Wednesday, 29 September 2010

Oh No! Terrorism

And here again are the dramatic headlines -Mumbai style terrorist attacks foiled. Now when I first heard this I assumed that they had been foiled in the same way Brown was lauded for foiling two attacks previously i.e. the plots didn't work. But no, these planned attacks on the UK, France and Germany were thwarted because a big cheese was taken out by an unmanned drone in Waziristan. I fear even now, with this piece of information that I am still cynical. So, all the other people who would clearly be involved in a fairly detailed and large scale operation, to simultaneously attack three countries, couldn't carry on without him?

We have to be watchful certainly but I get fed up and weary of repeatedly hearing of plots foiled with no evidence whatsoever. No arrests, no news stories about armed police swooping on an address etc etc. Let's be clear on this; there is a real fear of terrorism in this country and it has largely been placed in people's minds by government. Horrible though the murders of 7/7 were we should keep a sense of proportion. It is the only credible attack there has been and the deaths from terrorism in Northern Ireland between 1969 and today amount to 3568. Over 20 people a year, on average, die in police chases. 2008/9 was a year of reduced murders in England and Wales, but there were still 648.

Against this you have government stories of ricin plots that turn out to have been entirely untrue and unfounded. Or high profile raids with multiple arrests in a blaze of publicity, followed a little later by a much quieter release of all 'suspects' with payment of compensation. Most of what we are told is untrue and the police are wrapped up with imminent threats and a paramilitary culture that is unhelpful and contributes to their well-earned reputation as bumbling Keystone Cops.

Police Shooting -Terry Nicholas

Reading yet another report by the IPCC gives the impression that the IPCC are not trying to get to the truth, nor looking for recommendations for improvements.

Terry Nicholas was obviously not a straightforward fellow, having been shot at on at least a couple of occasions. He was offered police protection but refused it, saying he would sort it out himself. The police became aware that he was going to acquire a firearm and followed him to Paolo's restaurant in West London. The police had an armed surveillance team and CO19 firearms officers present. Nicholas parked his moped at the rear of the restaurant and was later seen to receive something from another man outside the front. It was decided to arrest him, now presumably with a weapon when he came out. And so as Nicholas went to his moped two police cars drove towards him. He opened fire and the police officers stopped their cars, got out and opened fire. No officers were hit but Nicholas was killed. The IPCC were happy that the officers were wearing their 'police' caps and that they didn't shout 'armed police' was understandable (as indeed it was) and therefore there was nothing else that they could do. It was sad and unfortunate that Terry Nicholas was dead, but it was his fault for opening fire.

The planing again is clearly to blame and the police seem to care nought for their repeated failures. Surely even a person of limited imagination would think twice about driving unmarked cars towards a man with a gun, who had been shot at before, particularly when that man is in a confined space. What exactly did they expect to happen? They could have contained the area with marked cars and called out to him by name, saying they knew he had a weapon and to put it down. But no, they decide to rush towards a man with a gun, who is cornered and fearing for his life.

Tuesday, 28 September 2010

Mark Saunders -Gunman

The news is full of stories of the police shooting of barrister Mark Saunders. Mark had, under the influence of drink and drugs apparently, fired a shotgun out of the window of his Chelsea house. This is much less than we would expect of any citizen and quite correctly armed police were sent to the scene, to offer adequate protection should he start to target people. Is that what they did? Clearly not. The area had been evacuated so there was no one to shoot. The armed police then took up forward positions, basically in harms way. That is not a containment or a defensive tactic. The police do not have to seek to engage with firearms; as long as everyone is safe they can sit back and wait. It seems likely now that Mark was not intending to hurt anyone, but he did still have a weapon and did seem to be behaving erratically. Still not a problem though.

