In our view they need it to go on. It is about ensuring that the state has a body of armed men ready and willing to use violence against strike movements and social movements. In the final analysis, if our rulers cannot rule primarily by consent (propaganda etc) they will resort to force.
So they need The Force. The police were set up to attack social movements such as the Chartists because it was no longer sensible to use the army. Use of the army kills people and escallates the war (even people not involved in protests start to get very upset when they hear that demonstrators have been killed).
The growth of modern society means that the majority are capable of research into events and communication in a way that wasn’t true prior to capitalism. Whereas peasant revolts could be put down by the army and executions, the deployment of the same against collective organisations of workers was dangerous. An early deployment of the police against a Chartist rally led to the death of a police officer.
The Chartist who stabbed him was released by the court because the public outcry against the police who had battered the Chartists with batons was so high. The verdict of the jury was justifiable homicide (1833).
How to maintain a force of violence against the majority? There is a need to give the impression that the force is there to protect all of us against anti-social crime. The fact is the police force are not organised on such lines as to enable them to do that effectively. That is why the litany of police ‘errors’, and of ‘bad apples’ over the years is just so massive, and is why the state ensures that police who are caught assaulting protesters and pickets (miners, printers, Poll Tax, Welling…), who kill in custody (Sylvester, Stanley..), who are caught fitting up suspects (Birmingham 6, Guilford 4, it gose on…) are very rarely if ever sacked let alone charged with an offence.
If police officers were to fear dismissal or imprisonment as a consequence for attacking protesters etc they might not do it and their principle purpose is undermined. Hence the IPCC (or the PCA before it) never having faciliated the conviction of a single copper for any of the hundreds of deaths in police custody. Just watch any of the footage of the G20 police violence or read the legal observers account of the attack on the climate camp. This was not rogue officers let of the leash. This was a concerted violent assault on protests directed by the senior officers on the ground. Ian Tomlinson died at around 19:30 pm.
The police found their favoured pathologist to give them their natural causes verdict and released their concocted story at 22:30 pm (or just before then). That wasn’t the actions of a rogue copper but of an organised attempt to cover up a death that followed and was most likely a direct result of an assault by police officers that occured during a planned reign of terror against those who would protest against the priorities of our rulers.