No More Peel

The Police want more powers. No, it ain’t news, they always do. This time it’s that old bug-bear, drink and drugs.

Chief constables have asked ministers to change the law to give officers “a power to randomly check any driver.”

Great. So without any suspicion of a criminal offence having taken place, they want to stop and check us anyway. There are plenty of examples of bad driving on our roads to keep the traffic police busy, yet they want to stop those of us who are merely getting on with our journeys. Is it me, or do I see a soft target emerging from the bush?

The request from the Association of Chief Police Officers has emerged as ministers draw up new rules on driving under the influence of alcohol and drugs.

Ah, yes, good old ACPO again. This private company is once more lobbying the government for more power over our lives, forgetting that they exist to serve not bully and harass. That said, they do already have some stop and question powers. If they see someone driving erratically, for example, they can pull the driver over and if necessary carry out a breathalyser test. If they see a vehicle with defective lights, again, they can pull the driver over. However, if there is nothing obviously wrong, there is no reason to interfere, even if they can. Restraint and common sense were once applied and have now been consigned to history.

The department of transport is considering the proposal instead of (correctly) telling them where to get off.

“We are considering the North Report’s recommendations and will respond in due course.”

“Our priority will be to tackle dangerous offenders in the most effective way possible to protect law abiding road users.”

By bullying us, by treating us all as suspects who are guilty before proved innocent. Terrific. I see that the coalition has been mined from the same seam of high grade authoritarium as the previous lot.

I am and always have been a law abiding cove. I was brought up to respect the police and to cooperate with them should it be necessary. However, with the behaviour we have seen from the police over the past decade or so, the desire to cooperate has diminished to virtually nothing. Why should I? They are not my friends, they no longer work in my best interests and if my house is burgled, the best I could hope for is a victim support leaflet. With this thought in mind, I realise that I feel the same about them as Sean Gabb (h/t TT). Those of us who have discussed police behaviour and their authoritarian excesses over the past few years will have referred repeatedly to the Peelian principles of policing; principles no longer applied, unfortunately. Gabb has come to the conclusion that Peel’s original detractors had a point:

There is no doubt that all those High Tory critics of Robert Peel were right about the dangers of setting up a state police force. It took over a hundred and fifty years to show how right they were. But, when someone is arrested for making jokes about Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, we can see that the line has been crossed that separates a state with police from a police state.

When I see that ACPO are lobbying for more powers to hassle, intimidate and bully law-abiding citizens going about their lawful business, I have to say I’m inclined to concur.

3 Comments

  1. Hang on Longrider, do we know how many Response and Traffic units will be available for this extra work? PCSO’s won’t do it, they don’t have the powers to stop or detain vehicles, and there are often as few as six officers covering the whole of an area as big as Gloucestershire.

    Why do you think they need all the Cameras?

  2. I’m always surprised when senior police officers call for further powers to randomly stop motorists on little more than a whim, because the power already exists.

    Under the various Road Traffic Acts we have had since car ownership became virtually universal, an officer in uniform has the power to stop any vehicle being driven on a road, whether he suspects the driver of having committed an offence or not, it is as simple as that. Further powers are not necessary and would be yet another staging-post on the road to what is now well on the way to being a firmly entrenched ‘them and us’ relationshp between the public and the police.

  3. @ Bill Sticker: That Plod has neither the resources nor the nouse to abuse this proposed change at present, doesn’t mean that he won’t in due course. Plod is building his power now, so that when he comes to exercise it, there can be no restraining him.

    Let us not forget that ACPO Ltd is a company limited by guarantee. It is therefore only responsible to its members, who are restricted to being the most senior policemen/women in every force in the land. They also make up the selection committees for new recruits their select band. Self perpetuating is a phrase that springs to mind.

    The article above also shows just how out of control they are. They have their own agenda, and are pursuing it at every opportunity, just as in this example. The Civil Service show no signs of being able to control them, and the politicians show every sign of being in absolute awe. We the people have no say whatsoever, which probably accounts for the ferocity of the attacks by the police on the very idea of elected chief officers.

    @ Inspector Lestrade: That “them and us” is already firmly entrenched, put there by the very police who are now whinging about it.

    Now, from where I sit, an ordinary citizen brought up to respect and help the police, they are just another gang fighting in ordinary gang warfare. OK, they happen to have better gear, better uniforms, and a statutory basis for the extortion of money to fund their activities.

    But acting on the citizen’s behalf? Or applying the law? Let alone in an impartial manner? Where is the statutory basis for the national DNA database? Or the national ANPR database? Or for the clearly established practice of being harder on some ethnic groups in Britain than others? Let alone the evident abandonment of Peel’s Principles of Policing?

    Waiting in the wings is a determination to have a paramilitary force so that Britain can then join EuroGendFor, and so that they can then accept the cross border deployment of such paramilitaries from other regions for the suppression of those Britons who will not accept their new overlords. To get there we need a few more incidents like Raoul Moat, and Derrick Bird, together with the associated press briefings and campaigns. Those haven’t yet got the necessary knee jerk reaction; maybe the next will.

Comments are closed.