UK Police hats. Ideology.

[PAB]

There must be an ideological reason for the UK Police Helmet. I'm unsure what though.

So far im speculating on its Phallic shape, in terms of a male gender exposure of power. Especially since female officers seem to never wear them. They have no practical use. Except i assume as uniform, symbolic intimidation.

Im also speculating whether or not a method of augmenting the head in size. Similar to Animals, im thinking of some tropical birds, who spread their wings in a particular way in order to make themselves look bigger and special for mating or to scare off predators.

 

[Prolescum]

There must be an ideological reason for the UK Police Helmet. I'm unsure what though.

Must? MUST?

So far im speculating on its Phallic shape, in terms of a male gender exposure of power. Especially since female officers seem to never wear them. They have no practical use. Except i assume as uniform, symbolic intimidation.

Im also speculating whether or not a method of augmenting the head in size. Similar to Animals, im thinking of some tropical birds, who spread their wings in a particular way in order to make themselves look bigger and special for mating or to scare off predators.

What a load of bollocks. It's called a custodian helmet, and it's origins lie with the Pickelhaube, which is German. It has fuck-all to do with a fucking 'male gender exposure of power', it's not a fucking obelisk. They replaced the original top hats that policemen wore.

 

[Case]

They're voluminous so the policemen can store lots of bribe money in there. How could you possibly miss that?

 

[MRaverz]

I don't subscribe to this nonsense about helmets and missiles being phallic, they're that shape because it's best for their functions.

On the shape of the police hat, I guess you'd have to trace back it's 'evolution'. http://www.britishpolicehelmet.co.uk/id2.html

 

[PAB]

Yeah im aware of the transition, but regardless there MUST be an ideology behind it. The helmet isnt a organism evolving via genetics etc. its a man-made creation its development , its evolution will and yes MUST lie to some degree in Ideology. There is no obvious evolutionary shift. before the current helmet it can be traced back to reinforced cane top hats. but even they are absurd, and the same ideological analysis is needed.

The most obvious is, which, i overlooked. is the ideology behind the cap , the hat. Which if we really look into it anthropologically will most likely lead down the path of rituals, magic, power, aristocracies, politics .

 

[MRaverz]

Yeah im aware of the transition, but regardless there MUST be an ideology behind it. The helmet isnt a organism evolving via genetics etc. its a man-made creation its development , its evolution will and yes MUST lie to some degree in Ideology. There is no obvious evolutionary shift. before the current helmet it can be traced back to reinforced cane top hats. but even they are absurd, and the same ideological analysis is needed.

The most obvious is, which, i overlooked. is the ideology behind the cap , the hat. Which if we really look into it anthropologically will most likely lead down the path of rituals, magic, power, aristocracies, politics .

An idea can evolve over time in a similar way to how organisms do, minus the whole sex bit obviously. The selection pressures would be the hat's own merits, a heavy hat wouldn't be selected for and one with a spike on the top would die out - perhaps with a vestigal bump left over.

Not quite sure what you mean by an ideology though, there's going to be a common idea such as 'Policeman needs a hat to protect their head. This hat must be serious business because their job is serious business. ;D' but it doesn't really go much further than that.

 

[Your Funny Uncle]

I'm unsure why there's a need for more of a reason than "to look distinctive whilst providing protection for the wearer." There may have been a selection of designs to choose from at some point, but I see no reason why any more than the aforementioned criteria would be needed to select this design.

 

[Prolescum]

Yeah im aware of the transition, but regardless there MUST be an ideology behind it. The helmet isnt a organism evolving via genetics etc. its a man-made creation its development , its evolution will and yes MUST lie to some degree in Ideology. There is no obvious evolutionary shift. before the current helmet it can be traced back to reinforced cane top hats. but even they are absurd, and the same ideological analysis is needed.

The most obvious is, which, i overlooked. is the ideology behind the cap , the hat. Which if we really look into it anthropologically will most likely lead down the path of rituals, magic, power, aristocracies, politics .

And with this absurd bollocks, the thread (hopefully) dies.

Caps aren't hats, hats aren't helmets, helmets aren't head-dresses. There's no surreptitious ideology behind them. If you're trying to establish some hidden Masonic-style sigil behind their use, you're barking up the wrong tree.

 

[nasher168]

On looking at the link by MRaverz, I'm more inclined to think that-rather than being some kind of sexual reference- it's a development from cavalry helmets,modified heavily of course for ground-based activities. Not entirely practical in the modern era, but still effective protection.
Take a look at MRaverz's link and then compare the early helmets to this cavalry helmet:

 

[Prolescum]

Like I said,

Pickelhaube...

 

[nasher168]

Ah so you did:

It's called a custodian helmet, and it's origins lie with the Pickelhaube, which is German.

Clearly you went back in time and changed your post before I made mine, and it's not down to my inobservance.

