Supporters Lozart Posted October 24, 2013 Supporters Share Posted October 24, 2013 coppers getting their sweeny on... Genuine LOL at that! I agree with a lot of what you've said there. It just seems to me at least that the lack of (if you'll excuse the Clancy-ism) a "clear and present danger" coupled with the increase in armed crime means that the domestic armed response has fallen on the Police service to manage rather than tie up the armed forces. Plus I'm sure even SO19 has a slightly more softly softly approach than the 22 reg boys! Not sure I'd want them rocking up every time some pisshead waves a chair leg at the Old Bill! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supporters Ian_Gere Posted October 24, 2013 Supporters Share Posted October 24, 2013 Yeah, that's kind of my point - some pillock waving a chair leg needs a good clip round the ear, not an armed response. I think there's a bit of a sea change in recruitment and expectations of the job in policing. When I was at an age to receive careers advice I knew that joining the police force would be a dangerous job in which I would more than probably be involved in violent encounters with people bigger and/or better armed than me, with nothing but my training and the perp's fear of the consequences of hurting me badly (as represented by the uniform) between me and a good shoeing. The reason why British Police used to have that understanding and the esprit de corps which went with it, as I understand it at least, is that we in Britain believe that policing is an ongoing agreement between the community at large and our lawmakers to try to maintain the peace not, like in some countries, an attempt to force the community to abide by whatever interpretation of the law local police commanders support... It's not a job I would do, unless there was nobody else willing to, because I do not believe sufficiently in the aims of our community at large to put my body/life on the line to further them. That said, I do believe in the concept of community so, as I say, if there was nobody else willing to try to keep a peace, then yeah. Not that I disapprove of body armour, spring loaded batons, pepper spray, or tasers, anything which reduces personal risk for individual officers is good, but only so long as their gear does not give them such an advantage in a fight that they can successfully force a community to toe a line which it would rather not. It seems to me that the emphasis is switching/has switched to the individual officer's safety: like a bloke with a chair leg could theoretically kill someone with it, so rather than risk a couple of coppers to arrest him, shoot him. It's the US way. It shouldn't be our way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reptile Smile Posted October 24, 2013 Share Posted October 24, 2013 That time in a nutshell: the Tories were in power. They attempted to implement policies based on an economic theory called "monetarism". Monetarism is the doctrine that nothing has worth except a cash value determined purely by what buyers will pay for it. Alongside this goes the belief that a free market to determine this worth will fix all problems. In fairness, that's not quite what monetarism is, or at least it's only half the story. You have (as I know you full well know, Ian!) classical economics theory [do nothing and every economy will home in on perfect equilibrium of supply and demand, notwithstanding a few expansions and contractions on the way], Keynesian economics [believing that the classical theory is rubbish, as demonstrated by the Great Depression, and that what will tickle it along is demand-side fiddling - build a lot of roads, etc, meaning that you create jobs, and the whole thing gets going - spending your way out of a recession, as it were], and Friedman's Monetarism [Classical theory is right - economies gravitate towards equilibrium, but what prevents it is buggering about with the demand-side]. So monetarism criticises the approach of 'fiddling' the economy, but also believes that removing the barriers to equilibrium (mainly, removing the fiddling) produces long-term stability. So you remove false wage rises, remove the false power of trade unions, remove the falsifying nature of benefits, get people into work not by creating jobs, but by relocating them and improving careers advice, etc, etc. And of course, the big question is which one is right and no one ever agrees. As someone who is profoundly left wing, and a dabbler in economics and finance, I'm bothered by the idea that I believe there is probably on balance quite a lot of evidence to suggest that Monetarism works, in that it achieves its primary aim of economic stability. It's just that social justice is not the price I'm prepared to pay for that, and I would rather have boom and bust (which is effectively what left-wing fiscal policy can only produce) and social justice, than a stable economy for all and a society of the haves and have-nots... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baz JJ Posted October 24, 2013 Share Posted October 24, 2013 I don't go on the other general Airsoft forums. One is totally dominated by its admins and they are quite rude if they don't like the subject of your post. I got shouted down for reporting a problem I had with one retailer. Here the thread was allowed to continue until its natural conclusion, unmolested. This is the only forum I haven't had a bunch of dicks giving random hate lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supporters Ian_Gere Posted October 24, 2013 Supporters Share Posted October 24, 2013 Well, Reptile Smile, for sure I couldn't be arsed with the full economic definition of Monetarism, but what I said covers it as far as the development of Tory policy goes - they are entirely convinced that a truly free market is a panacea which when applied to absolutely everything will miraculously fix anything. I profoundly disagree, not just with the whole social justice aspect, but with the economics also. Yeah, it will produce stability, but that stability has a number of names with which people are more familiar - feudalism for eg, monopoly, fascism... It is only the artificial constructs of law tinkering with it which allow a market to exist in any meaningful way at all, because in truth economics cannot be separated from politics in the real world and wealth provides power; power seeks to maintain power; maintaining power eliminates competition; without competition there is no benefit to consumers from the operation of any form of market, in fact, compared to a market without competition, or with a de facto cartel, the average person would be better off under a command economy controlled by committee, because it is at least possible for their opinion to influence the decisions of said committee! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oshia Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 I do recall a lot of childish replies to criticism made on another forum that I frequent. But it has to be said, you don't look a day over 16, I'm sorry if you are, I'm 31 and people say I look 8 years younger.. but I like those people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.