Should the police have the right to strike?

[cesare]

Ditto.

I believe all workers should have the right to strike in an ideal world. However, the Police, and the fucking Police Federation, are strikebreakers and the PF are nasty right wing thugs who oppose any form of regulation or sanction on the police. So in the end, I'll support their right to strike when they stop being strikebreakers and state enforcers.

TLDR, when laws are based on right and wrong and not political expediency and the police show themselves to be neutrals, I'll support their rights. Until then, they get no support.

The whole point of the police is to maintain a non-level playing field. They're there to protect a corrupt government and a bunch of greedy rich people from those who get fucked over by them every day of their lives. Wages a bit shit are they? Should have thought of that before you sold your soul to the devil, he's not a man to negotiate.

And even apart from the principle reinforced by those posts above - there's no way that a government focused on administering, managing and controlling the populace would be stupid enough to let their enforcers get really cwoss at their dweadful conditions.

C'mon. They're chancing it.

 

[scifisam]

Yup. All workers should have the right to strike, and I'm not about to blame the coppers working now for the actions of cops at the miners' strikes 30 years ago. Besides, it could only make them more sympathetic to strikers, surely?

To me, it is intolerable that the police are legally barred from striking. Other essential services, nurses for example, do have the right to strike.

It is not a level playing field.

Nurses have the right, but it's in word only.

 

[cesare]

Yup. All workers should have the right to strike, and I'm not about to blame the coppers working now for the actions of cops at the miners' strikes 30 years ago. Besides, it could only make them more sympathetic to strikers, surely?

Why would the actions of the cops 30 years ago make nowadays cops more sympathetic to strikers now?

 

[scifisam]

Why would the actions of the cops 30 years ago make nowadays cops more sympathetic to strikers now?

The right to strike might make coppers more sympathetic to strikers.

 

[cesare]

The right to strike might make coppers more sympathetic to strikers.

So ... if they were allowed to strike (and maybe did) that would mean that in the future they would dilute their law enforcement role re strikers?

 

[DotCommunist]

The right to strike might make coppers more sympathetic to strikers.

We'll see winged pigs first imo

 

[scifisam]

So ... if they were allowed to strike (and maybe did) that would mean that in the future they would dilute their law enforcement role re strikers?

Nah, but perhaps they'd go about it less 'enthusiastically' (i.e. violently) than they have done in the past, or make less effort - just go by the book.

 

[soulman]

So ... if they were allowed to strike (and maybe did) that would mean that in the future they would dilute their law enforcement role re strikers?

I would say yes. And that's what the state fears.

 

[DotCommunist]

Nah, but perhaps they'd go about it less 'enthusiastically' (i.e. violently) than they have done in the past, or make less effort - just go by the book.

Sam, draw me a utopia, I like the sound of your society

 

[cesare]

Nah, but perhaps they'd go about it less 'enthusiastically' (i.e. violently) than they have done in the past, or make less effort - just go by the book.

You're suggesting that their over enthusiastic/violent methods of law enforcement in the past were because they weren't allowed to strike?

And that letting them strike now would result in them 'going by the book' in future?

Have I got that right?

 

[cesare]

I would say yes. And that's what the state fears.

Maybe they would. But I'd argue that the state doesn't truly fear that (although it would be bloody inconvenient). Cos the services trump the OB, and that's what's always in reserve.

 

[soulman]

Maybe they would. But I'd argue that the state doesn't truly fear that (although it would be bloody inconvenient). Cos the services trump the OB, and that's what's always in reserve.

You need to understand why the police were barred from striking in 1919. The fact you don't have a fucking clue just shows you up for what you are.

 

[cesare]

You need to understand why the police were barred from striking in 1919. The fact you don't have a fucking clue just shows you up for what you are.

Explain it then.

 

[soulman]

To you, nah.

 

[Skimix]

As long as we have the right to charge at them with batons and riot shields for doing so then I don't see a problem with it.

one suspects you've never had a pop...

