How did it come to this? In 1972, in a fit of hubris bizarrely based on weakness, the Prime Minister Ted Heath, masquerading as a Conservative lied to the country and slid the UK into the slime pit of the EU. In those days Heath was known as a 'wet' Tory - one from the Left of the party. He was of course, much worse than that. A self-important socialist, out of his depth.
Now, with that innate common sense with which the country has been traditionally blessed, we have seized the opportunity to extricate ourselves from the Franco-German empire. (It is constantly said that the idea of the EU was to end European war and it has achieved that inasmuch that France and Germany have not had to start another war, as they got their empire without one).
However, with dreadful irony the UK now finds itself saddled with a Prime Minister every bit as disingenuous, careless of the needs of the country and duplicitous as Heath. Despite the efforts of Project Fear, business doesn't care about leaving the EU, what they care about is knowing what is going to happen and so be able to plan. For her own selfish reasons, May is keeping them in the dark. She cannot tell us what she is up to, because it isn't what she has pledged or promised and it is not what the people required her to do.
She should have no choice; the people gave her an instruction that parliament overwhelmingly accepted, yet still she thinks her personal opinion carries more weight. And in her ramblings as party leader she threw away an undoubted majority, when she started copying Labour's Marxist ideas and continues to attempt to out Left the Left.
Our police are now little more than virtue-signalling social workers, running around after crimes have been committed. Yet never embarrassed by their manifest failures. Graduates wonder to older colleagues in the workplace if Africa is a country (I didn't do geography at school!), yet have a range of opinions about correct social behaviours and an identikit believe that the Tories are the devil incarnate and are deeply uncurious.
Step forward with pride the education establishment that successfully created this and much beyond. Churning out kids infused with Left ideology and little actual knowledge has been very effective. They are easier to manipulate and cannot see the glaring faults in Left logic. They never learned how to think for themselves, to research but were imbued with a sense of their own self-importance.
Left educated police graduates were fast tracked into senior positions, there to destroy proper policing with their tree-hugger mentality and lack of any real experience of policing. And so on, right across all sectors. A country being wrecked internally by Left ideology serving only to bring about a Marxist government that will end democracy.
We see the headlines asking why the police cannot stop the rise in knife crimes, in murders, but this is the wrong question. We should be asking why are they not trying to.
Showing posts with label Police. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Police. Show all posts
Thursday, 8 November 2018
Wednesday, 31 January 2018
Speeding
I see the current fascist leader of the police traffic section thinks that the rate of illegal fining of motorists is not high enough and wants fines imposed as soon as possible, from 1mph of a 'limit'. I wonder if he wears his uniform at home and admires himself in the mirror, wondering how a gun would look with it.
Or if he dreams of strutting out to order his neighbours to do his bidding? He must do really, it fits his undoubted profile. The police like to say 'it's 30 for a reason' and I would ask this Grade A imbecile what exactly that reason is. Oh, he will launch into platitudes about knocking people down at 30 or 40 and maybe reel off facts and figures he had made up specially, but in the end he won't know.
He can't, because a speed was picked arbitrarily, for no other reason than it sounded about right. Now I dislike dangerous speeding as much as the next person, but drifting over a limit is neither here nor there. I will slow down and watch carefully if I see a group of kids playing near the roadside (the police feel such behaviour is beyond drivers), though I could of course maintain 30mph.
I started by saying he wants more revenue and that can be the sole motivator (well, that and the sense of control engendered by cowing the entire population with draconian regulations), as safety is entirely absent. It is well known, even within the state bureaucracy that Safety Cameras actually cause accidents, that such fine control of driving manners, leads to too much observing of speed and less of the road ahead.
In fact, pretty much everything we are told about speed is a pack of lies. Speed Awareness courses are just Marxist re-education programmes to cow a population into a mindset of state control. Pathetic.
The variable speed, smart motorways (that seem designed to kill people) create congestion when they reduce a limit and the congestion clears when the limit is removed. The limit alteration is to cause problems and bring you to realise, who is in control. The freedom enjoyed by the motorist must be curtailed!
Or if he dreams of strutting out to order his neighbours to do his bidding? He must do really, it fits his undoubted profile. The police like to say 'it's 30 for a reason' and I would ask this Grade A imbecile what exactly that reason is. Oh, he will launch into platitudes about knocking people down at 30 or 40 and maybe reel off facts and figures he had made up specially, but in the end he won't know.
He can't, because a speed was picked arbitrarily, for no other reason than it sounded about right. Now I dislike dangerous speeding as much as the next person, but drifting over a limit is neither here nor there. I will slow down and watch carefully if I see a group of kids playing near the roadside (the police feel such behaviour is beyond drivers), though I could of course maintain 30mph.
I started by saying he wants more revenue and that can be the sole motivator (well, that and the sense of control engendered by cowing the entire population with draconian regulations), as safety is entirely absent. It is well known, even within the state bureaucracy that Safety Cameras actually cause accidents, that such fine control of driving manners, leads to too much observing of speed and less of the road ahead.
In fact, pretty much everything we are told about speed is a pack of lies. Speed Awareness courses are just Marxist re-education programmes to cow a population into a mindset of state control. Pathetic.
The variable speed, smart motorways (that seem designed to kill people) create congestion when they reduce a limit and the congestion clears when the limit is removed. The limit alteration is to cause problems and bring you to realise, who is in control. The freedom enjoyed by the motorist must be curtailed!
Tuesday, 15 August 2017
UK Police Service - Customer Number 4 Please
I watched an emergency services programme last night, which I find often to be interesting for reasons our social workers, sorry police service didn't intend. Last night was a minor classic; it contained the central ethos of why UK policing is so bad.
This is the event; a shopping centre security guard calls the police as he has observed a shoplifter and is now following him 'at a safe distance'. The call taker confirms what he is telling them. A while later he calls again. The shoplifter is now in Asda and he can see, from outside that he is stealing bottles of spirits.
Again, the call taker is repeating what he is saying as confirmation. He asks if they have someone on the way. No, comes back the answer but they will send someone now and they should be with you 'within the hour'. The call handler then adds 'if you do detain him call again to update us'.
At this point, I would ask you to consider what you would expect to happen at this point. The police, who you not only are trying to rely on to act in support of maintaining law and order, but who in fact have spent many years telling the public to 'leave it to us', are not going to be there any time soon.
You are paid to safeguard the property of the stores and you are watching, for a second time shoplifting taking place, which is, let's be clear not an offence by name, but constitutes theft, which is covered by the Theft Act. A member of the public can detain an individual, but only the police can arrest. The Crown prosecute the crime.
It would seem that a reasonable person, abandoned by the police, but with a paid duty to prevent theft from shops, would intervene and seek to apprehend the shoplifter. The call handler acknowledged this was highly likely by making the comment about 'if you do detain him'.
As the shoplifter left Asda the security man approached him from behind and tried to detain him by putting his arms under the suspects arms to keep his hands away from his pockets (during interview he said he had seen the shoplifter had 'sharps' in his pocket).
They stumbled and fell over together, one of the bottles smashed and the shoplifter received lacerations to his stomach. The next emergency call was from the ambulance crew requesting police attendance as 'there is blood everywhere and we have the helicopter coming and everything'.
After significant intervention on the scene by the doctor and team, the man died. I think a normal, reasonable person would say that what happened was a tragedy, but an unforeseeable accident. Obviously, it needs to be investigated and the security chap interviewed and CCTV footage reviewed. Not quite what happened.
The security man was arrested for manslaughter and held in custody overnight. How many times have we heard of murder suspects absconding whilst on bail? Too often. Presumably, the police service, faced with a law-abiding member of the public felt emboldened to take strong action. He was clearly a flight risk and possibly a danger to the public. In their world.
Much better to have a quiet, compliant individual in custody than the nasty, violent types they have so often. The (older) sergeant who attended the scene, was seen shaking and near tears, but spoke to camera afterwards to say that the young lad (security) probably did the right thing, but 'did he think through the possible outcome - I don't think so.' What!!?
I guess, fully equipped with hindsight he is saying that, in the moments available to him to consider what to do next, the security chap should have done a full risk assessment, considered every possible scenario (including, I would hope that this might have only been the opening move to draw off security, for a gang of heavily armed master criminals to storm the store killing many people until Denzel Washington turns up), and only then acted.
