zlacker

What do you mean?

>>carapa+(OP)
This advertises itself as "policing by consent", but I'm not sure where the "by consent" comes from. I'm surely missing something, but if you can just add "by consent" to violent actions and then say "individuals cannot withdraw consent", then that doesn't seem like consent to me.

Example: The US military spreading democracy by consent. Sure, lots of recipients of 'democracy' have expressed that they want us to leave, but individuals cannot withdraw their consent from our democracy.

>>Christ+3l1
In re: the Peelian principles I feel that that's addressed in #2:

> 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.

It's a tactical truism that you can't police a city without consent of the populace. You can destroy it, but not rule it. Look at what happened in Mogadishu or Baghdad, it takes thousands of troops and the willingness to kill civilians to hold a hostile city, even for the US military. Recognizing that is pretty much realpolitik.

- - - -

In re: consent and democracy in general, I dunno. It's not like the social contract is an actual document that you have to sign (or not), eh? I tried to build a flying saucer and leave the planet. YMMV.