They do not.
But they like to think they do.
One difference is that the UK ones don’t carry guns so they can’t be “quite” as arrogant as the ones who do 
You still occassionally get a crash course on sarcasm…
Airborne_Again wrote:
Don’t authorities in the UK (such as the police) have to power to make instructions on how to apply such requirements? In this case instructions on what information should be in the notification and how the notification should be done.
Peter wrote:
They do not.But they like to think they do.
One difference is that the UK ones don’t carry guns so they can’t be “quite” as arrogant as the ones who do You still occassionally get a crash course on sarcasm…
You could probably link this back to some earlier conversations we had about ID cards and the extent to which, in various countries, you are required to comply with a policeman’s instructions. This is probably another good example of where the UK differs from the typical European ways of doing things, and there is definitely no requirement to comply with their preferred method of communications. As Peter says, even in the UK the average policeman would probably not know this and assume their ‘instructions’ must be complied with.
GARs are simply a notification, not a request for permission. In things where they have to give permission (such as a firearms licence) they exercise the sort of power to set the process that you describe by not issuing you with permission unless you follow the process.
From the Terrorism Act 2000:
(3)Where an aircraft is employed on a journey to which this paragraph applies otherwise than to carry passengers for reward, the captain of the aircraft shall not permit it to call at or leave a port in Great Britain or Northern Ireland unless—
(a)the port is a designated port, or
(b)he gives at least 12 hours’ notice in writing to a constable for the police area in which the port is situated (or, where the port is in Northern Ireland, to a member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary).
I keep meaning to actually try doing this at some point, taking a scribbled post-it down to the local station and handing it tp the nearest constable. It would provide some amusement for a few minutes if nothing else.
Graham wrote:
You could probably link this back to some earlier conversations we had about ID cards and the extent to which, in various countries, you are required to comply with a policeman’s instructions. This is probably another good example of where the UK differs from the typical European ways of doing things, and there is definitely no requirement to comply with their preferred method of communications. As Peter says, even in the UK the average policeman would probably not know this and assume their ‘instructions’ must be complied with.
That wasn’t quite what I had in mind. In Swedish legislation, it is very common that the law lays out a requirement in general terms and then states that the appropriate government authority has the right to regulate the practical details on how that requirement is to be met.
Airborne_Again wrote:
That wasn’t quite what I had in mind. In Swedish legislation, it is very common that the law lays out a requirement in general terms and then states that the appropriate government authority has the right to regulate the practical details on how that requirement is to be met.
So I understand, and apparently it is the case in many European countries.
In the UK it isn’t generally done that way, and intentionally so. I don’t think we consider it desirable to have our everyday lives governed by the arbitrary rulemaking of civil servants, so it is generally only the law that counts. HMRC are one major exception who, for all practical purposes, have quite extensive rule-making powers. Other government bodies are generally limited to rule-making in areas where their statutory powers to permit or licence an activity mean that in practical terms, anyone who wants to do that activity needs to comply with their arbitrary requirements.
Like the ‘identify yourself please’ case discussed previously, I believe this is largely the same principle of vesting (or not) in civil servants significant discretionary powers to control people’s lives.
Graham wrote:
Like the ‘identify yourself please’ case discussed previously, I believe this is largely the same principle of vesting (or not) in civil servants significant discretionary powers to control people’s lives.
I think there is indeed that perception in the UK that ’’Europeans’’ are more docile in their acceptance of being policed. There are however fundamental differences in what is ’’allowed’’ in certain European countries. Clear examples are Germany’s data protection and privacy laws which are much stricter than European law (GDPR etc.) and definitely much stricter than UK sovereign law (before the arrival of GDPR for which there is now equivalence and the UK needs to abide by EU rule).
The other large difference between Anglo/Saxon (Ireland is included in this) and other European (continent) is education of the police force.
In Europe, police education has shifted towards developing police academies from vocational training into accredited academic institutions within the university system in order to maximize the positive impact of police research and higher education on the police organization (del Barrio et al., 2009). The assumption is that police officers need more than vocational training of skills, and also that higher education will encourage reflective critical thinking. This in turn mitigates non-legalistic practices (Fekjaer, Petersson, & Thomassen, 2014). Changes include prolongation of initial education and upgrading to the academic level. This trend is also found in Australia, the USA and, more recently, Brazil and India, where attention has been given to the relationship between higher education and policing since the 1990s (Paterson, 2011). The consequences of these changes are not well known yet, although research has demonstrated the value of higher education on officers’ attitudes.
