Ideas In British Policing - Police Foundation: Fill & Download for Free

The irony about Hong Kong is that many of current its problems that people, especially Westerners, associate with “China” and “communism,” were actually inherited from the British. And capitalism.The way that China has run Hong Kong post-1997 is very British. The British seldom ruled their colonies directly; instead, they raised an indigenous upper middle class, fed them with commercial super-profits, trained them in British schools, taught them English, educated them in British law, before putting them to the task of running the day-to-day affairs of the colony (usually under the supervision of a white guy sent from London).If the colony gained independence from Britain, the “Anglicized” indigenous bourgeoisie would continue to run the place, except now they are officially in charge. They would continue doing what they had been told to do under the British, i.e. collect taxes from the locals, facilitate trade with the core countries, exploit the local lower classes, etc., except now they are doing so for their own sake, not for Her Majesty’s Government. And the institutions founded by the British would usually remain in place, except they are no longer officially British institutions, but Kenyan institutions, Nigerian institutions, Indian institutions, Singaporean institutions, etc.As soon as Britain and China started negotiating the transfer of Hong Kong in the 1980s, China started latching on to the same British method of running colonies and re-applying it to Hong Kong. It started rubbing shoulders with the comprador bourgeoisie in Hong Kong (Deng needed them to pump foreign cash into the country), first by promising to leave them alone (“High Degree of Autonomy”), then by promising to put them in charge (“Hong Kong People Ruling Hong Kong”), then by inviting them over to Beijing to write the Basic Law, and finally by putting into practice a political system where their interests win out by design (via functional constituencies and indirect elections).China does not run Hong Kong directly. Much like the British, it lets the local elite run the place, whilst sending a few of its own officials (Liaison Office) and soldiers (PLA Garrison) over to ensure that the city remains a part of the mother country.There are some differences in approach, like how the local rulers are elected in some way, shape, or form (the British governors of Hong Kong were not elected), but the idea is basically the same: “We let you rule for us.”Nowadays, you hear a lot of criticism about how the Hong Kong government is beholden to China, how the chief executive is a puppet of Beijing, how she can impose emergency laws that threaten civil liberties (like the one last year which prohibited protesters from wearing masks), and how China is “interfering” in Hong Kong. Then there is the more reasonable criticism that the government is not accountable to the people overall because it is not popularly elected.Blame Beijing all you want, but know that the whole system was carried over from the British.Powerful unelected executive who sometimes appears to treat the mother country and rich people as his/her constituents? That’s British.Emergency executive order which was used to ban face masks at protests? That is based on a law passed by the British, and was first used against pro-Chinese protesters fighting the British.The Hong Kong police that some protesters today want to outright abolish? They’re operating on British rules, and it’s the same rules which they used to deal with violent protesters against the British.China having any sort of presence in Hong Kong? That’s because the British had a presence in Hong Kong.Unaccountable government? That was also the case under the British, and it’s because there was no universal suffrage under the British.China didn’t invent it. They only inherited it. What they should do with this inherited system is another topic for another day, but my point is that it wasn’t their system to begin with.Which is why I don't get the people who are burning Chinese flags and waving British flags. Nor do I get the bureaucrats in Beijing who defend the system in Hong Kong. The former are clinging to a colonial past, and the latter…are also clinging to a colonial past, since they had promised to.Then there’s the bit about “communism” encroaching and laying waste upon Hong Kong (despite promises that it would remain “capitalist”). Which is laughable, because last time I checked the right-wing Heritage Foundation still ranks Hong Kong as one of the “freest” cities in the world. The things that some HKers love to complain about the most include the ridiculously high rent and rich, uncultured Mainland Chinese ravaging their streets with their money — neither of which sounds like “communist” problems or even leftist problems.These things are possible and taken to the extreme as a result of Hong Kong being a “Pearl of the Orient,” aka an international financial center that lives by sucking capital out of inland China and into the West, and vice versa.Who were the ones that put Hong Kong in such a place, for their own interests?The British.And who are the ones who want to keep Hong Kong in such a place, for their own interests?The Chinese.The irony!!!

