Pontificating Police

Smithers said :

John Hargreaves Ex MLA said :

bigM said :

Ok, so we will all wait with anticipation for simon corbell and our magistrates and judges to come out and make daily public media releases about issues within our community………because the Police are just there to do what we the public want them to do, cant have them expressing an opinion given they experience it everyday. If we let the courts release the media releases, we’ll find out about what occurred a year or so ago because they are so far behind.

Given that it has annoyed you for so long, I assume you raised this issue with the minister whilst you were a member of the assembly??????

I cant wait for Mr Corbell to lecture me on fire safety and give a good demonstration of the stop, drop and roll

I had this view and expressed it when I was the Minister for Police but I still say that the police, who do a brilliant job, ought not try to drive community attitudinal change unilaterally.

AND… Mr Corbell is well qualified to advise on fire safety. He was for many years a volunteer fire fighter.

The Police perform a hard job. And deserve thanks and respect for it. To say that they do a brilliant Job would is overkill, and its not necessary. I agree with you in that Police should not be the people trying for changes in attitudes of the community. Though I don’t think that they have been, or that they seeking such. But if then we ask who should be the voice to which we should pay attention, the answer might elude us for a long time to come.
Once upon a time I am sure that there would have been a time where those in public officer would have been out to lead public opinion with integrity instead of just responding to it on the back of a media poll.

This is no longer the case in the past years as is demonstrated countless times through all levels of government. Police aren’t anyone you should listen to for advice on how to live life in the world, if in fact it is on offer. That is a given. But if there is a group or person whom you could put forward as a better substitute, then I would like to hear it. On a side note, pretty much anyone who can walk is able to become a volunteer fire fighter. And more than a few of those have been found out to be responsible for having started fires in the first place. So lets just settle. If you really want to hear a case of how brilliantly the police have handled our family’s lost loved one, and how the government has asked little about it since, come on over. I ll tell you all about it for free.

Thank you for this – I agree with most of your views but not all. My view of the great job the police do is from two sources. The first is first hand experience as Minister for Police and the second is personal experience possibly not unlike your own. But thanks for the offer.

Yorrick said :

Rather interesting take on the topic John. Would you care to expand on your comments in light of the following excerpt from some case law on the topic? Following your research is there a need to cite the case?

‘ A police constable has always been an arm of the law and never a servant employed to do a master’s bidding on all occasions and in any circumstances. His authority is original, and not derived from a master or exercised on behalf of one, but is exercised on behalf of the public ..’

Your use of the word ‘bidding’and the language above is interesting. The reference to police duties being performed on behalf of, or for the public equally so.

Moving on, what is your view on section 9 (1)(b) of the Australian Federal Police Act which confers powers on police officers. I refer specifically to the power of Constable and reference to Common Law.

       (b)  when performing functions in the Australian Capital Territory–the powers
and duties
conferred or imposed on a constable
 or on an officer of police by or under any law (including the common law) of the Territory .

In considering the above I would be interested on your view of what the Peelian principles of policing mean in this time. I quite like point 1-2-5-7 and expect 9 may provide you with a pedestal to cry from.
* To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment.
* To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfil their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.
* To recognise always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing co-operation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws.
* To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.
* To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour, and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.
* To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.
* To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
* To recognise always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.
* To recognise always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them

My take on the Special Office of the Constable, the uniqueness of which is entrenched in the federal AFP legislation and which derives from British legislation, is that it refers to the powers of the police to apprehend or not, to charge or not, and it recognises that theirs is 24/7 job.

I respect this aspect of policing and would not change it.

However, one needs to understand that in the ACT we have no police force pre se. The self government legislation and the AFP Act entrenches the position of the AFP as contractors to the ACT government to provide community policing. Constables are actually responsible to the AFP commissioner or delegate.

the AFP Commissioner is responsible tot he ACT Government, the Minister for Police at the moment, for the provision of the community policing services through the Policing Agreement and the Policing Arrangements which stipulations underpin the Agreement. it is nonetheless a contract. Contractors have no right to comment on the policies of their employing authority. They must merely deliver on their contract.

individuals may comment any time they like on the social life of their community, but employees and contractors have no such right.

John Hargreaves Ex MLA said :

bigM said :

Ok, so we will all wait with anticipation for simon corbell and our magistrates and judges to come out and make daily public media releases about issues within our community………because the Police are just there to do what we the public want them to do, cant have them expressing an opinion given they experience it everyday. If we let the courts release the media releases, we’ll find out about what occurred a year or so ago because they are so far behind.

Given that it has annoyed you for so long, I assume you raised this issue with the minister whilst you were a member of the assembly??????

I cant wait for Mr Corbell to lecture me on fire safety and give a good demonstration of the stop, drop and roll

I had this view and expressed it when I was the Minister for Police but I still say that the police, who do a brilliant job, ought not try to drive community attitudinal change unilaterally.

AND… Mr Corbell is well qualified to advise on fire safety. He was for many years a volunteer fire fighter.