The general picture is that the development of police training has been more influenced by academic contents, but that there are differences in national policies on the issue. In an ongoing study, Hove & Vallès (2016) have identified three police initial training models in Western Europe: the pure vocational model; a vocational model connected with the education system; and a higher education model. The length of training is related to these models ranging from 16 weeks in Anglo-Saxon countries, 10-12 months in Continental countries to 2-3 years in the Nordic countries. Most initial police training combines education at a campus and on the job training that integrates practical studies into the program through an internship period. This is the case for most of the Nordic countries (though the way it is organized varies), while in Continental countries, internships are either very short or non-existent. In Anglo-Saxon countries one could say it is the other way around: the main component of education is on-the-job training. For instance, in the UK, new officers follow a two-year probation period under supervision of other police officers who act as mentors.
In short there is less of the ’’sect’’ mentality in the police force in many of the European countries through the advancement in the overall education. Pure vocational training leads to a more isolated view of the world vs a much better integration and overall understanding in many of the Northern European and Scandi countries where police officer certainly have wider tasks but are better equipped to execute them than their UK or Anglo Saxon colleagues
Let’s go back to the German case. Germany is one of those European countries where police education moved from a vocational training to a higher education model; police officers have to follow a three-year Bachelor program. In 2016 different members of the government promised to quickly increase the number of police officers in the street, but could they achieve this? They have found a “shortcut” to this long period of education. Different German states are using the already existing Wachpolizisten (literally ‘police guards’) as a new, ‘pseudo’ police officer. But these armed guards only follow a three-month training. Even if they don’t have the same functions as police officers, they can still interview persons, search them, find their identity, take them into custody and issue restraining orders. And they can use firearms.
Wow, certainly interesting, but not really what I am getting at. I certainly agree there is a problem of a ‘sect’ mentality, or tribalism, in the UK police forces – and perhaps interesting to hear that this is less so elsewhere. British police forces did not traditionally encourage education and, up until relatively recently, recruited almost exclusively from those with little or no post-16 education.
What I’m really getting at is fundamentally the nature of their powers, not how they are trained/educated or how they get into the role. The impression I get is that in mainland Europe policeman have a lot of discretionary power attached to their role – they can challenge you to identify yourself and you must comply, for instance. I don’t know what other powers they have to issue instructions, but it seems from what others are saying that they also have the power to set the way in which the law must be complied with. On a practical level, a man with a gun is not often argued with.
In the UK the relationship is reversed. As a private citizen, a policeman is not someone you take direction from, he is your servant. It is part of his duty to help you and unless you have evidently done something illegal or they have reasonable grounds to suspect you have, they have zero power over you. They also do not routinely carry firearms, which severely limits their ability to force their will on citizens in most practical circumstances. For this latter point I am quite thankful, because I am sure the tribalism would increase in confidence 10-fold overnight if they all got a gun on their hip.
In the context of this thread, I hypothesised that a presumption that ‘the police make the rules on GARs and you must comply’ as expressed by @Airborne_Again might be linked to this fundamental cultural difference.
I don’t understand the UKs aversion to identifying themselves. Should everybody be given a number instead? Otherwise how can anyone, police aside be confident that they are dealing with the person they say they are? What are the checks and balances in the UK these days?
The bad history of totalitarian governments asking for ‘papers, please’. While the ‘slippery slope argument’ can be a logical fallacy, as governments go unfortunately it tends to turn out true more often than desirable.
Here is what is acceptable for banks to use when establishing one’s identity and address, from government guidance
So you can see that there are lots of substitutes. Not all of the above have a photo and hence would not qualify to prove the personal identity (in addition to name); in practice this is either a Passport, (other nation’s) ID card, or a driving licence.
Of course the above is not as secure as a government-issued universal ID card, and hence ‘identity theft’ in the UK is probably a bigger issue than elsewhere, although it mostly happens in circumstances where a photo ID is not required. Some freedoms have their price.
Many over 70 years of age in the UK do not have a physical driving license. It is renewed every 3 years. Since Covid-19 re-issuing is slow. I cut up my license a year ago and posted the bits to the DVLA as instructed. I have a screenshot of a statement my license expires in 2023, but nothing else. My buspass has a pic, my airside badge and passport are not usually carried. Only the passport is listed above.
With paperless billing, address is a problem.
A few years ago a bank employee suggested I change to paper billing and return after receiving a paper bill. :-)