 

[cesare]

To you, nah.

But you wouldn't be just be explaining it to me - you'd be explaining to everyone reading that now thinks you have some wisdom to relate about 1919.

Do it for the other punters now you've brought it up.

 

[soulman]

But you wouldn't be just be explaining it to me - you'd be explaining to everyone reading that now thinks you have some wisdom to relate about 1919.

Do it for the other punters now you've brought it up.

What a patronising cunt you are. I'm sure that most urbanites who are interested can type something like police strike 1919 in to their search engine of choice. I reckon if they're interested they've probably done it already and don't need me to explain how to do it.

 

[cesare]

What a patronising cunt you are. I'm sure that most urbanites who are interested can type something like police strike 1919 in to their search engine of choice. I reckon if they're interested they've probably done it already and don't need me to explain how to do it.

There are maybe quite a few people that have done that search and are interested in why you seem to be drawing a connection with police conditions in 1919 with police conditions today.

 

[soulman]

Are there, maybe. You don't sound too sure you nasty little waster.

 

[cesare]

Are there, maybe. You don't sound too sure you nasty little waster.

Third unprovoked insult

 

[Das Uberdog]

soulman should'a just explained hisself.

But he's right - the powers that be shat their pants when the police went on strike. And they would, really, wouldn't they?

Let the piggies strike.

 

[detective-boy]

No. They didn't. The right of the police to strike was removed by the current government.

No it wasn't. There has been no right to strike since the 1919 strike.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7141970.stm

(The Police Act 1996 merely repeated the prohibition which had been in previous legislation since then)

I think no ... but, as with any other group where a right available to others is removed in the public interest, there needs to be some alternative safeguard for their interests (e.g. independent binding arbitration on issues which would otherwise have gone to strike action).

 

[cesare]

soulman should'a just explained hisself.

But he's right - the powers that be shat their pants when the police went on strike. And they would, really, wouldn't they?

Let the piggies strike.

The powers that be wouldn't shit their pants nowadays. They'd wheel in the Armed Forces like they do when the firemen go on strike. For example:

Mr. Gray: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what use will be made of (a) Defence Fire Services and (b) RAF Fire Service in the event of a local authority firemen's strike. [75089]

Mr. Ingram: Defence Fire Service personnel have been providing advice and training to the Armed Forces as part of the contingency preparations for a potential national firemen's strike. They will continue to provide advice to Military Commanders deployed on Op FRESCO, should there be a strike, undertake duties at military headquarters in support of the deployment and will also contribute towards the provision of fire cover on the Ministry of Defence estate. Elements of the RAF Fire Service who have specialist skills will, in the event of a strike, be deployed around the country to assist in the provision of emergency fire and rescue cover.

Mr. Gray: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about Operation Fresco military assistance to the civil powers in the event of a local authority firemen's strike; and what effect this would have on military capabilities. [75083]

Mr. Ingram: The Armed Forces role during any strike by firemen would be to provide emergency cover, thus seeking to save lives and ensure that essential services were maintained. They would not be capable of replicating the current fire fighting capability. Assistance would be provided to and at the request of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and not the civil power.

Obviously, Op FRESCO would place an added burden on Service personnel who have been particularly busy over the last few years performing their primary duties. Any deployment to provide emergency fire and rescue cover would impact on their ability to continue those duties, but emergency cover would, as far as possible, be maintained for as long as the strike continued and balanced with other demands on military resources.

Mr. Gray: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total cost to the public purse for each of the last five years of (a) the Defence Fire Service, (b) the RAF Fire Service and (c) the RN Fire Service. [75091]

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200102/cmhansrd/vo021021/text/21021w13.htm

So would parliament let the OB have permission to strike? I don't think so. What - give the Armed Forces control of policing in the UK (temporary or not)?

