for central government and have over the years had to implement and operate a range of policies which are at odds with my own views. I am entitled to say that I don't agree with those views in my personal life and also to write to the papers as a concerned member of the public who has a view - just as long as it is not presented as a view of my department or any political party.

I also think comparing this to the state of affairs in places like China is a tad daft as we don't generally set the tanks loose on our population for demonstrating their viewpoint.


PS - the word is Twonk not Twock( and I am not suggesting anyone is one) - TWOC is an acronym for Taking without consent - an activity some of the police officers we are referring to get the joys of dealing with