Presumably, for this to work, he would also have had to have shown it to a third party and had it signed off, to prove it was in advance of events. There was one last excellent piece though; is two bottles of spirits worth someone's life? If you see someone steal a piece of meat, should you chase them, when this could happen?
Which fairly exactly misses the point of the reason the police exist. It is a tragedy that a man died, but that was not something anyone could have predicted (else, perhaps, the man might not have committed the theft) and it was based on choices that we all make.
I would also ask you to contrast the twisting and turning and the contortions of reason the police try when they 'kill' someone. No we do not see armed officers arrested and held in custody after shooting someone carrying a chair leg in a carrier bag. We get long and technical descriptions of why his actions seemed (quite correctly!) to the officers as those of an armed man about to 'engage them'.
Rather than the completely normal and to a reasonable person understandable, actions of a startled man with a chair leg in a carrier bag. Amongst all of the hand-wringing and angst over the death, no-one in uniform seemed to suggest that this would have been prevented if the police had attended when first called. Did they not consider the possible outcome of their inaction?
This is the event; a shopping centre security guard calls the police as he has observed a shoplifter and is now following him 'at a safe distance'. The call taker confirms what he is telling them. A while later he calls again. The shoplifter is now in Asda and he can see, from outside that he is stealing bottles of spirits.
Again, the call taker is repeating what he is saying as confirmation. He asks if they have someone on the way. No, comes back the answer but they will send someone now and they should be with you 'within the hour'. The call handler then adds 'if you do detain him call again to update us'.
At this point, I would ask you to consider what you would expect to happen at this point. The police, who you not only are trying to rely on to act in support of maintaining law and order, but who in fact have spent many years telling the public to 'leave it to us', are not going to be there any time soon.
You are paid to safeguard the property of the stores and you are watching, for a second time shoplifting taking place, which is, let's be clear not an offence by name, but constitutes theft, which is covered by the Theft Act. A member of the public can detain an individual, but only the police can arrest. The Crown prosecute the crime.
It would seem that a reasonable person, abandoned by the police, but with a paid duty to prevent theft from shops, would intervene and seek to apprehend the shoplifter. The call handler acknowledged this was highly likely by making the comment about 'if you do detain him'.
As the shoplifter left Asda the security man approached him from behind and tried to detain him by putting his arms under the suspects arms to keep his hands away from his pockets (during interview he said he had seen the shoplifter had 'sharps' in his pocket).
They stumbled and fell over together, one of the bottles smashed and the shoplifter received lacerations to his stomach. The next emergency call was from the ambulance crew requesting police attendance as 'there is blood everywhere and we have the helicopter coming and everything'.
After significant intervention on the scene by the doctor and team, the man died. I think a normal, reasonable person would say that what happened was a tragedy, but an unforeseeable accident. Obviously, it needs to be investigated and the security chap interviewed and CCTV footage reviewed. Not quite what happened.
The security man was arrested for manslaughter and held in custody overnight. How many times have we heard of murder suspects absconding whilst on bail? Too often. Presumably, the police service, faced with a law-abiding member of the public felt emboldened to take strong action. He was clearly a flight risk and possibly a danger to the public. In their world.
Much better to have a quiet, compliant individual in custody than the nasty, violent types they have so often. The (older) sergeant who attended the scene, was seen shaking and near tears, but spoke to camera afterwards to say that the young lad (security) probably did the right thing, but 'did he think through the possible outcome - I don't think so.' What!!?
I guess, fully equipped with hindsight he is saying that, in the moments available to him to consider what to do next, the security chap should have done a full risk assessment, considered every possible scenario (including, I would hope that this might have only been the opening move to draw off security, for a gang of heavily armed master criminals to storm the store killing many people until Denzel Washington turns up), and only then acted.
Presumably, for this to work, he would also have had to have shown it to a third party and had it signed off, to prove it was in advance of events. There was one last excellent piece though; is two bottles of spirits worth someone's life? If you see someone steal a piece of meat, should you chase them, when this could happen?
Which fairly exactly misses the point of the reason the police exist. It is a tragedy that a man died, but that was not something anyone could have predicted (else, perhaps, the man might not have committed the theft) and it was based on choices that we all make.
I would also ask you to contrast the twisting and turning and the contortions of reason the police try when they 'kill' someone. No we do not see armed officers arrested and held in custody after shooting someone carrying a chair leg in a carrier bag. We get long and technical descriptions of why his actions seemed (quite correctly!) to the officers as those of an armed man about to 'engage them'.
Rather than the completely normal and to a reasonable person understandable, actions of a startled man with a chair leg in a carrier bag. Amongst all of the hand-wringing and angst over the death, no-one in uniform seemed to suggest that this would have been prevented if the police had attended when first called. Did they not consider the possible outcome of their inaction?
Wednesday, 5 June 2013
Middle Lane Madness
The tax collectors, known as the police here in Britain have hit on a new wheeze. People who 'hog' the middle lane are to be subjected to an instant fine, when in the personal opinion of a police officer, targeted to raise a certain amount of revenue (or issue tickets as they call it), you have stayed too long in the centre lane of a motorway.
Lots of people can be found to agree with this policy, often describing themselves as people who drive regularly, long distances on motorways. But what exactly are they complaining about? Well, in my 25 years plus of using motorways, I'll tell you how often I have seen someone driving slowly for no reason, in lane 2; never.
Helpfully Sky News have shown a police patrol pulling someone over 'hogging' lane 2. He clearly was guilty as accused because there was only one other car, in lane 1, for miles. He had gone past this car and stayed in lane 2. Outrageous. He was pulled over for a chat. The police you see can only give advice because to do anything else would take too long, so an instant bit of paperwork is, as ever to a bureaucracy, a god send.
Like 'safety cameras' at 'accident blackspots' they are not intended just to raise funds. No one is supposed to ask why an accident blackspot isn't improved to alleviate the danger.
For the police and the government of course, you making a decision about how best to safely drive in any given circumstance is an abomination. You are out of control.
So back to our chap on Sky News, now having a chat in the extremely dangerous environment of the hard shoulder. The police I guess were saying there was absolutely no other traffic around so he had no reason to stay in lane 2. This is true, but begs the question, what harm was he doing? There was, after all, no other traffic around.
The other people who face a difficult question that they do not want to be asked is, these people doing 70mph in lane 2 are 'in your way' how? Presumably these righteous, much safer drivers are outraged that they should be forced to move to lane 3, a dangerous manoeuvre as any lane change is, to maintain their 95mph plus progress.
What of course the police are accidentally going to promote is a fear of being caught even momentarily in lane 2 when, perhaps it could be claimed you shouldn't be. So overtaking the speed limited, slowly accelerating traffic, lorries and such in lane 1 will require frequent lane changes, pulling in behind a vehicle doing 60mph, then trying to seek a gap in lane 2 to pull out and accelerate back up to 70.
Timid people who, given the responsibility for their driving usually do OK, will be cowed by into understanding that they are not allowed to make decisions and that any straying into lane 2 may attract a fine. Will they for instance be even more reluctant to move over to let traffic join from slip roads? And our important frequent drivers will still assume that, as they have indicated their intention to join from a slip, they will continue the manoeuvre, cause an accident and blame 'lane 1 hoggers'.
The police are cynically using the views, all be it of a large number, of bad drivers to support a ridiculous grab at power and government pleasing money. I presume they consult criminals about prison reform.
Lots of people can be found to agree with this policy, often describing themselves as people who drive regularly, long distances on motorways. But what exactly are they complaining about? Well, in my 25 years plus of using motorways, I'll tell you how often I have seen someone driving slowly for no reason, in lane 2; never.
Helpfully Sky News have shown a police patrol pulling someone over 'hogging' lane 2. He clearly was guilty as accused because there was only one other car, in lane 1, for miles. He had gone past this car and stayed in lane 2. Outrageous. He was pulled over for a chat. The police you see can only give advice because to do anything else would take too long, so an instant bit of paperwork is, as ever to a bureaucracy, a god send.
Like 'safety cameras' at 'accident blackspots' they are not intended just to raise funds. No one is supposed to ask why an accident blackspot isn't improved to alleviate the danger.
For the police and the government of course, you making a decision about how best to safely drive in any given circumstance is an abomination. You are out of control.
So back to our chap on Sky News, now having a chat in the extremely dangerous environment of the hard shoulder. The police I guess were saying there was absolutely no other traffic around so he had no reason to stay in lane 2. This is true, but begs the question, what harm was he doing? There was, after all, no other traffic around.