During the siege, Mark had negotiators trying to call to him, armed officers shouting for him to put down the weapon and a helicopter making its noise overhead. At no point does this chaotic police activity appear to have worried them. With his last words apparently being 'I can't hear you' and hanging out a window, still holding the shotgun seven police officers opened fire. 5 of them managed to hit their target. It is difficult to understand how this could be anything other than manslaughter. Rather than calm the situation the police kept themselves in a state of high anxiety and had placed themselves in positions, not to dominate the area and keep it secure, but to confront Mark. Why, for instance were there at least seven officers in positions where they could fire on the 'gunman'? Mark for his part, seemed almost detached from the scene, uncomprehending. He was not providing tension, the police were keeping themselves wound up. It would seem the armed units are trained to be aggressive, to confront and challenge and to shoot first and ask questions later. This last is not a glib suggestion, but a reflection of the events. They wouldn't let Mark's wife speak to him and the assumption was, from the outset that he was a danger. A man discharging a gun openly and randomly is not something to be taken lightly, but we either decide that we take things slowly and ask questions to establish what we are faced with, or we accept that our police are in perpetual danger and must shoot first.

As I have said before, it is the faulty briefings and the mindset of the officers on arrival that is leading to so many police killings. In the Falklands war, the British Sea Harriers were shooting down Argentine aircraft attacking our forces and so fighters were sent in to deal with them. These aircraft, optimised and armed for air to air combat did their best work at high altitude, the Sea Harrier performed best at medium level. So, the Argentines 'trailed their coats' and waited for the Sea Harriers to come up and get them, where they would be attacked on the Argentines terms. But they represented no threat to the British forces, so the Harriers watched them, but left them alone. The Argentine fighters went home, having achieved nothing. Aggression would have sent the Harrier pilots racing after the enemy regardless; a cool head and rational thinking suggested otherwise. Again, the shooting of a man with a chair leg in a bag (which was thought to be a gun) was an example of the faulty thinking of firearms officers. Calling out 'armed police' in the street would probably cause any number of passers by to turn to see what was going on. Yet this simple, predictable and understandable action cost a man his life, because the police 'knew' he was a gunman.

In waters near Iran, on a high state of alert the US warship USS Vincennes detected an aircraft heading towards it and decided its action in so doing was aggressive. The Vincennes broadcast a message identifying itself and warning the aircraft on a particular bearing that if it did not turn away it would be fired upon (the bearing being that from the warship). To know who this unknown ship was talking to, the pilot of the Iranian airliner they were targeting would have to know the bearing, from that warship. An impossibility. So it carried on and was shot down. Exactly the same, faulty mindset. A lack of proper planning that made a fatal shooting almost inevitable. The problem with the British police is though, that this has never been recognised and as can be seen from their protestations, the police are not looking to learn anything.

We await the next one, as surely as night follows day.

Monday, 27 September 2010


These are the times we are living in. Despite the fact that Labour were obviously ruinously useless the electorate still voted for them in larger numbers than their direct families. This is bizarre, as it suggests that people are either monumentally stupid or pay no attention at all before putting an X in the box they always have. (Accepting of course a large section is a bought vote by Labour).

Now, perhaps because the sense of the people is so stunted, Labour feel safe in continuing with corruption as their core ideology. Blair introduced this stunning concept when he realised there is no effective control over politicians and that the electorate were vulnerable to being lied to. By allowing a system to exist whereby a candidate of the Unions choosing can be elected leader of the Labour Party, Labour accept something that would seem outrageous to anyone else. Ed Miliband perhaps proves he is in the Unions pocket by declaring, immediately that he isn't. He believes that power is vital and politics an important and difficult job. Experience in anything other than in-fighting and lying (naturally) is unnecessary. These venal and easily corrupted half-wits are being manipulated by very sinister people, who want a Marxist government, that they run. A Socialist Utopia that redistributes some of the workers wealth whilst maintaining themselves as a rich elite, far removed from the laws they enforce on others. Hence we have 'journalists' like Polly Toynbee, rich, multi-housed and working for a Socialist paper that pays no tax in the UK, insisting that we should have more state control and higher taxes. Though, ha, it mustn't impinge on her lifestyle! As I always say, she is rich enough to be a Socialist. (The other committed Socialist of course, is the person who has no intention of contributing, but quite likes the idea of free money from someone else's efforts). In fact, you can view Socialism as Capitalism without the sharing, without the option to better yourself.