The OB know this. Of course they want to extend their power to the right to strike - gateway to lawful police strike + Armed Forces back-up during lawful strike. OB plus Armed Forces, both exerting power, fantastic.

No, let's see em forced into wildcat action and see what happens then

 

[cesare]

I think no ... but, as with any other group where a right available to others is removed in the public interest, there needs to be some alternative safeguard for their interests (e.g. independent binding arbitration on issues which would otherwise have gone to strike action).

Where do you stand on this? Right to strike? Y/N

 

[scifisam]

You're suggesting that their over enthusiastic/violent methods of law enforcement in the past were because they weren't allowed to strike?

Of course I'm not suggesting that. That really is not a natural interpretation of what I've said. If you genuinely think that's what my position was, then you must think I'm the stupidest person in the world; if that's the case, I suggest we put each other on ignore.

And that letting them strike now would result in them 'going by the book' in future?

Have I got that right?

No, but if they strike, or they start thinking about striking, then they might well be more sympathetic to people who are doing the same. People are generally more sympathetic to those who are doing something similar to them. And, deny it all you like, coppers are people. There's nothing Utopian about that.

 

[Sasaferrato]

And yet, they chose to break the rights of workers during thatchers regime. I don't think you get to play both sides of the coin. Call me a maniac but I think if the uniform you are part of historically enforced the suppression of workers rights, then it's somewhat hypocritical to whine for the rights you once helped to quash.

e2a and would no doubt continue to do so

This made me smile.

I've lost count of the number of times that the advice given in answer to a poster's dilemma is CALL THE POLICE.

 

[Das Uberdog]

The powers that be wouldn't shit their pants nowadays. They'd wheel in the Armed Forces like they do when the firemen go on strike.

Oh yeah, they totally didn't think of that one in 1919!

Do you seriously think the armed forces are a serious alternative to a trained police force? There are a fuckuvalot of demographic differences... The Army ain't been trained in the law, nor in dealing 'diplomatically' in dealings with civvies (even law-abiding ones). They haven't got the professionalism necessary to adequately investigate crimes - the best the can respond with is collective punishment, at the risk of mass resentment.

The Army can keep temporary order on the streets, not sustain a viable social system.

 

[cesare]

Oh yeah, they totally didn't think of that one in 1919!

Do you seriously think the armed forces are a serious alternative to a trained police force? There are a fuckuvalot of demographic differences... The Army ain't been trained in the law, nor in dealing 'diplomatically' in dealings with civvies (even law-abiding ones). They haven't got the professionalism necessary to adequately investigate crimes - the best the can respond with is collective punishment, at the risk of mass resentment.

The Army can keep temporary order on the streets, not sustain a viable social system.

I don't think of the Armed Forces as an alternative - I think of them as government's backstop. Keep order till the OB return to work. Or not, with the interim consequences that you point out.

But that will happen anyway if the OB are allowed to do it lawfully. Same difference.

Unless you think that the OB would do a series of one day strikes the first Monday of every month with alarming consequences and forcing a pay deal?

 

[Das Uberdog]

The Army always was and always will be the 'back stop' for any government attempting to control an unruly population. But it's a massive statement for any govenrment (especially in a country like the UK) to bring in the Armed Forces to deal with its own population...

There were periods during the miner's strike where Thatcher came within a hair's breadth of calling in the troops to break up the pickets. If she had, it could'a been civil war. The myth of liberal government is that (generally speaking) it is maintained through consent. Letting on that, actually, consent is merely a comfortable delusion perpetuated by an 'apparent' (though ultimately meaningless) democracy and is used to hide the true basis of any State (an authorative monopoly over physical violence and the right to physcially compel people into action) is a massive blunder.

If the Police went on strike today, the establishment would still shit their pants like it was 1919 all over again, and none of us know how it'd turn out.

 

[Socialist Cynic]

Yeah why not, if nothing else it’ll give protesters a day off from getting random thumpings/black people a day off from being frisked and intimidated.