Let me see if I understand your point Roger. You seem to be saying that it would not be helpful for police to act when they see the law being broken.

Is it then your contention that they should stand by inactive, and allow thugs to threaten and intimidate ethnic, religious, or political groups unchecked?

At what point should they act? When the first brick smashes the window of a house? When the first house is set afire? Or maybe when the first family are dragged into the street and beaten to a pulp?

At what point WOULD you consider action to be helpful, and helpful to whom?

"To protect and Serve" is, I believe, the expressed ethos of the police force, and this translates to Prevention of crime, prosecution of criminals, and punishment of the guilty in that order of importance. Just how would you equate that with a policy of inaction in the face of transgression?

Don T.