The Police perform a hard job. And deserve thanks and respect for it. To say that they do a brilliant Job would is overkill, and its not necessary. I agree with you in that Police should not be the people trying for changes in attitudes of the community. Though I don’t think that they have been, or that they seeking such. But if then we ask who should be the voice to which we should pay attention, the answer might elude us for a long time to come.
Once upon a time I am sure that there would have been a time where those in public officer would have been out to lead public opinion with integrity instead of just responding to it on the back of a media poll. This is no longer the case in the past years as is demonstrated countless times through all levels of government. Police aren’t anyone you should listen to for advice on how to live life in the world, if in fact it is on offer. That is a given. But if there is a group or person whom you could put forward as a better substitute, then I would like to hear it. On a side note, pretty much anyone who can walk is able to become a volunteer fire fighter. And more than a few of those have been found out to be responsible for having started fires in the first place. So lets just settle. If you really want to hear a case of how brilliantly the police have handled our family’s lost loved one, and how the government has asked little about it since, come on over. I ll tell you all about it for free.

Rather interesting take on the topic John. Would you care to expand on your comments in light of the following excerpt from some case law on the topic? Following your research is there a need to cite the case?

‘ A police constable has always been an arm of the law and never a servant employed to do a master’s bidding on all occasions and in any circumstances. His authority is original, and not derived from a master or exercised on behalf of one, but is exercised on behalf of the public ..’

Your use of the word ‘bidding’and the language above is interesting. The reference to police duties being performed on behalf of, or for the public equally so.

Moving on, what is your view on section 9 (1)(b) of the Australian Federal Police Act which confers powers on police officers. I refer specifically to the power of Constable and reference to Common Law.

       (b)  when performing functions in the Australian Capital Territory–the powers
and duties
conferred or imposed on a constable
 or on an officer of police by or under any law (including the common law) of the Territory .

In considering the above I would be interested on your view of what the Peelian principles of policing mean in this time. I quite like point 1-2-5-7 and expect 9 may provide you with a pedestal to cry from.
* To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment.
* To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfil their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.
* To recognise always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing co-operation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws.
* To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.
* To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour, and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.
* To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.
* To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
* To recognise always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.
* To recognise always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them

dungfungus said :

John Hargreaves Ex MLA said :

Aren’t Labor haters such good copy. God gave them to me for my entertainment. Abuse and nastiness are no substitute for clever repartee.

You have to roll with the punches, Johno.

Give me good repartee and it is fun. Give me abuse and personal attack and I respond in kind. In the Assembly I would mark out of 10 the attacks on me if they were done cleverly. when it descended into vitriol, I lost me respect for those opposite and my disgust found new heights. I also considered them to be childish.

John Hargreaves Ex MLA said :

Aren’t Labor haters such good copy. God gave them to me for my entertainment. Abuse and nastiness are no substitute for clever repartee.

You have to roll with the punches, Johno.

Aren’t Labor haters such good copy. God gave them to me for my entertainment. Abuse and nastiness are no substitute for clever repartee.

HenryBG said :

bigfeet said :

This post is just way out-there and screams “Look at me I’m still relevant… someone look at me… I’m doing something… LOOK AT ME”

I think it’s time for a hobby John: Quilting, Home-brewing, cross-dressing, model trains, bee-keeping, cross-dressing bees … the possibilities are endless.

I don’t understand why ad hominem nonsense such as this is accepted on this website.

Hargreaves has his opinions. Unlike some, he is happy to share those opinions. We can agree or disagree with those opinions, and perhaps even provide cogent argument and quote facts to support our position.
On the other hand, we can indulge in personal attacks, thus admitting our intellectual insufficiency.

Yeah but Bigfeet still read the posts and is adopting a superior position to which he/she is not entitled.

People are entitled to their opinions and to express them (thanks that 18C is dead) with courtesy, even ex pollies.

bigfeet said :

This post is just way out-there and screams “Look at me I’m still relevant… someone look at me… I’m doing something… LOOK AT ME”

I think it’s time for a hobby John: Quilting, Home-brewing, cross-dressing, model trains, bee-keeping, cross-dressing bees … the possibilities are endless.

I don’t understand why ad hominem nonsense such as this is accepted on this website.

Hargreaves has his opinions. Unlike some, he is happy to share those opinions. We can agree or disagree with those opinions, and perhaps even provide cogent argument and quote facts to support our position.
On the other hand, we can indulge in personal attacks, thus admitting our intellectual insufficiency.

John Hargreaves Ex MLA said :

bigM said :

Ok, so we will all wait with anticipation for simon corbell and our magistrates and judges to come out and make daily public media releases about issues within our community………because the Police are just there to do what we the public want them to do, cant have them expressing an opinion given they experience it everyday. If we let the courts release the media releases, we’ll find out about what occurred a year or so ago because they are so far behind.

Given that it has annoyed you for so long, I assume you raised this issue with the minister whilst you were a member of the assembly??????

I cant wait for Mr Corbell to lecture me on fire safety and give a good demonstration of the stop, drop and roll

I had this view and expressed it when I was the Minister for Police but I still say that the police, who do a brilliant job, ought not try to drive community attitudinal change unilaterally.

AND… Mr Corbell is well qualified to advise on fire safety. He was for many years a volunteer fire fighter.

A volunteer fire fighter like Tony Abbott has been for many years and still is. I haven’t heard Abbott advise on fire safety though.