The other people who face a difficult question that they do not want to be asked is, these people doing 70mph in lane 2 are 'in your way' how? Presumably these righteous, much safer drivers are outraged that they should be forced to move to lane 3, a dangerous manoeuvre as any lane change is, to maintain their 95mph plus progress.
What of course the police are accidentally going to promote is a fear of being caught even momentarily in lane 2 when, perhaps it could be claimed you shouldn't be. So overtaking the speed limited, slowly accelerating traffic, lorries and such in lane 1 will require frequent lane changes, pulling in behind a vehicle doing 60mph, then trying to seek a gap in lane 2 to pull out and accelerate back up to 70.
Timid people who, given the responsibility for their driving usually do OK, will be cowed by into understanding that they are not allowed to make decisions and that any straying into lane 2 may attract a fine. Will they for instance be even more reluctant to move over to let traffic join from slip roads? And our important frequent drivers will still assume that, as they have indicated their intention to join from a slip, they will continue the manoeuvre, cause an accident and blame 'lane 1 hoggers'.
The police are cynically using the views, all be it of a large number, of bad drivers to support a ridiculous grab at power and government pleasing money. I presume they consult criminals about prison reform.
Monday, 15 April 2013
Boston Bombing
Well, madmen who think that killing innocent people achieves something have struck again. Watching the scenes are shocking and perhaps too much is being shown. But in all the detail and with constant reruns it gives you a chance to see the whole event, looking at different aspects. What struck me was the reaction of the police.
You see ordinary people ripping off T shirts to staunch wounds, pulling at fencing that is impeding access and generally focused on the injured. Stewards, medical people, some military all are seen active in dealing with the aftermath.
The police are, pretty much just wandering around. It is seriously surprising. Here in the UK we see police officers go towards the issue, instinctively. But in the Boston video we see police officers wince, look, hand goes to gun and then they start to move away! Even when it is apparent what has happened they seem amazingly uninvolved. Am I seeing this right?
I appreciate that this kind of thing is very rare in America, but it does appear that the training of police officers in the US must be very different and hugely based on self defence.
However, I trust that the US will be as robust as they have ever been and whether a home grown nutter or some moron who claims to have some religious conviction stuck in the Middle Ages, they can be deprived of their liberty without end. People who do these kind of things are valueless.
You see ordinary people ripping off T shirts to staunch wounds, pulling at fencing that is impeding access and generally focused on the injured. Stewards, medical people, some military all are seen active in dealing with the aftermath.
The police are, pretty much just wandering around. It is seriously surprising. Here in the UK we see police officers go towards the issue, instinctively. But in the Boston video we see police officers wince, look, hand goes to gun and then they start to move away! Even when it is apparent what has happened they seem amazingly uninvolved. Am I seeing this right?
I appreciate that this kind of thing is very rare in America, but it does appear that the training of police officers in the US must be very different and hugely based on self defence.
However, I trust that the US will be as robust as they have ever been and whether a home grown nutter or some moron who claims to have some religious conviction stuck in the Middle Ages, they can be deprived of their liberty without end. People who do these kind of things are valueless.
Friday, 21 September 2012
Modern Morality
Whilst it is clear that a decline in personal standards of morality and decency has been in effect since the Left started to take control in the Sixties, it was greatly accelerated during the Blair years. When a government is led by people who openly espouse selfishness and are obviously committed to personal gain through abuse of power and corruption, then society will follow that lead.
Too many people just want the OK, direct or subtle, to do the easy thing not the hard thing. Standards maintained by peer pressure and a 'do unto others' culture will always have higher levels of decency and society than the Left ideal of personal aggrandisement at a cost to others.
But even in this reduced state of common courtesy, I still find announcements from 'authority' figures confusing. Take Keir Starmer, the DPP. This communist wants things done that are downright dangerous to a democracy, but he nevertheless has been given a position of authority. Recently he said Tweets about Tom Daley were just personal opinion, even if the personal opinion was, to most people, idiotic.
That was a fair and correct assessment that you get the impression Starmer must have got from someone else. There is far too much concern these days on people calling you names. The Tweets about the murdered policewomen are, when mocking, grossly offensive to public decency and the mindless cretins that write them should be dealt with severely. Again Starmer seems to get it (or is helped to).
But then we have the big real problems, the murders. Here, the organisation of 'justice' in this country loses the plot. A man murders someone and is arrested. He is released on bail as the case is 'complex' and they wouldn't be able to detain him until they have a full case against him. Eh? Which means the pensioner, refusing to pay council tax because the council don't provide the service paid for, goes to jail and stays there, because the case 'isn't complex'.
Whilst 'quite properly' out on bail, Dale Cregan goes on to commit at least three more murders, two of whom are the policewomen. Now, presumably because there is instant evidence or an admission he can be charged and detained.
However, the confusing bit is, when Cregan was on bail and went missing, the police started looking for him and offered a £50,000 reward. If they found him presumably they could lock him up as he breached his bail conditions, but not because he murdered someone. I think that is how the police see it.
Then, there is some outrage amongst the police that Cregan was living openly on a council estate and yet no-one informed them. That would be no-one informed the police who a) let him out when they had him, b) couldn't find him whilst he was 'openly' living on the estate and c) the police who give every impression that they are not there to protect the public. Yet the expectation is that an ordinary member of the public should turn in a violent, vindictive murderer.
It is this fundamental and supremely dense attitude among senior police officers that puts so much of society at risk, not just the poor foot soldiers who do their ignorant bidding. And if the guidelines say that Cregan had to be let out on bail, then Starmer and his organisation are also culpable in the abandonment of the public to the criminals.
Why is it that these over-paid, stuffed shirts who run the 'authorities' seem able to make good decisions about Tweeting, but struggle with the really important issues? If we actually had any real, effective and caring leadership in this country, these people would be sacked immediately. Instead, as we saw with the officers involved with the shooting of Jean Charles de Menedes and Raul Moat, they are invariably promoted.
And Hillsborough not only shows up their incompetence, but what they do when they are found wanting. Not the investigation and sacking they insist on for the ordinary officers, but cover-up, lies and smears of other, innocent people. Lions led by donkeys? That isn't the half of it.
Too many people just want the OK, direct or subtle, to do the easy thing not the hard thing. Standards maintained by peer pressure and a 'do unto others' culture will always have higher levels of decency and society than the Left ideal of personal aggrandisement at a cost to others.
But even in this reduced state of common courtesy, I still find announcements from 'authority' figures confusing. Take Keir Starmer, the DPP. This communist wants things done that are downright dangerous to a democracy, but he nevertheless has been given a position of authority. Recently he said Tweets about Tom Daley were just personal opinion, even if the personal opinion was, to most people, idiotic.
That was a fair and correct assessment that you get the impression Starmer must have got from someone else. There is far too much concern these days on people calling you names. The Tweets about the murdered policewomen are, when mocking, grossly offensive to public decency and the mindless cretins that write them should be dealt with severely. Again Starmer seems to get it (or is helped to).
But then we have the big real problems, the murders. Here, the organisation of 'justice' in this country loses the plot. A man murders someone and is arrested. He is released on bail as the case is 'complex' and they wouldn't be able to detain him until they have a full case against him. Eh? Which means the pensioner, refusing to pay council tax because the council don't provide the service paid for, goes to jail and stays there, because the case 'isn't complex'.
Whilst 'quite properly' out on bail, Dale Cregan goes on to commit at least three more murders, two of whom are the policewomen. Now, presumably because there is instant evidence or an admission he can be charged and detained.
However, the confusing bit is, when Cregan was on bail and went missing, the police started looking for him and offered a £50,000 reward. If they found him presumably they could lock him up as he breached his bail conditions, but not because he murdered someone. I think that is how the police see it.
Then, there is some outrage amongst the police that Cregan was living openly on a council estate and yet no-one informed them. That would be no-one informed the police who a) let him out when they had him, b) couldn't find him whilst he was 'openly' living on the estate and c) the police who give every impression that they are not there to protect the public. Yet the expectation is that an ordinary member of the public should turn in a violent, vindictive murderer.
It is this fundamental and supremely dense attitude among senior police officers that puts so much of society at risk, not just the poor foot soldiers who do their ignorant bidding. And if the guidelines say that Cregan had to be let out on bail, then Starmer and his organisation are also culpable in the abandonment of the public to the criminals.