One thing she and I 100% agree on. Democracy is not an excuse to trample the rights of minorities.Just because a majority votes to enslave all black persons does not make it right or proper.Just because a majority of men vote to not allow women to vote, does not make it right or proper.Just because a majority votes to criminalize being homosexual, does not make that acceptable.For the exact same reason, voting to disarm innocent people wanting to be able to defend themselves against criminals is 100% totally unacceptable.If the law violates clearly protected civil rights as enumerated in the 2nd & 14th amendment, yes federal courts can overrule that, just as they overruled public school racial segregation.If that means as in Little Rock US Army units on the ground forcing state officials to comply at gunpoint — that is what it means.Why Eisenhower Sent the 101st Airborne to Little Rock After Brown v. BoardWhen the governor of Arkansas failed to integrate Central High School, President Eisenhower called in federal troops to protect the Little Rock Nine.When the Supreme Court ruled in 1954 that separate schools for whites and blacks were unconstitutional and inherently unequal, the slow and often violent dismantling of segregation in educational institutions began across the country.If enforcement of the U.S. Constitution must be done at bayonet point — so be it.Edit interesting discussion from comments asking how I would define rights.Try the declaration of independence, a paragraph from it is a very good start.We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.We are all human beings and so necessarily have equal rights. As pointed out by Jefferson, we hold these truths to be self-evident also called axiomatic or obvious.Definition of AXIOMATICDefinition of axiomatic1: taken for granted : SELF-EVIDENTan axiomatic truth2: based on or involving an axiom or system of axioms axiomatic set theorySo starting from the axiomatic position that all humans are created equal and have equal rights (rejecting ideas of nobility and royalty), we can derive a whole lot of rights from that one thing.I will not argue with you that humans are created equal, or that we have unalienable rights. We are, and we do, so the question is — what are those rights.To start with if we are created equal and have equal rights, and have unalienable rights. The fact that we exist and have rights means necessarily we have an unalienable moral right to live as that is part of our existence. Life is part of our existence, so the right to struggle to stay alive is unalienable.That of necessity means we have the right to do things that promote our survival. All sorts of things like hunting, fishing, farming, and the like. Obviously that includes self-defense and having and building means of self-defense, such a weapons.The axiom that we have equal rights, and are created equal of necessity means your proper rights cannot conflict with that of other human beings. This being a rule of non-contradiction.Your legitimate rights cannot conflict with the legitimate rights of others. We are equal in creation, and in rights, ergo if you see apparent contradiction, one party or more is asserting non-existent rights.Example, two young men fighting over the “right” to mate with a young woman. This fighting ignores her right to choose whom she wishes to associate with, which may be neither of them.Obviously if we are equal and have equal rights, a right to self-defense exists, and a consequent right to have arms to facilitate means of self-defense exists.You contradicting that is placing your personal interests over that of your fellow man, and is a fundamental violation of the rights of man.Another Edit: some brit started in on me:Quote you:If the right to own a firearm is so obvious why does nearly every country similar to the US like Canada, the UK, Australia, etc control individual gun ownership?Because fundamentally the USA is ideologically very, very different from the rest of English speaking society.The UK philosophically rejected the European enlightenment philosophy, and clung to monarchism and divine right of kings and such like ~ totalitarian nonsense, and even backslid into pretty awful totalitarian government after half-heartedly embracing the enlightenment and western liberal philosophy.I suspect you have never actually read the US Declaration of Independence for content, and if you did, you think we were not serious — we were:Link to Declaration—http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/docume...Quoting a part of it focused on philosophy:We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.EMPHASIS — we hold we have the right to alter or abolish our government if we think that would make us happier. We don’t need any better reason.Many people outside the US and a few in it, think this is not serious, and should not be taken literally.WRONG. We were never kidding about that.How could we alter or abolish our government if we were disarmed, and the government resisted?That is why we are never ever going to change on this issue.Further what was the issue that set off the violence in the American Revolutionary War? You don’t Remember?? We do!!Battles of Lexington and Concord - WikipediaSome Brit General decided to confiscate (fancy word for steal) arms and ammunition belonging to the colonists. The colonist militia handed the British Regulars a sound thrashing and chased them back to Boston.The Battles of Lexington and Concord were the first military engagements of the American Revolutionary War.[9]The battles were fought on April 19, 1775 in Middlesex County, Province of Massachusetts Bay, within the towns of Lexington, Concord, Lincoln, Menotomy (present-day Arlington), and Cambridge. They marked the outbreak of armed conflict between the Kingdom of Great Britain and its thirteen colonies in America.Furthermore — and this is critical — you are anachronistically assuming police existed. Not then — not in England — nor in America.Making Sense of English Law Enforcement in the 18th CenturyEngland in the 18th century had no public officials corresponding to either police or district attorneys. Constables were unpaid and played only a minor role in law enforcement. A victim of crime who wanted a constable to undertake any substantial effort in order to apprehend the perpetrator was expected to pay the expenses of doing so. Attempts to create public prosecutors failed in 1855 and again in 1871; when the office of Director of Public Prosecution was finally established in 1879, its responsibilities were very much less than those of an American district attorney, now or then. In 18th century England a system of professional police and prosecutors, government paid and appointed, was viewed as potentially tyranical and, worse still, French.Also true for British Colonies at the time.All law enforcement was done by the people. Now here is the thing, the 13 colonies situation was much worse than England in terms of violence due mainly to large numbers of hostile natives, this was a big deal, making a right to bear arms far more important for colonials than English.Then during the war, the Brits made things much worse. This below is ONE well documented incident of a great many.Jane McCrea - Wikipedia The hired scalping and murder of Jane McCrea — the painting is shown on the link.Jane McCrea (sometimes spelled McCrae or MacCrae, 1752 – July 27, 1777) was a young woman who was killed by a Huron-Wendat warrior associated with the British army of Lieutenant General John Burgoyne during the American Revolutionary War. Affianced to a Loyalistserving in Burgoyne's army, her slaying led to expressions of outrage and an increase in Patriotmilitary recruiting, especially in the days following her killing.The propaganda that followed greatly accentuated her beauty, and the fact that she was associated with Loyalists (although her family was primarily active in serving the Patriot cause) undermined British claims of protection for Loyalists. Burgoyne's inability to punish the alleged killers also undermined British assertions that they were more civilized in their conduct of the war; the dissemination of this propaganda contributed to the success of Patriot recruiting drives in New York for several years.McCrea's fiancé was reported to be bitter about the affair, and never married. The story of her life and death entered American folklore, and was used by Kenneth Lewis Roberts in Rabble in Arms.The point is Americans ARE NOT BRITS, and we have a dramatically different political philosophy and outlook.Aside from that — your presumptions that Brits, Canadians, NZ or Aussies have a clue what they hell they are about as to running an empire — or controlling crime — is absurd. You have no business lecturing us — ever.Especially after pulling your asses out of a fire of your own making twice over 30 years. Then acting as if your gun control ideas were sensible, yet when you investigate British crime rates, the evidence strongly indicates it was extremely bad policy.My investigation of British violent crime and the effects of British gun control laws on them in the 20th century.Gun Control Laws and the effect of them on crime in England & Wales in the 20th CenturyIt was not pretty.Violence against the person is a British police term that till 1998 meant actual injury done by physical violence to a person’s body in a crime. Then in 1999 and on they added threats, and I stopped tracking it. In the above graph you only see actual violence with injury.Very ugly — sane people would not say they had a clue what the hell they were doing

There are two fundamental approaches to freedom - freedom based on human rights and that applies to all (or all citizens or …) and freedom based on property rights that basically means the rights of the rich and powerful to do what they like and everyone else to suck it up.America has a strong dose of property-rights based Libertarianism which means that the rich and powerful can do what they like with their property and everyone else has to suck it up. Britain is frequently here (as so many other places) somewhere between America and North-West Europe.To take one basic example, the freedom to roam gives people the right to walk in quite a lot of the countryside. In England and Wales the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 is a foundation for this, covering areas of moor, mountain, heath, and down - and there is a related right to historic rights of way of public footpaths and bridleways (where you can also take a horse or bike). If you own the land containing a footpath it needs to be maintained. Meanwhile in America if you own land you have the right to exclude people from it - the rich cand do what they like and the poor have to suck it up.At a more common day to day level and also related to how we can walk is Jaywalking, of course. A concept so unknown to the British that I think I was in my 20s before I realised it wasn’t kerb-crawling (driving really slowly to try to pick up prostitutes). In Britian, with rare exceptions (mostly motorways) we are allowed to walk on and cross the road based on using our eyes and ears. Meanwhile the US bans jaywalking in a lot of jurisdictions. The default is that the British are free to use the roads to get where we want as long as we use them sensibly whereas in America the roads are explicitly reserved for people wrapped up in heavy hunks of metal that burn fuel to travel. Those without one can just suck it up.And this leads on to the powers the police have. British police have killed about 40 people this century (or about two a year); American police (in a country only five times bigger) killed over a thousand people each in 2015 and 2016. If you are questioned by British police they may not lie to you (unlike American police) - although they are allowed to comment on you not stating the obvious when interviewed in court (this was to deal with rent-an-alibi issues*). Further Civil forfeiture is unique to the US - there is no presumption of innocence when the police take your goods, and getting them back is … challenging. The police have more freedom in the US, and ordinary people have to suck it up.And this leads on to employment rights. American professors are considered protected because they have academic tenure - in other words legal protection against dismissal without just cause. Under British law all employees (but not e.g. self-employed workers) have the right to job security, protection against both wrongful and unfair dismissal, and after two years work in order to fire someone the employer “must have a justification based on an employee's capability, conduct, redundancy or another good reason”. Or to put it another way the overwhelming majority of British workers have protections equivalent to academic tenure (with the consequent protections for e.g. freedom of speech that the boss disagrees with) whereas America has at-will employment, meaning that you can be fired for e.g. political facebook posts that aren’t directly work relevant. Or anything else. Ordinary people have more freedom in Britain, while in America rich employers have more freedom and their workers have to suck it up.And this leads on to the other part of who has the power in the worker-employer relationship. In Britain quitting your job without something else lined up either because your work is intolerable or because you want to e.g. try and become an author (a bad plan) is a bad idea. In America your job provides your health insurance - which means that not walking out might be a matter of life and death for either the worker or their family. This means that in Britain ordinarly people have much more freedom to quit, while in America employers have the freedom to tighten the screws almost however they want and their workers have to suck it up or literally risk their lives.I could go on at length, but I think this is enough. So which country is freer? Millionaires and billionaires in the US have much more freedom to do what they want and make ordinary people suck it up. Meanwhile in Britain there’s a lot less ordinary people have to suck up and ordinary people are freer.* There was a criminal trick where someone would use the right to silence, contact a fixer, and the fixer would have a dozen people to e.g. say the person arrested had been at the kid’s birthday party that night. The sort of thing that had it been true could blatantly have been said at the time - which is why the caution got changed.