On 15/01/2022 14:19, nev young wrote:
> <not wishing to sound troll like but (I am quite drunk)>
>
> Personal past experience make me want to write:
>
> If somebody stops you as you walk down the street, pushes you against a
> wall and demands you empty your pockets, provide proof of where you live
> and your name, then takes your phone and uses it;
>
> It's one law for a citizen and called a mugging
> and another law for the cops and called a stop and search.
>
The police have to justify their actions, and while they are allowed by
the law to ask to see and inspect your possessions under certain
circumstance, they are not allowed to keep them without going through
the due process and must return them in due course. A mugger will just
take them. If a cop takes your phone or any other item *and keeps it
without giving you a receipt*, he will be prosecuted, just as the mugger
would if caught. If a cop hurts you, they can be and are prosecuted, and
sentenced if found guilty.
This is not the case in many other countries.
> Just one example of us all (generally) accepting it's one law/rule for
> us and a different law/rule for 'them'.
>
Same law. Extra laws apply to the police, who are permitted under those
laws, made on our behalf, to do what they do. If they exceed their
powers, they get a very large, heavy, book of laws thrown at them. If
you don't like this, then there are democratic processes to change
things. If you were to be sworn in as a police officer, you have certain
powers that others don't, but also certain restrictions on your
behaviour that others do not have.
> If you think for a couple of minutes you'll be able to come up with many
> other us/them instances that we accept every day.
>
Sure, but if you look into the details, there is normally a law, passed
by our democratically elected representatives, to justify it.
> I'll start a list.
> I may not drive my car at 70mph along the road where I live but the fire
> and ambulance may and do.
>
The laws and rules of the road apply equally to the emergency services,
though a blind eye is turned to any infractions *until something goes
wrong*, in which case the penalties are normally the maximum allowed. If
you check, you will find that a police car, ambulance or fire appliance
on the way to a "shout" very rarely exceeds the speed limit, relying on
their warning devices to get a clear path. If they hit and kill or
injure a pedestrian or cyclist, they are subject to the same penalties
as you would be if you had done what they did. One example I have seen
was a police car that went through a red light, hitting a vehicle that
was crossing its path, having passed a green light. The police driver
would have been prosecuted at a minimum for dangerous driving, and he
would have pleaded guilty. Nobody was hurt, as far as I could tell from
a few yards away, as the driver was having a heated discussion (On his
side) with both coppers.
> I may not enter your home and remove property but the bailiffs may.
>
Only under instructions from the court, and the first time they call,
they may only enter your premises if you give them permission to do so.
On subsequent visits, as you have already given consent, they may enter
at will. If they enter without permission, and remove stuff,that is
regarded as theft, rendering them liable to prosecution just as you
would be. The only exception to this is when they have a warrant issued
by the court, which, IIRC, specifies the items to be removed. This
warrant is often the result of refusing to allow them to enter in the
first place.
My point, though, was that the Prime Minister and others in the
Government are bound by the same laws we are, and if they flagrantly
break them, we are entitled to ask questions and take legal actions to
get rid of them. Breaking the law is not a good way to encourage others
to comply with it.