MY childhood perception of the British police was formed by fictional descriptions of friendly, unarmed Bobbies with their funny helmets doing their rounds, chatting to citizens, and generally being helpful rather than threatening. That image has long gone, replaced by American-style cops hurtling along, sirens wailing. Now the average British police officer is aggressive and trigger-happy, and not trusted by a sizeable minority.

One reason for this change has been the steady increase of real and imaginary terrorist plots that have emerged since 9/11. Another cause is the appearance of large numbers of criminal gangs, composed mostly of East Europeans. As crime has become more violent and organised, the response from law-enforcement agencies has been tough and uncompromising. But as laws have been strengthened, giving vast new powers to the police, oversight has not kept pace. This has led to a police force inclined to shoot first and ask questions later. To be sure, the police remains a highly disciplined body by and large, but as a number of incidents have shown, the tendency is to close ranks to protect their own.

In the last couple of years, a number of incidents have come to light that have eroded public confidence. Perhaps the most shocking was the ‘Plebgate’ affair that saw a senior Conservative member of the Cabinet being forced to resign. Andrew Mitchell was stopped from using a gate outside 10 Downing Street by two policemen on duty as he prepared to cycle home. In the altercation that followed, Mitchell was accused by a police officer of calling him a ‘pleb’, a pejorative derived from ‘plebian’, or a social inferior.

Although he constantly denied having used the word, the media outcry and the constant criticism from police officials made Mitchell’s position untenable, and he was forced to resign. Soon, however, it emerged that much of the police testimony had been fabricated. Three officers were subsequently dismissed, and others disciplined. However, Mitchell has still not been reinstated. Interestingly, he is having to sell his house to pay for his legal costs in a libel suit filed against him by a police officer whose lawyers are being paid by the Police Federation.

Over the years, the police in Britain came to occupy a position of respect and affection among the public, and this made it difficult for politicians to push them around.

It was at the annual conference of this body that Theresa May, the home secretary, dropped her bombshell last week. A couple of years ago, she was booed here by the audience of police officers. The police had been warning of a law and order disaster when the government enforced major cuts as part of its austerity programme. This time, May was even more uncompromising, warning the police to voluntarily introduce reforms recommended by Sir David Norrington, or be prepared for legislation that would usher in these changes.

To drive home her point, she said the government would no longer give the Federation its annual subsidy of nearly 200,000 pounds. And in future, police officers would have the right to opt into the Federation, rather than be inducted automatically. May’s steely address was met with dropped jaws and utter shock. Nobody could believe a senior member of the government would speak to the Police Federation — a powerful and feared union established in 1918 by an act of Parliament — in such blunt fashion.

The fact that the home secretary’s speech was greeted with so much praise across the political spectrum is an indication of how unpopular the police have become. From doctored statistics to the regular use of unreasonable force, the British police have become a law unto itself. Time and again, highly publicised incidents have been swept under the carpet by dubious internal inquiries that have found no wrong-doing.

To get a flavour of the disbelief and admiration that dominated the media after May’s speech, here’s a Daily Telegraph blogger: “One of the most incredible speeches delivered by a British politician in peacetime.” Martine Kettle, writing in the Guardian, said: “Arguably the most aggressive act by central government towards the police rank and file in a century.”

In Pakistan, our poor cops are almost treated as personal servants by politicians in power. Demoralised, poorly paid and trained, they have little or no voice in shaping the terms and conditions of their employment. Even senior officers are transferred and punished at the whim of the government and the judiciary. So for us the sight of British police officers booing the equivalent of our Interior Minister is almost unimaginable.

Over the years, the police in Britain came to occupy a position of respect and affection among the public, and this made it difficult for politicians to push them around. This image was polished in books, films and television, and there was little public criticism until the last few years. When non-white immigrants were subjected to humiliating ‘stop and search’ procedures, few questions were asked. It wasn’t until recently that their conduct began to be put under the media spotlight. Corruption scandals and unnecessary bullying and violence came in for mounting criticism.

As Theresa May said in her speech, the tradition in Britain used to be ‘policing by consent’. The nature of this pact has been completely changed by the police force, and the home secretary’s robust challenge will, hopefully, make an arrogant Police Federation rethink its approach and priorities.

Published in Dawn, May 26th, 2014