Why is it that these over-paid, stuffed shirts who run the 'authorities' seem able to make good decisions about Tweeting, but struggle with the really important issues? If we actually had any real, effective and caring leadership in this country, these people would be sacked immediately. Instead, as we saw with the officers involved with the shooting of Jean Charles de Menedes and Raul Moat, they are invariably promoted.
And Hillsborough not only shows up their incompetence, but what they do when they are found wanting. Not the investigation and sacking they insist on for the ordinary officers, but cover-up, lies and smears of other, innocent people. Lions led by donkeys? That isn't the half of it.
Thursday, 16 August 2012
Police Advice
I get emails from the police telling me stuff that happens locally and offering advice. Today it is about keeping car keys away from letterboxes where thieves can 'fish' for them and locking doors etc. Timely reminders sometimes, so no problem with that.
I did notice though, a logo at the bottom for '101' which apparently 'connects you to your local police'. So it is nice to know that if you have some fairly trivial matter to discuss with a police officer, you can talk to someone who knows the area. But if you call 999 for an emergency matter, you are automatically routed to someone who will have no idea of your location.
My experience has been that people make a bit of an assumption that policing is an intrinsically local thing and if you desperately need help saying your house number and street for instance would do. Now, the response will be (from the ugly sounding 'call taker') 'and where is that? And the post code there?'
Slightly disconcerting I would imagine, even if it doesn't materially affect the arrival of officers. Naturally, the police code the urgency of your call and may, arbitrarily decide that you are unimportant and the man with the knife will probably go away of his own accord.
If however a social worker has made something up about you and can produce no evidence, or if you haven't paid your council tax due to some dispute, large numbers of police will arrive to arrest you. Please note, if you are a thoroughly unpleasant person who is actually abusive towards your kids, the social services (and police ) will stay away. Similarly if you just don't pay your council rates because you are a scumbag, it will be fine.
What self respecting public servant wants the stress of dealing with nasty people when a pool of compliant, peaceful middle class people are available, for the exercise of your power?
I did notice though, a logo at the bottom for '101' which apparently 'connects you to your local police'. So it is nice to know that if you have some fairly trivial matter to discuss with a police officer, you can talk to someone who knows the area. But if you call 999 for an emergency matter, you are automatically routed to someone who will have no idea of your location.
My experience has been that people make a bit of an assumption that policing is an intrinsically local thing and if you desperately need help saying your house number and street for instance would do. Now, the response will be (from the ugly sounding 'call taker') 'and where is that? And the post code there?'
Slightly disconcerting I would imagine, even if it doesn't materially affect the arrival of officers. Naturally, the police code the urgency of your call and may, arbitrarily decide that you are unimportant and the man with the knife will probably go away of his own accord.
If however a social worker has made something up about you and can produce no evidence, or if you haven't paid your council tax due to some dispute, large numbers of police will arrive to arrest you. Please note, if you are a thoroughly unpleasant person who is actually abusive towards your kids, the social services (and police ) will stay away. Similarly if you just don't pay your council rates because you are a scumbag, it will be fine.
What self respecting public servant wants the stress of dealing with nasty people when a pool of compliant, peaceful middle class people are available, for the exercise of your power?
Thursday, 26 July 2012
Olympics
Am I OK to mention the Olympics? Maybe the word itself is under state control. Anyway, with the British propensity for stupidity (enshrined under the hands-on leadership of Tony Blair) I reckon we can expect some cock-ups at the Games.
I must admit to being amazed the complex has been built on time and that the swimming pool hasn't turned out to be 3 feet too short. But we have had our first hiccup, although to blame London 2012 when it happened in Scotland, now the leading sector of the UK in stupidity, is perhaps a little harsh.
The North Koreans were faced with a South Korean flag. Bit of a schoolboy error that one and there is no excuse. If you aren't that good at flags, then you should already be aware you need to check and check again. If you know you are an authority on World flags and don't need to check, then you have just been exposed as an arrogant twerp. Which one is it?
What I am really expecting though is a calamity within the orbit of our wonderful armed police. Hopefully they won't be loosing off rounds, but rather limit their professionalism to mislaying their weapons perhaps, to be found by an 11 year old who has the presence of mind to use his phones' camera and also has the number for the Daily Mail.
Maybe they will get lost or turn up in numbers to guard an event the day before it is happening. Something like that. With the numbers present and with their record to date, I'm sure they will deliver. And of course with such a high profile event, senior officers will be about in abundance (it is strange how important it is for senior officers to keep an eye on the actual participants, participating), so there will be many more opportunities for them to start the stupidity.
I must admit to being amazed the complex has been built on time and that the swimming pool hasn't turned out to be 3 feet too short. But we have had our first hiccup, although to blame London 2012 when it happened in Scotland, now the leading sector of the UK in stupidity, is perhaps a little harsh.
The North Koreans were faced with a South Korean flag. Bit of a schoolboy error that one and there is no excuse. If you aren't that good at flags, then you should already be aware you need to check and check again. If you know you are an authority on World flags and don't need to check, then you have just been exposed as an arrogant twerp. Which one is it?
What I am really expecting though is a calamity within the orbit of our wonderful armed police. Hopefully they won't be loosing off rounds, but rather limit their professionalism to mislaying their weapons perhaps, to be found by an 11 year old who has the presence of mind to use his phones' camera and also has the number for the Daily Mail.
Maybe they will get lost or turn up in numbers to guard an event the day before it is happening. Something like that. With the numbers present and with their record to date, I'm sure they will deliver. And of course with such a high profile event, senior officers will be about in abundance (it is strange how important it is for senior officers to keep an eye on the actual participants, participating), so there will be many more opportunities for them to start the stupidity.
Friday, 6 July 2012
High Noon On The M6
You heard about the police response to someone having an electronic 'cigarette' on a coach on the M6 I suppose? The care-in-the-community senior officers that run policing in Britain today have very quickly pointed out that the response was 'proportionate'. They are quick to say it to hopefully plant that thought in your mind, before you think about it for yourself.
Because if that was proportionate to a no-credible-threat scenario, we must presume that if a bomb was actually known to have been on the coach, the police would have used a nuclear strike to 'neutralise the threat'. Proportionate I'm sure you'll agree.
I said above that there was no credible threat and I used this phrase because the police have said the exact opposite.To them 'some vapour' on a coach is clear evidence of a terrorist plot. Probably with the caveat that it is 'better to be safe than sorry'. Of course, bearing in mind the reckless way the police handle firearms, I don't think allowing a group of them to point guns at a coach-load of innocent people is a 'safe' option.
What the police are saying is, that Britain is a country so constantly threatened by terrorists, that anything like this has to be assumed to be a real and plausible threat. Whereas, back on this planet, the balance of probability sits firmly on the side of no likely threat. Generally, the population isn't a seething mass of bombers (evidenced by the almost complete lack of bombings) and proof of such intent needs to be firmly established.
Someone had phoned from the coach. Was it a bomb expert? No. So, you get a load of back up ready, but you stop the coach with one marked car. Previously, you have gone back to your source on the phone and told him that an officer will enter the coach and ask for 'Dave Biggar' to make himself known. The informant raises his hand and the single officer (the other waiting by the coach door) makes his way down the coach. As 'Dave' perhaps walks with the officer past the suspect he indicates and the officer grabs the man's hands, the other officer is summoned and more cars move up.
Because the suspect thinks the police are there for someone else he is not alert and should be easy to contain. This is just one idea, another might be to stop the coach because 'smoke is coming out of the wheels' as the brakes might be stuck. Whilst evacuating the coach 'for safety' the police grab the suspect.
But no, the great idea our proportionate minded police have is to deploy fire engines, erect decontamination tunnels, ambulances, armed police by the squadron and bomb disposal. Just to find out what is actually going on. It is similar to having police burst through windows and doors of a suburban semi, shouting with a helicopter hovering overhead and police dogs barking, because raised voices had been heard.
'Everything alright?' the officers would say. And once it is discovered that in fact all is in order they would troop out, without a hint of shame, merely pausing to add, 'you might want to turn your telly down a bit'.
It is clear from incident after incident that the police don't have a plan (apart from how to get to work in the morning and that is taxing enough), for any eventuality and they are supremely poor at making one up as they go. It is also quite clear that they are very, very keen on weapons and having them, want to deploy them whenever possible.
