Home Artists Posts Import Register

Downloads

Content

Journalist Daniel Trilling rejoins Riley, Hussein, and Alice for an episode with a more serious tone, talking about London's Metropolitan Police and the various corruption scandals that have eaten away at the myth of "Policing by Consent." We conclude that even the liberal position on reforming the Met now includes some broad/loose definition of abolition, where huge numbers of police powers are removed.

Read Daniel's article at the LRB here: https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v45/n07/daniel-trilling/not-much-like-consent

Comments

Nemo

As 18th century crime and policing is an interest of mine I recently I read JM Beatty's 'The First English Detectives' and once again I have made the mistake of learning history in Britain. Given what a massive centralisation Peel's reforms were - deliberately taking control away from communities and concentrating it in the Home Office - all the drivel about 'Peelite principles of policing by consent' is utterly maddening. Even then there was a colonial aspect to the Met, a suspicion that the 'natives' of London were incapable of effectively policing themselves. Which is a big part of how the Met found itself in the unusual position Alice points out of doing both high-level national policing and ground-level community policing for London. Interestingly the Bow Street Runners got into both national policing (getting called out of London to solve crime) and state security (protecting the royals in particular) pretty much by accident, because they were the only police-like institution to hand at the time

Anonymous

The hogs are fasting from their slop this episode after the recent feast of Janega, Wyman, nish, Liz truss (in book form) and recruitment Hitler.

Andy C

I’m calling it, this comment was clearly generated by an Al