BBC Have your say: How should Britain be policed?

http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?threadID=361&&&edition=1&ttl=20051116211949

The masses opine on how we should be policed. There's a wonderful contrast of opinions in evidence, but since the length of each comment is kept short, no one involved has the chance to develop a coherent argument. Hence we end up with a series of occasionally pithy, sometimes curt and mostly blunt statements, which can usually be put into a category that most people will already be familiar with. Allow me to list a few of them:

1. Civil libertarians: no to ID. Paranoid about Britain turning into a police state. I must declare some sympathy here. I recall reading an article by Theordore Dalrymple, where he desribed the police as being "at once menacing and ineffectual". The good doctor is absolutely spot on. To sumarize with a soundbite, it used to be the case that the police were nasty to the nasty people and nice to the nice people. They now seem to have got that the wrong way round. It's not surprising though - namby pamby human rights legislation means that the police treat the real thugs with kid gloves, whereas the nice people are subject to increased low level annoyance because of more speed cameras and a whole load of new and restrictive laws about what they can and can't do - drinking on public transport for instance.
2. Hang 'em and flog 'em: I have a certain sympathy for these people, I just wish they were more articulate. Naturally, the BBC and other elements of our political and media classes sweep aside the feelings of these people as the bigoted, backward attitudes of Daily Mail readers. Their rage at natural justice being flouted and the evildoers getting away with it is treated with contempt.
3. ACAB (All cops are bastards): The police, being a symbol of authority, are inherently distasteful to these people. They are evil; inside every copper there is a Nazi waiting to get out. We should reduce their power accordingly, to prevent 'discrimination'. One must remember though, that 'discrimination' is a rather nebulous phrase. Mostly applied to poor, working class, non-white people, it reflects a perceived grievance, not necessarily an actual one. "Palestine" is a case in point. Large numbers of self-loathing white liberals will take to the streets to shout their 'solidarity' with "Palestine", keen as they are to take the side of the downtrodden and aggrieved. No actual connection with the conflict is required for a person to develop strong feelings on Israel/Palestine (I suppose I'm an example of that, except I've taken the side of democracy rather than supporting a quasi-religious death cult). This is essentially a Hampstead liberal's way of keeping up with the Joneses; the long term consequences are beside the point - one must remember to always take the side of the oppressed - that way, one can guarantee that one's reputation among fellow members of the media and political cognoscenti will be safe.
4. If we let the police carry guns, then all criminals will arm themselves. "We don't want to become more like America where they're all shooting each other" they shriek. G*d help us if these naive bunch of middle-class know-it-alls continue to have their way. We used to be able to get away without armed police in England because of a strong sense of social cohesion, and because of a willingness on the part of ordinary members of the public to deal with transgressors and law-breakers directly. Now, the police tell us not to confront criminals but to ring them instead. That's the real reason why crime has increased. Less social cohesion, less public willingness to step in and directly confront criminals. An armed police force, willing to use lethal force when confronting criminals would be a start, but the ideal is surely for an assertive and armed citizenry, like in America.