This lady was not a social worker. She is a barrister, having been at the Bar for 26 years with a previously unblemished record.

Her practice was not in a highly renumerated area of law as she represented many who were disadvantaged and vulnerable. As I mentioned, her references from many eminent people were glowing.

@ Blue Eyes

I am not here to defend her, BE and I do not know what occurred precisely when she assaulted a police officer. I just wanted to highlight that I had come across a conviction for this and like other commenters say, the post is a point well made. Whether we are a police state or not, this case demonstrated the police wield considerable powers given the ramifications that can occur from gaining a criminal record.

My point is that those powers were used in times where there were a lot more freedoms and less constraints on the general populace (smoking in pubs, drinking on the street etc). At the same time, the same old habitual defenders, thanks to the over populated prisons, can carry on regardless while normal people like myself are suddenly targeted in a variety of new ways. Also, coppers were still on the beat and served the community, while nowadays they are a more centralised, reactionary force that are not seen unless driving by at speed to a crime that has already happened.

My clarified point is this: there is the political context of the equation that changes matters. We’re living in times where our government does not appear to represent, or defend, the people who fund their existence.
We are denied a vote on Europe (let alone who we want to lead it), we go to war against the wishes over the majority of the population. We have an unelected and much hated PM. We have corrupt MPs and Peers in the House of Lords, who we are unable to get rid of, and exist in a world where the laws that they have made do not apply to them. We have more regulations, more taxes, more infringements on our freedom in the name of ‘protecting’ us. obviously, I could go on.

With this context, we are more powerless than ever before. If the police have the same powers as they always did (which is your point, i’m still not sure i agree totally but there you go), then if you put it into the backdrop of the political straight jacket we’re in, then it paints a darker picture.

I do understand your point r.e. the Peel laws etc, but back then you were also allowed to protest in front of Parliament, and you could also take a picture of it too:)
Hope this makes sense, I’ve just banged this out and have to go to lunch.

While I know that we’re basically agreeing, do you really think that police powers will be rolled back by the Conservatives (if they get in of course). Or that they will stay the same, and that some new things will be added? I know what my money’s on…. XX

But the police powers are NOT that much more different to what they ALWAYS were. Diferent names, different reasons, but there were, since Robert Peel, a 1001 ways you could arrest someone “just because you felt like it”, and, according to the letter of the law, it would be legal, from D&D and D&I (You would be AMAZED how many D&Ds/D&Is were taken in who had not touched a drop all night, (AND got done for it at court because our evidence was so tight), at my station, on my whole damn FORCE), Suspicion of drugs, Suspicion of about to commit an arrestable offence (“I saw him walking down XYZ street, and he lokked in every car window on his way, your honour”), going equipped (Had a screw driver, a hammer and a lenght of wire on him your honour…(aye the guy was on his way home from a late shift as a factory engineer.But THAT never was in the statement, NOR did it come out in court), etc, etc….. Our station called it “The ways and means act”.

And that was in the late 70s early 80s, WAAAYYY before the present shower of non performing apes got into Parliament.

And as to “Political police”, what were the police doing during the print workers and miners strikes, except being T******rs private police force to show she was a strong P.M and show the public she should be voted in again?

Without them she would have had to have found some Island no one had ever heard of, thousands of miles away, to invade to impress the proles.

I agree that we are a long way from Germany in the 30s/40s or the communist Soviet Union (among many others) so we’re not there yet. It’s not as if one morning we’re going to wake up and everything will have changed and we’ll be in a police state. In that respect, WW2 has done us a disservice, as many people assume that a police state only comes into being when a totalitarian state tries to take over other nation states.
My concern is that through the steady drip of illiberal, authotarian and open ended legislation that can be adapted to suit any purpose, that’s where we’re going. It’s not as if one morning we’re going to wake up and everything will have changed and we’ll be in a police state.
What we’re seeing at the moment is us walking down a path that seems to go in just one direction, with no way of us turning back.
I’m not anti-police by any means. I was at the G20 protests last year and was appalled to see first hand, for the first time, the worrying sight of overly aggressive police acting as an agent of the state to quell dissent, let alone inciting/causing violence to discredit the protestors.
And the next week I helped a lone copper handcuff a violent drunk/nutter on the street. That’s what they are there for, and long may they remain, but they’re crossing the line and will continue to do so unless people stand up and say enough.
While I know that we’re basically agreeing, do you really think that police powers will be rolled back by the Conservatives (if they get in of course). Or that they will stay the same, and that some new things will be added? I know what my money’s on….

a single incident which appear to be totally out of character.XX

Social worker/bent chav defender Brief bollox!

One strike and you are OUT as far as I am concerned.