In Ed Miliband the Unions have found their dolt. Blair of course was so self-centred and focused on personal wealth and power that the Unions would never get a look in. Ed however is a pushover. Tell him it is for a better, Socialist society and he will do what he is told. When your ideology is based on corruption, in whatever form that takes, Blair's or the Unions it means suffering for their dupes. And that means us.

Monday, 20 September 2010

We're doomed

I went today to hand in a envelope containing a document at the County Court building. Well, what an eye opener on the world we live in. Morons everywhere. Firstly I had to empty all my pockets of metal items and step through a metal detector frame. Then a 'guard' used a hand held device to do another sweep and then I could go through to a small room with four counters. Naturally only one was open. People queuing had to explain their personal reasons for being there, court case etc in front of everyone else. I handed over my envelope and was told 'hold on', while she opened it. I was then given the 'OK' and I left. How on earth does the postman get on? As someone who has attended, as a Special, more than one 'firearms incident' with no armed officers present nor called for, I find the totally idiotic assumption that a County Court building will be subject to armed assault and the patronising nonsense that the two Reliance guards would make any difference, insulting.

Think it through (something the authorities obviously never have). The assumption is that people coming to County Court may decide to take a weapon with them, maybe to strengthen his argument. So the guards are placed on the main door to stop this happening. Well, why not treat people with respect and have the guards in the courtroom? They will be just as effective there as on the main door to the building and we would continue to see that almost no-one causes any problem. But I suppose the public wouldn't feel intimidated and inconvenienced (an important adjunct to showing who is in charge), so the stupid door procedures will stay.

Tuesday, 14 September 2010

Police on TV

I have watched a couple of programmes following police, on BBC1 recently. Fantastic! I got bored of the genre a while back and the old repeats only make it worse, but these rekindled my interest. The first one I saw was instructive and the second was hilarious, what more can you ask for in television entertainment?

So, a couple of weeks ago I came across the first of these two whilst channel hopping. I wasn't really paying attention but was then drawn into focusing on it more. A black officer was on foot (with others) walking amongst people filling the streets outside pubs and clubs. It seemed fairly quiet. Someone it seems made an ill-considered comment, as I believe the inebriated are prone to do. The black officer leaped into action pinning a man to the wall. He had heard a racist comment and as the voiceover helpfully said 'if there is one thing the police won't tolerate it is racist comments'. The man's girlfriend, a few feet away noticed what was going on on and started questioning the officers in a fairly direct and robust manner. I got the impression she had been drinking. The black officer confronted her to 'explain' about her boyfriend's actions and 'advise' her on hers. He did this by standing very close to her, leaning into her and pointing his finger at her. Strangely, she objected to this invasion of her personal space and put her hand onto the officers chest to keep his distance. Naturally, this led him to grab her and inform her she was under arrest, 'section 5 public order' or it may even have been assault on police. Either way, a situation he created had led to her arrest.

Later, in the same programme, another officer, white, saw a man arguing with a girl as they drove past. They stopped to check she was OK. The girl confirmed it was just a stupid argument. She seemed fine, the lad, sitting on an anti-crash barrier around a supermarket, was obviously fairly pissed. As the officers turned to go, the lad said something. The officer thought he had told him to go away, but using more colourful language. The girl immediately said he had been talking to her but the officer wasn't having it. The lad then objected to being filmed, 'you haven't obtained my permission' he said. Interestingly, the officer said that as the man was in a public place, they didn't have to. Now why do the police keep taking cameras off photographers in the street? Anyway, the lad is now acting up and swearing and (Mr voiceover again) 'if there is one thing the police won't tolerate, it is bad language'. At one point in this episode, the other officer had tried to get his colleague to walk away, but was unsuccessful. The man was arrested. Cue smug grin from the arresting officer. By the time the lad gets to the nick, he is passive and acting confused, which brings a patronising comment from the narration. Once in a cell awaiting processing the lad is in tears saying he will lose his job, as he is a doctor. The voiceover jumps in here to say, 'it is extremely unlikely that the man will lose his job'. Perhaps this was said with a hint of embarrassment as well it might, as again the situation had been inflamed by the actions of the officer. It was played as important to get him off the streets and yet now it has to be played down as not a serious crime.