It used to be that you had to try to keep police officers from getting too excited by the blue lights and sirens, now it is the most senior officers who have a fetishistic love of drama and display. A dangerous place to be, when we also have such dilettantish politicians.
Because if that was proportionate to a no-credible-threat scenario, we must presume that if a bomb was actually known to have been on the coach, the police would have used a nuclear strike to 'neutralise the threat'. Proportionate I'm sure you'll agree.
I said above that there was no credible threat and I used this phrase because the police have said the exact opposite.To them 'some vapour' on a coach is clear evidence of a terrorist plot. Probably with the caveat that it is 'better to be safe than sorry'. Of course, bearing in mind the reckless way the police handle firearms, I don't think allowing a group of them to point guns at a coach-load of innocent people is a 'safe' option.
What the police are saying is, that Britain is a country so constantly threatened by terrorists, that anything like this has to be assumed to be a real and plausible threat. Whereas, back on this planet, the balance of probability sits firmly on the side of no likely threat. Generally, the population isn't a seething mass of bombers (evidenced by the almost complete lack of bombings) and proof of such intent needs to be firmly established.
Someone had phoned from the coach. Was it a bomb expert? No. So, you get a load of back up ready, but you stop the coach with one marked car. Previously, you have gone back to your source on the phone and told him that an officer will enter the coach and ask for 'Dave Biggar' to make himself known. The informant raises his hand and the single officer (the other waiting by the coach door) makes his way down the coach. As 'Dave' perhaps walks with the officer past the suspect he indicates and the officer grabs the man's hands, the other officer is summoned and more cars move up.
Because the suspect thinks the police are there for someone else he is not alert and should be easy to contain. This is just one idea, another might be to stop the coach because 'smoke is coming out of the wheels' as the brakes might be stuck. Whilst evacuating the coach 'for safety' the police grab the suspect.
But no, the great idea our proportionate minded police have is to deploy fire engines, erect decontamination tunnels, ambulances, armed police by the squadron and bomb disposal. Just to find out what is actually going on. It is similar to having police burst through windows and doors of a suburban semi, shouting with a helicopter hovering overhead and police dogs barking, because raised voices had been heard.
'Everything alright?' the officers would say. And once it is discovered that in fact all is in order they would troop out, without a hint of shame, merely pausing to add, 'you might want to turn your telly down a bit'.
It is clear from incident after incident that the police don't have a plan (apart from how to get to work in the morning and that is taxing enough), for any eventuality and they are supremely poor at making one up as they go. It is also quite clear that they are very, very keen on weapons and having them, want to deploy them whenever possible.
It used to be that you had to try to keep police officers from getting too excited by the blue lights and sirens, now it is the most senior officers who have a fetishistic love of drama and display. A dangerous place to be, when we also have such dilettantish politicians.
Thursday, 22 March 2012
Police -Faulty Thinking
We are forced to realise that the police decision making process is currently in some disarray, since the blindingly obvious mess they made during rioting recently. And it wasn't just in London. The other forces may moan that a lack of resolution in London's initial response, led to copy cat attacks in their area. But it doesn't explain their lack of resolve.
The groupthink in police circles today is clearly common and faulty. Indeed, it seems that as the force has become more 'intellectual' it has also become mired in a 'process block', where it cannot make a decision but rather spends time 'thinking about it'. A bit too much 'what would Marx do' I feel.
I'm not entirely sure what conclusion a 'risk assessment' would come to when considering confronting rioters. And maybe you shouldn't be sucking the end of a ball point pen, trying to fill out the forms, whilst the riot is happening. At Waterloo, Wellington knew he had to choose the ground and deploy his forces to best advantage. After that it was going to be down to the old basics; shooting and local command.
In a police deployment they rarely get to choose the ground, but they also ignore the basics; they don't want to be horrible and use force (even with rioters) and they certainly don't hold with local command. Not while CCTV, helicopter cameras and radios are available, for nice, warm, safe control rooms to 'control'. Though, when acting in support of politicians, attacking a peaceful march by farmers and middle and working class people (Blair - 'they won't vote for me anyway'), they seem completely at ease with force and local control.
No, there has been a fundamental change in the role of the police since it raised its proportion of degree qualified officers. And nowhere is this more glaring than with guns. There is a shooting, people desperately need help and the police won't attend, for their own safety and the civilians saying the gunmen has left, may be being forced to say that. Which could be true, but what would people say if they weren't under duress and the gunman had actually left?
Then we have police officers shooting dead a man with a chair leg in a bag, because a member of the public thought it might be a gun. This unconfirmed, unqualified opinion became fact in the minds of the police. And that is, quite simply the most dire faulty thinking. If it wasn't so serious, we could only otherwise conclude that their training was supplied by Baldrick.
The groupthink in police circles today is clearly common and faulty. Indeed, it seems that as the force has become more 'intellectual' it has also become mired in a 'process block', where it cannot make a decision but rather spends time 'thinking about it'. A bit too much 'what would Marx do' I feel.
I'm not entirely sure what conclusion a 'risk assessment' would come to when considering confronting rioters. And maybe you shouldn't be sucking the end of a ball point pen, trying to fill out the forms, whilst the riot is happening. At Waterloo, Wellington knew he had to choose the ground and deploy his forces to best advantage. After that it was going to be down to the old basics; shooting and local command.
In a police deployment they rarely get to choose the ground, but they also ignore the basics; they don't want to be horrible and use force (even with rioters) and they certainly don't hold with local command. Not while CCTV, helicopter cameras and radios are available, for nice, warm, safe control rooms to 'control'. Though, when acting in support of politicians, attacking a peaceful march by farmers and middle and working class people (Blair - 'they won't vote for me anyway'), they seem completely at ease with force and local control.
No, there has been a fundamental change in the role of the police since it raised its proportion of degree qualified officers. And nowhere is this more glaring than with guns. There is a shooting, people desperately need help and the police won't attend, for their own safety and the civilians saying the gunmen has left, may be being forced to say that. Which could be true, but what would people say if they weren't under duress and the gunman had actually left?
Then we have police officers shooting dead a man with a chair leg in a bag, because a member of the public thought it might be a gun. This unconfirmed, unqualified opinion became fact in the minds of the police. And that is, quite simply the most dire faulty thinking. If it wasn't so serious, we could only otherwise conclude that their training was supplied by Baldrick.
Friday, 16 March 2012
Highmoor Cross Shootings
This incident is a fairly well known one, due to the extreme nature of the incompetence displayed, with its suggestion that we have a grave misunderstanding of what the police are there to do.
Despite the likely familiarity I will give an overview of events. A family barbecue was interrupted by the ex husband of one of the females present, who climbed over a wall into the garden and shot three of the women. Two died, both we understand shot to a degree that they couldn't survive and the third wounded, badly in the stomach.
The man then left. Neighbours attended, attempting to help those shot and called emergency services for help. At this point, something strange happened. The most senior officer, as is usual, at the control centre taking the call was an Inspector, not a terrifically high rank perhaps. He decided that no police should attend the scene. His reasoning appeared to be that it would put police officers in danger, though with no police there, pedestrians and vehicle traffic still passed the location. Consequently his actions were only for the protection of police officers. That was his over-riding concern.
Obviously he was told by the civilians present that the gunman had left, but he chose to ignore this as potentially unreliable information. Eventually it was decided to deploy armed officers, but not to the incident. Those dealing with the injured frantically requested help 50 times, frequently being told by the control centre that they would be there in a few minutes (as they thought police would de dispatched).
As more senior officers arrived to get involved decisions moved on. To establish a time line; the initial reports came in to police at 4:37pm. At 5:41pm armed police actually went into the house and reported that the gunman had gone. Ambulances and paramedics turned up at 6:04pm, (it should be noted though, that at first the paramedics refused to attend as the offender had not been located. They finally agreed when provided with an armed escort).
The 'process' gridlock occurring within the command structure is put down in the IPCC report, to a focus being placed on finding the offender, not dealing with the victims. I'm not sure how a human being could make that decision, as if it was a one or the other choice, let alone a report that accepts it in any way, shape or form.
The report finds that the lack of urgent response was wrong but later states that they are not advocating 'that all firearms incidents are responded to immediately', as this would be 'irresponsible and reckless'. I find this amazing. Police officers should not be ordered to risk their lives, but should be expected to attend, taking care. We may have known the specific threat here, a gunman, but can police attend riots?