 

[Prolescum]

Ah so you did:

It's called a custodian helmet, and it's origins lie with the Pickelhaube, which is German.

Clearly you went back in time and changed your post before I made mine, and it's not down to my inobservance.

Shh! My time/perpetual motion/uriel's/welcome to the machine is still top secret 'til the patent passes.

 

[PAB]

On looking at the link by MRaverz, I'm more inclined to think that-rather than being some kind of sexual reference- it's a development from cavalry helmets,modified heavily of course for ground-based activities. Not entirely practical in the modern era, but still effective protection.
Take a look at MRaverz's link and then compare the early helmets to this cavalry helmet:

Nice Find, but the way in which im looking at things are like this. simplified example why gold, because its shiny. Why do we want to exhibit shiny material, [and here would be the ideology] such as the idea held by people that its a thing of beauty, etc.

I agree with the method of the 'evolution' . Which is really the anthropology. Plus im a skeptic of psychoanalysis, was just speculating.
But even with the anthropology the reasons behind it are regardless ideological.


(An example of an ideology , if this helps: i heard in conversation. That part of the reason that toilet doors are raised, particularly males, in which it originated the design, was to deter homosexual behaviour, by exposing the privacy of the occupant/s. the ideology driving the action is homophobia. )

Things are done from reasons and ideas, and that why i stress the importance of ideology

 

[Deleted member 619]

It's nothing to do with what it looks like, and everything to do with the fact that the shape effectively deflects blows from weapons.

[/thread]

 

[PAB]

It's nothing to do with what it looks like, and everything to do with the fact that the shape effectively deflects blows from weapons.

[/thread]

Good point.

But if that was all there was to it simply....there would be no reason for its specific appearance. why not just use military helmets?

And then there's a gender issue , that women don't use them ? unless im wrong

 

[Unwardil]

It's nothing to do with what it looks like, and everything to do with the fact that the shape effectively deflects blows from weapons.

[/thread]

Um... No, not really. Not any more anyway. That helmet wouldn't do crap to a bullet and it doesn't protect the back of the neck in the least.

Contrary to popular belief, the original cavalry helmets were functional, but not as protection. They were intended to make the wearer more visible in combat and appear larger than the reality. Please explain to me the practical purpose of the decorative wings on winged hussars in terms of protection. Does it allow for greater range of movement? No, quite the opposite I imagine. Does it add protection to the back? No, they're strips of hardened leather with feathers attached and bolted to the back of a breast plate. Does is mark that unit out as an elite force that you don't want to mess with if you're just a humble little ground-pounder? Definitely yes.

No, the design of the helmet is meant to be distinctive, so that anyone who sees it immediately knows they are dealing with a police officer and no one else.

 

[nasher168]

Cavalry tended to be the richer people in an army (I think), so there would be a reason for the shininess, but the design is fairly practical.

-The plume allows them to stand out and be seen even from the generals position-often a good couple of miles away-the shininess helps with this job as well.
-The symbol on the front allows identification of individuals and allows people to keep with their squadron.
-It is round because the human head is round (obviously).
-The bit at the front is a good defence for the eyes, should a blow land from above. It also helps keep the sun out of their eyes, as being blinded by the sun could be the last thing that ever happens to you in melee fighting.

 

[Digitised]

I don't subscribe to this nonsense about helmets and missiles being phallic, they're that shape because it's best for their functions.

On the shape of the police hat, I guess you'd have to trace back it's 'evolution'. http://www.britishpolicehelmet.co.uk/id2.html

Yeah, those vagina scuds were VERY short ranged.

 

[MRaverz]

I don't subscribe to this nonsense about helmets and missiles being phallic, they're that shape because it's best for their functions.

On the shape of the police hat, I guess you'd have to trace back it's 'evolution'. http://www.britishpolicehelmet.co.uk/id2.html

Yeah, those vagina scuds were VERY short ranged.

Vagina lifeboats are much more effective.

 

[Deleted member 619]

It's nothing to do with what it looks like, and everything to do with the fact that the shape effectively deflects blows from weapons.

[/thread]

Um... No, not really. Not any more anyway. That helmet wouldn't do crap to a bullet and it doesn't protect the back of the neck in the least.

Contrary to popular belief, the original cavalry helmets were functional, but not as protection. They were intended to make the wearer more visible in combat and appear larger than the reality. Please explain to me the practical purpose of the decorative wings on winged hussars in terms of protection. Does it allow for greater range of movement? No, quite the opposite I imagine. Does it add protection to the back? No, they're strips of hardened leather with feathers attached and bolted to the back of a breast plate. Does is mark that unit out as an elite force that you don't want to mess with if you're just a humble little ground-pounder? Definitely yes.

No, the design of the helmet is meant to be distinctive, so that anyone who sees it immediately knows they are dealing with a police officer and no one else.

Utter cock. WHile you may have a point about the cavalry helmets, we're talking about bobby helmets, which are entirely for protection.