These two incidents are representative of the arrogant and authoritarian nature of British police today. Police officers who appear to be completely ignorant of what their role in society actually is. And remember, the police were happy to have these incidents shown!

Last night we were in Wales, on board with a traffic officer of many years experience and a genial fellow he was too. Firstly we were treated to a car theft. A fellow officer had seen a stolen car and requested our man's help. Only a qualified officer can give pursuit you see and Control checked that the traffic officer was so certified. 'Yes, yes' he said, as they do and he took over the pursuit. It would at this juncture be pertinent to point out that the offender was being 'followed' not 'pursued' by the original police vehicle at 20mph. Lucky a traffic officer was available is all I can say. The stolen car then bizarrely mounted the pavement and crashed into a lamppost. What the hell, was all you could think. The dozy pillock who had stolen the car could barely form words, but he wasn't drunk. And the reason for his speed and the strange crash, was that the steering lock was still on!

Next our intrepid officer was shown pursuing a disqualified driver who had run off when seen driving. He was thought to be in his partners house, so with one kick of substantial plod's boot the door went flying. It really was impressive. Coming back to update the viewers the officer explained that the offender wasn't in there, but the back door was 'insecure'. He had probably dashed out that way. So, being round the back may a) have caught him and/or b) saved the front door. Obvious embarrassment was saved when a passing carpenter offered to put the door back up, what a piece of luck! Doors seem to feature large in the programme when 5 officers attend a house with a burglar believed inside. Three of them try kicking down the front door, having no effect. Out comes the official battering ram and that only leaves dents. So the police climb up to the upstairs window that the burglar probably used and get him that way. But then they can't open any doors and have to lower him out the window. Are they sure they were protecting the Health and Safety of a man in their custody, properly?!

Another house another door. A collection of officers in plain clothes spend ten minutes kicking a door before it gives way and then can't find their man. He must be in the loft. One officer bends over whilst a large colleague stands on his back to get up to the roof, through the loft hatch on the landing. Unfortunately, he doesn't seem to realise you have to stay on the beams and puts a foot through the ceiling of a bedroom. Voiceover man then tells us that the other officers have now found 'the ladder the offender obviously used to get into the loft.' What and then somehow put it in a bedroom, afterwards? The ineptitude of the criminals seemed to be closely matched by that of the police, with the TV people joining in.

Joking aside though, these officers at least seemed to know and be known in the communities they policed and that was good to see. People were happy to give them information and it almost appeared we were in another era. The TV people were amused at the strange relationship and method of policing they saw. They seemed to think this was because it was a backward, rural Welsh police force.

Monday, 13 September 2010


Is it just that I am paying more attention now than in earlier decades, or are the Unions talking even more palpable nonsense? The public sector has been bloated for no reason, but at enormous cost by a Labour government desperate to build a client class and to increase central, state control. Now all the money (and a lot more besides) has gone, we have to cut back. This is simple economics, but most of the public sector are make-work's anyway and should have been cut even if the finances were sound. I am sorry that this threatens the livelihood of these public sector workers, some of whom will have no culpability (as opposed to those who have chosen to occupy positions they know are just detrimental), but Tony Blair and Gordon Brown have let down and robbed more people than just them.

The Union bosses however are foaming at the mouth, salivating that this Labour created crisis being cleaned up by a Conservative coalition allows them, in their warped world, to launch nationally damaging strikes. Mind you, if they only get those at risk to strike, we will probably get absolute proof that these people not being at work makes absolutely no difference to the functioning of the country. All the Tories have to do, is make sure that front line staff are basically protected for the services we need, but also that not only the people but the stupid bureaucracy they support is removed. I say only, but obvious though these things are, we are seeing a distinct lack of leadership and of Conservative values. All we get is something that smells way too much like Labour-lite.