Maybe officers should not deal with fights? What if someone produces a previously unseen weapon? Where does the 'caution' inherent in this advice end?
It appears that the priorities for senior officers on hearing of a shooting with multiple victims were; 'finding rendezvous points, briefing senior commanders, obtaining tactical advice and setting up a command suite'. Which leaves you asking yourself 'and these people serve us how?'
The IPCC report makes a number of recommendations and does say that none of those would work if the culture remained unchanged. This is the only hint that they have any inkling of what actually went wrong; a policy had been drawn up and a culture engendered that was diametrically opposed to the true function of the police. How can police officers ever, ever come to the conclusion that they are merely a bureaucracy and that the public turning to them in times of mortal danger is outrageous and they will not suffer it.
This fundamental misunderstanding of purpose is at the root of most failings in today's police force. The mindset is faulty at its core; the senior officers. This is the maturing generation of 'graduate policing' whereby cadets with Degrees were fast-tracked to senior roles. This has apparently only resulted in an intellectually corrupted police force, one that doesn't understand the simplest concepts of policing. This may be due to the lack of actual police work they have done in their 'career'.
And now we have a review saying this failed process should be more extensive!
Do you know how they decided to send in an armed unit? A plain clothes Detective Sergeant went, on his own initiative and in his own car, direct to the address and reported back on the situation. The report applauds his action saying that this was what should have happened at the outset (though possibly an ARV), which is true and highlights the failure of senior officers, wrapped up in their intellectual approach, as they were. His action though, is exactly the basic desire to do the job, to help people that we want and thought we had established over the decades.
I find myself wondering if the DS had a Degree and if so, what role this played in his decision making. And if he had no Degree, if it mattered. Wisdom is the application of knowledge and knowledge can be acquired through experience as well as reading, sometimes with greater understanding. Knowing the theory doesn't always help when faced with a real situation.
The police have to relearn their role and then rebuild a force that fulfils that role. It may require the dismissal of some officers for whom politics and trade unionism, lectures and libraries are more suited.
Despite the likely familiarity I will give an overview of events. A family barbecue was interrupted by the ex husband of one of the females present, who climbed over a wall into the garden and shot three of the women. Two died, both we understand shot to a degree that they couldn't survive and the third wounded, badly in the stomach.
The man then left. Neighbours attended, attempting to help those shot and called emergency services for help. At this point, something strange happened. The most senior officer, as is usual, at the control centre taking the call was an Inspector, not a terrifically high rank perhaps. He decided that no police should attend the scene. His reasoning appeared to be that it would put police officers in danger, though with no police there, pedestrians and vehicle traffic still passed the location. Consequently his actions were only for the protection of police officers. That was his over-riding concern.
Obviously he was told by the civilians present that the gunman had left, but he chose to ignore this as potentially unreliable information. Eventually it was decided to deploy armed officers, but not to the incident. Those dealing with the injured frantically requested help 50 times, frequently being told by the control centre that they would be there in a few minutes (as they thought police would de dispatched).
As more senior officers arrived to get involved decisions moved on. To establish a time line; the initial reports came in to police at 4:37pm. At 5:41pm armed police actually went into the house and reported that the gunman had gone. Ambulances and paramedics turned up at 6:04pm, (it should be noted though, that at first the paramedics refused to attend as the offender had not been located. They finally agreed when provided with an armed escort).
The 'process' gridlock occurring within the command structure is put down in the IPCC report, to a focus being placed on finding the offender, not dealing with the victims. I'm not sure how a human being could make that decision, as if it was a one or the other choice, let alone a report that accepts it in any way, shape or form.
The report finds that the lack of urgent response was wrong but later states that they are not advocating 'that all firearms incidents are responded to immediately', as this would be 'irresponsible and reckless'. I find this amazing. Police officers should not be ordered to risk their lives, but should be expected to attend, taking care. We may have known the specific threat here, a gunman, but can police attend riots?
Maybe officers should not deal with fights? What if someone produces a previously unseen weapon? Where does the 'caution' inherent in this advice end?
It appears that the priorities for senior officers on hearing of a shooting with multiple victims were; 'finding rendezvous points, briefing senior commanders, obtaining tactical advice and setting up a command suite'. Which leaves you asking yourself 'and these people serve us how?'
The IPCC report makes a number of recommendations and does say that none of those would work if the culture remained unchanged. This is the only hint that they have any inkling of what actually went wrong; a policy had been drawn up and a culture engendered that was diametrically opposed to the true function of the police. How can police officers ever, ever come to the conclusion that they are merely a bureaucracy and that the public turning to them in times of mortal danger is outrageous and they will not suffer it.
This fundamental misunderstanding of purpose is at the root of most failings in today's police force. The mindset is faulty at its core; the senior officers. This is the maturing generation of 'graduate policing' whereby cadets with Degrees were fast-tracked to senior roles. This has apparently only resulted in an intellectually corrupted police force, one that doesn't understand the simplest concepts of policing. This may be due to the lack of actual police work they have done in their 'career'.
And now we have a review saying this failed process should be more extensive!
Do you know how they decided to send in an armed unit? A plain clothes Detective Sergeant went, on his own initiative and in his own car, direct to the address and reported back on the situation. The report applauds his action saying that this was what should have happened at the outset (though possibly an ARV), which is true and highlights the failure of senior officers, wrapped up in their intellectual approach, as they were. His action though, is exactly the basic desire to do the job, to help people that we want and thought we had established over the decades.
I find myself wondering if the DS had a Degree and if so, what role this played in his decision making. And if he had no Degree, if it mattered. Wisdom is the application of knowledge and knowledge can be acquired through experience as well as reading, sometimes with greater understanding. Knowing the theory doesn't always help when faced with a real situation.
The police have to relearn their role and then rebuild a force that fulfils that role. It may require the dismissal of some officers for whom politics and trade unionism, lectures and libraries are more suited.
Tuesday, 13 March 2012
The Fetish Of Armed Police
Let me give you a scenario and see if you can guess what happened. Whilst reading the tale, think what response would be enacted today and then consider which is more appropriate. Ask yourself if things are better or worse.
Police are called to a small block of flats on a seafront. The day is sunny and warm and the area is thronged with holidaymakers and daytrippers. A 13 year old girl has seen from the window of the flat she lives in on the second floor, two young men park and get out of a small hatchback, open the tailgate and one of them remove a pistol, which he shoves down the waistband of his jeans at the front.
When questioned the girl is shaking and had a clear view of the car from the window. She seems sensible and gives a very good description of the two lads. The car is fairly new, clean inside and out. On the back seat is a Snoopy toy dressed as a chef and on the parcel shelf a tidily rolled up umbrella. It doesn't seem like the kind of car two youngsters would be driving, though it isn't listed as stolen. Wires can be seen coming from the cigarette lighter socket, going up under the dashboard.
Recently, a well known terrorist organisation has been found to be targeting seaside towns for a bombing campaign. All police forces have been made aware of this and a heightened state of alert is in place. The officers sent to investigate are in uniform and unarmed. No back-up has been assigned and force headquarters has not been informed (as standing orders at the time said they should for a 'firerms incident').
The officers wait in their car. Suddenly two people clearly matching the girl's description appear at the entrance to the car park. On seeing the police car they immediately turn and walk away. The officers walk after them. The lads quicken their pace at which point one of the officers calls on them to stop.
What happens next? Should a more senior officer be in charge than the station sergeant? Should armed police have been deployed with the two young men surrounded and forced to the ground at gunpoint? Maybe one or both might have been shot for the protection of the officers and the public, because they made some move which was deemed threatening? Was the car a bomb? Should the area have been evacuated and the Army brought in to conduct a controlled explosion? Is it not better to be safe than sorry? Why should officers have their lives put at risk?
In the actual, real scenario detailed above, the lads stopped, and one lifted up his T shirt to expose a black, oblong wallet. The car belonged to one of their fathers and the doll was because they were both trainee chefs. They had walked away because they had parked in a private car park and thought they were in trouble. The wires were to power an alarm they had fitted and it was the only place they could get power from.
You see, the girl was a reliable and sensible witness and the car presented some deviation from what you might expect, when viewing things as a stereotype, but the simple explanation still turned out, as it does most often, to be right. A non-event passed off as a non-event instead of the massive drama of police in paramilitary garb, lurching about shouting and pointing rifles at completely innocent members of the public, that is the acceptable (apparently) face of policing today.
The above actually happened in the mid-Eighties in a less drama prone part of the country, in less drama prone days. Not necessarily safer days. Let us now consider the Jean Charles de Menezes shooting in the same light.
The police had a block of flats under surveillance because they were pretty sure at least one terrorist was living there and they knew what he looked like. Someone emerges but has been partly missed by the team, anxious messages are passed back and forwards trying to ascertain if anyone can identify the man and what should be done. Eventually the decision is taken that he must be 'neutralised' (my word) as they couldn't 'risk it'. So he is followed, grabbed and shot in such a way that he is definitely dead.
There may have been a terrorist in the block of flats, but there were also a lot of other people, so the chance of an unidentified person being the target is low, statistically. The person they follow hasn't been identified, so there is no known 'risk' that they cannot afford to take. He is aware he is being chased before he was caught but didn't try to blow himself up.
When caught he was put in an immobilising bear hug and then killed. Even at this point, as a terrorist with a bomb, he has been caught, immobilised, yet he was shot. Perhaps this final act was necessary as they 'couldn't take a risk', which would have been fine, unless he had a trigger that detonated the bomb if he let go.
I still have less of a problem with the officers on the ground, who whilst clearly brave had not deployed well, than with the idiot senior officers who failed completely to understand and deal with the situation appropriately. The murdered man's family and the British people can rest safely in their beds, as the officer in charge has since been further promoted, so no telling what damage can be done now.
Police are called to a small block of flats on a seafront. The day is sunny and warm and the area is thronged with holidaymakers and daytrippers. A 13 year old girl has seen from the window of the flat she lives in on the second floor, two young men park and get out of a small hatchback, open the tailgate and one of them remove a pistol, which he shoves down the waistband of his jeans at the front.
When questioned the girl is shaking and had a clear view of the car from the window. She seems sensible and gives a very good description of the two lads. The car is fairly new, clean inside and out. On the back seat is a Snoopy toy dressed as a chef and on the parcel shelf a tidily rolled up umbrella. It doesn't seem like the kind of car two youngsters would be driving, though it isn't listed as stolen. Wires can be seen coming from the cigarette lighter socket, going up under the dashboard.
Recently, a well known terrorist organisation has been found to be targeting seaside towns for a bombing campaign. All police forces have been made aware of this and a heightened state of alert is in place. The officers sent to investigate are in uniform and unarmed. No back-up has been assigned and force headquarters has not been informed (as standing orders at the time said they should for a 'firerms incident').
The officers wait in their car. Suddenly two people clearly matching the girl's description appear at the entrance to the car park. On seeing the police car they immediately turn and walk away. The officers walk after them. The lads quicken their pace at which point one of the officers calls on them to stop.
What happens next? Should a more senior officer be in charge than the station sergeant? Should armed police have been deployed with the two young men surrounded and forced to the ground at gunpoint? Maybe one or both might have been shot for the protection of the officers and the public, because they made some move which was deemed threatening? Was the car a bomb? Should the area have been evacuated and the Army brought in to conduct a controlled explosion? Is it not better to be safe than sorry? Why should officers have their lives put at risk?
In the actual, real scenario detailed above, the lads stopped, and one lifted up his T shirt to expose a black, oblong wallet. The car belonged to one of their fathers and the doll was because they were both trainee chefs. They had walked away because they had parked in a private car park and thought they were in trouble. The wires were to power an alarm they had fitted and it was the only place they could get power from.
You see, the girl was a reliable and sensible witness and the car presented some deviation from what you might expect, when viewing things as a stereotype, but the simple explanation still turned out, as it does most often, to be right. A non-event passed off as a non-event instead of the massive drama of police in paramilitary garb, lurching about shouting and pointing rifles at completely innocent members of the public, that is the acceptable (apparently) face of policing today.
The above actually happened in the mid-Eighties in a less drama prone part of the country, in less drama prone days. Not necessarily safer days. Let us now consider the Jean Charles de Menezes shooting in the same light.
The police had a block of flats under surveillance because they were pretty sure at least one terrorist was living there and they knew what he looked like. Someone emerges but has been partly missed by the team, anxious messages are passed back and forwards trying to ascertain if anyone can identify the man and what should be done. Eventually the decision is taken that he must be 'neutralised' (my word) as they couldn't 'risk it'. So he is followed, grabbed and shot in such a way that he is definitely dead.
There may have been a terrorist in the block of flats, but there were also a lot of other people, so the chance of an unidentified person being the target is low, statistically. The person they follow hasn't been identified, so there is no known 'risk' that they cannot afford to take. He is aware he is being chased before he was caught but didn't try to blow himself up.
When caught he was put in an immobilising bear hug and then killed. Even at this point, as a terrorist with a bomb, he has been caught, immobilised, yet he was shot. Perhaps this final act was necessary as they 'couldn't take a risk', which would have been fine, unless he had a trigger that detonated the bomb if he let go.
I still have less of a problem with the officers on the ground, who whilst clearly brave had not deployed well, than with the idiot senior officers who failed completely to understand and deal with the situation appropriately. The murdered man's family and the British people can rest safely in their beds, as the officer in charge has since been further promoted, so no telling what damage can be done now.
Monday, 23 January 2012
Police And Prescott?
The Mail is today reporting that John Prescott is considering a role as a police commissioner. I think he may have misunderstood (wouldn't that be strange?), the idea is that we get better policing, not the old crony based policing of his days in 'High Office'. The idea is that people who go around fighting in the street don't get special treatment because of the position they hold.
Tony Blair had special reasons for having a half wit as a deputy, the nation and the police have their fill currently and aren't looking for any more. In fact, the new elected posts have a key remit of eradicating the stupid non-policing that is the vogue for senior officers at present.
Can you imagine how Prescott would spend his time as a police commissioner? None on things that matter, 80% out of the office, sunning himself at public expense or playing bowls and 20% insisting Labour party members don't get prosecuted.
Tony Blair had special reasons for having a half wit as a deputy, the nation and the police have their fill currently and aren't looking for any more. In fact, the new elected posts have a key remit of eradicating the stupid non-policing that is the vogue for senior officers at present.
Can you imagine how Prescott would spend his time as a police commissioner? None on things that matter, 80% out of the office, sunning himself at public expense or playing bowls and 20% insisting Labour party members don't get prosecuted.
Thursday, 29 December 2011
Plod On Plod
In a previous blog, I noted that officers who were suspected of not investigating a 'pistol whipping' properly were being investigated themselves and so were on restricted duties. Now we hear of possible corruption involving the most senior of police officers and they are not suspended as, we are told, an investigation is merely a process to see if there has been any wrongdoing.
How strange that such differing standards apply and how normal that they believe such obvious lies and deceits are all we deserve.
How strange that such differing standards apply and how normal that they believe such obvious lies and deceits are all we deserve.
Monday, 14 November 2011
Panorama - The Riots
Jeremy Vine did the voiceover for a BBC programme about the August riots, focussing on Manchester. Early on the point was made that the trouble there was probably due to the lack of success in London. Had the police there contained the rioting, the theory went, then copy cat attacks elsewhere would not have occurred.
There was no attempt to understand the reason for the rioting really, beyond a few facile comments about conditions of life and wanting some clothes. Certainly, Vine didn't trouble himself to recognise his part in causing the riots. People like him, with their idiotic views of the human condition, based on an ideological stance and what he thinks things should be like, rather than any experience, have shown the weakness on which the feral feed.
The same is true of the theory of copy cat riots. It was the weakness shown in London, as left liberal senior police officers found themselves out of their depth and froze while the city burned, that gave the thought its genesis around the country. Whilst the BBC, who probably cannot understand why so many people who are poor and misunderstood, let down their biggest supporters (the BBC) by rioting, did actually mention the damage and heartbreak caused to ordinary people, they couldn't help reverting to type.
A map of 'deprived' areas was shown and this was then overlaid with the locations of arrested rioters homes. 50% we were told came from these deprived areas. Or, to put it the way the BBC can't, half didn't. The programme didn't really tell us anything, but it was interesting to see a senior officer being so critical of colleagues in London. That he was right doesn't make it any less surprising. We wait to hear what official enquiries make of the police (in)action.