If the Unions paid a bit more attention to the needs of their members and less to communist influenced politics we could live with them. But their only interest in their members is the wealth it creates for Union bosses and the power it gives them to disrupt the proper functioning of a civilised, democratic state. Not a state they want.

Thursday, 9 September 2010

Only A Moron

We find ourselves in the year 2010. Now, there is enough argument about whether it is Twenty Ten or Two Thousand and Ten, without considering why it's 2010. But it is 2010 of course because that is how many years have passed since the supposed date of Christ's birth (anno domini, rather than After Death as is sometimes believed -that would leave the whole of Christ's life as a gap!). Hence when referring to ancient matters the books of my childhood spoke of BC and AD for before and after Christ. It doesn't matter hugely, but that is the system that has been in use, well, for over two thousand years. It is what you could call established, common currency, familiar if somewhat arbitrary, but so would be any other date we chose as day 1.

Now however the Idiots (I think I might use this term 'Idiots' as an official description. The communists rely on 'useful idiots' who help them achieve their objectives, but those I speak of don't even have that utility), by which I mean liberal elitists, have decided to expunge Christianity. I'm sure it is because someone might be offended (though offending Christians it would seem, doesn't matter). We are now living in the year 2010 CE. Not a huge difference. The year is the same but it refers to the Current Era. Obviously this infers the other era is Before the Current Era and both naturally refer to the the birth of Christ as the start point, but without actually drawing attention to that fact. It does allow of course, another era to be proclaimed at some point in the future. Maybe Tony Blair would have liked 1997 to be the new year 1, in a humble if you must force it upon me, how can I refuse, kind of way.

But how witless, how simply, mortifying moronic. The date is based on Christianity but we mustn't say so, we may keep the dating system but deny how it came about. I suppose the full explanation goes something like this. 'we now live in the year 2010, based on a system using the birth of the Christian religion's icon, Jesus Christ. This is because the dominant civilisation at the time was mainly Christian.' Instead of the explanation I understood as a child; 'the date is based on the birth of Christ'. Oh, OK.

And that really is it. It doesn't need explanation, which is necessary when using the Idiots version, although it sounds more like an apology in their context. What is it with these Liberal Elitists who seek to undermine our society? What are they ashamed of? They seem completely unable to understand that that was then and today is today. You cannot judge a bygone era by the standards of today and certainly not by a standard set by some psychologically flawed, whining Idiot.

Only a moron would come up with the thoroughly divisive BCE/CE label and only a moron would give it any currency. The fact that it most commonly crops up in academically minded publications (popular or not) only makes it worse and shows how this perversion is pushed through academia itself and uses Political Correctness to bully everyone else. I loathe its use and shiver every time I see it in a book.

Thursday, 2 September 2010


Now, I should start this off by saying that my whole problem here might be that I am too thick. I fully accept that possibility. Today, I am struggling with Gravity. A lot of people do I think. The standard simple explanation, as I understand it, is to show a body (such as the Earth) represented by a big ball, sitting on a rubber sheet. The sheet naturally deforms and the ball sits in a dip. If you then roll a marble around it, it makes a circle, due to the shape created by the big ball on the sheet. The idea being, I gather, that a mass distorts the space around it. It works on a membrane, with gravity pulling the weight down but not I think if the bodies were suspended and forces were acting equally all around them. In what way then would each object be aware of the other? If the force is directional such as the distortion to the rubber sheet there is some understanding, but that requires something pulling in an arbitrary direction, such as, in our model, gravity! It doesn't work, there has to be some 'connection' between the two, whether it is a rubber sheet or 'the fabric of space and time'. They are aware of each other. It doesn't make sense and yet, here again we find that without it some pretty wonderful things couldn't happen. Like me being able to sit on this chair, or in all probability there 'being' anything at all.