There was no attempt to understand the reason for the rioting really, beyond a few facile comments about conditions of life and wanting some clothes. Certainly, Vine didn't trouble himself to recognise his part in causing the riots. People like him, with their idiotic views of the human condition, based on an ideological stance and what he thinks things should be like, rather than any experience, have shown the weakness on which the feral feed.
The same is true of the theory of copy cat riots. It was the weakness shown in London, as left liberal senior police officers found themselves out of their depth and froze while the city burned, that gave the thought its genesis around the country. Whilst the BBC, who probably cannot understand why so many people who are poor and misunderstood, let down their biggest supporters (the BBC) by rioting, did actually mention the damage and heartbreak caused to ordinary people, they couldn't help reverting to type.
A map of 'deprived' areas was shown and this was then overlaid with the locations of arrested rioters homes. 50% we were told came from these deprived areas. Or, to put it the way the BBC can't, half didn't. The programme didn't really tell us anything, but it was interesting to see a senior officer being so critical of colleagues in London. That he was right doesn't make it any less surprising. We wait to hear what official enquiries make of the police (in)action.
Wednesday, 14 September 2011
Police Chief's Feelings Hurt
The Chief Constable of Northumbria Police, Sue Sim has said publicly that she was hurt by the jokes made about her appearance, as she led the hunt for Raoul Moat. This was the woman who had a lot to say, often about the fact she was in charge, whilst they couldn't find the man and who was responsible, ultimately for her officers deploying with unlicensed weapons.
But it is her feelings that she is most keen to talk about. In pointing out that the jibes were personal and nothing to do with her professional role she is entirely correct. Some of us are not that attractive. What you do have to be careful of though, is how you 'enhance' your image. Ms Sim seems to fall into the 'MMM' bracket - no Mum, no Mates, no Mirror. These are all sources of good advice.
What I particularly like though (and which points to her character flaws) is the way, having established that the remarks were hurtful, she says they referred to her as looking like Margaret Beckett. Now, that seems to me as though she is saying, 'good Lord that can't be true, Beckett is ugly'. Or the rejoinder that people wouldn't have thought to be nasty about her if she had been a short, fat man. Again, such people she seems to suggest actually would be deserving of the ridicule she received.
This woman is running a police force. A force that couldn't find Moat under their noses and walking the streets. A woman you cannot stop talking when nothing is happening and who suddenly becomes camera shy when the drama comes to a head. Was it her fault, her force's fault Moat shot himself? I doubt it, though there is a suspicion that they, like all other forces seemed rather too keen to force events, rather than sitting it out.
But it is her feelings that she is most keen to talk about. In pointing out that the jibes were personal and nothing to do with her professional role she is entirely correct. Some of us are not that attractive. What you do have to be careful of though, is how you 'enhance' your image. Ms Sim seems to fall into the 'MMM' bracket - no Mum, no Mates, no Mirror. These are all sources of good advice.
What I particularly like though (and which points to her character flaws) is the way, having established that the remarks were hurtful, she says they referred to her as looking like Margaret Beckett. Now, that seems to me as though she is saying, 'good Lord that can't be true, Beckett is ugly'. Or the rejoinder that people wouldn't have thought to be nasty about her if she had been a short, fat man. Again, such people she seems to suggest actually would be deserving of the ridicule she received.
This woman is running a police force. A force that couldn't find Moat under their noses and walking the streets. A woman you cannot stop talking when nothing is happening and who suddenly becomes camera shy when the drama comes to a head. Was it her fault, her force's fault Moat shot himself? I doubt it, though there is a suspicion that they, like all other forces seemed rather too keen to force events, rather than sitting it out.
Monday, 15 August 2011
Policing Back To Normal
A small, white, unmarked van has just driven down my street and put an 'untaxed vehicle' sticker on the windscreen of a car. Technically of course, it is an offence and as I pay mine so should others, but it just feels a bit like persecution. Were these police officers (they were just wearing unmarked yellow waistcoats as far as I could see), or some other branch of officialdom out merely to maximise the revenue take?
A bit like my 'late submission' of a tax form that I am currently struggling with. A fine has been applied needless to say and whilst I was a bit close I did send it in just in time. They say I was seven days late (not seven working days, seven real days). This I assume is either the Royal Mail not meeting the time-scales expected of first class post, or much more likely, the sloth at the tax office. Here, it has been admitted, they have been keen to throw post away rather than deal with it. But the state feels entitled to lift £100 in these circumstances; in fact extremely keen to do so.
Naturally I intend to take this to a tribunal, as the state is far too used to bullying those it thinks weak (the law abiding) and ignoring the law breakers or their own failings. I shall also ask if they can point out which law specifically allows the imposition of a fine, thus specifically replacing the 1689 Bill of Rights, a constitutional Act of Parliament.
Meanwhile my son, attempting to register for Jobseekers Allowance has waited two weeks without any contact and when chasing it up gets passed from pillar to post by people who haven't the faintest idea how to do their job, much less care. He now has an appointment to see someone at the end of the third week, so we wait to see if they attempt to keep the honest off the benefits system whilst supporting the feckless. Too many state employees are unemployed salary-takers.
A bit like my 'late submission' of a tax form that I am currently struggling with. A fine has been applied needless to say and whilst I was a bit close I did send it in just in time. They say I was seven days late (not seven working days, seven real days). This I assume is either the Royal Mail not meeting the time-scales expected of first class post, or much more likely, the sloth at the tax office. Here, it has been admitted, they have been keen to throw post away rather than deal with it. But the state feels entitled to lift £100 in these circumstances; in fact extremely keen to do so.
Naturally I intend to take this to a tribunal, as the state is far too used to bullying those it thinks weak (the law abiding) and ignoring the law breakers or their own failings. I shall also ask if they can point out which law specifically allows the imposition of a fine, thus specifically replacing the 1689 Bill of Rights, a constitutional Act of Parliament.
Meanwhile my son, attempting to register for Jobseekers Allowance has waited two weeks without any contact and when chasing it up gets passed from pillar to post by people who haven't the faintest idea how to do their job, much less care. He now has an appointment to see someone at the end of the third week, so we wait to see if they attempt to keep the honest off the benefits system whilst supporting the feckless. Too many state employees are unemployed salary-takers.
Monday, 8 August 2011
The News We Have To Endure
Admittedly the violence in London is deliberately spread and is just about theft and destruction for the sake of it, so difficult for the police to locate and deal with. But even so, from what we are seeing and hearing the police are deployed where nothing seems to be happening, none where break ins are taking place and fires are being left to burn, despite no-one being in the area. I am lost as to what the tactics the police are using.
They seem to be trying the standard containment and preparing for confrontation. But there are no confrontations, these little shits are just stealing stock from certain target shops and running away to another location if the police turn up.
The News though, Oh My God. I have been watching Sky because they are less likely to suddenly wheel out someone from the Left who will give all kinds of moronic, blame the cuts comments. But even Sky haven't a clue. They ask questions to emphasise the drama, but give no analysis. Most annoyingly they keep referring to unrest and links to the shooting of Mark Duggan.
It is not unrest, it is straightforward criminality and it is not linked in any way to the shooting, nor supportive of the anti-police stance. These people need to be found by any means, and once convicted and in addition to any custodial or financial penalty, they must have their benefits removed. If children, then their parents benefits. People like this do not fear authority, because they don't lose anything.
If you own your own house, it can be lost, if you have always relied on the state to house you and give you pocket money while you trade drugs, or burgle houses to fill your spare time, then what can be taken away? Their liberty and in particular their benefits. It will introduce a new level of respect for the law. It will provide a boundary, just like children need.
From early this evening it has been clear to me, as the thieves have been confronted by the police they run away and the police need weapons of reach to deal with them. With the level of lawlessness and the serious arson taking place I think if baton rounds are used and extensively used, it is not the time to consider how much they might sting. Or the whining leftie who earlier said you have to go careful as there are children about. So?
As I write Kevin Maguire has been 'interviewed' on Sky and ah, bless the poor luv had to talk sense as even he couldn't find an angle to support these people with their legitimate grievance, which would be the nonsense he normally spouts. But no, he can see no reason for the behaviour and he is happy to define them as morons.
But again, what are the police doing? Another challenge, another failure.
They seem to be trying the standard containment and preparing for confrontation. But there are no confrontations, these little shits are just stealing stock from certain target shops and running away to another location if the police turn up.
The News though, Oh My God. I have been watching Sky because they are less likely to suddenly wheel out someone from the Left who will give all kinds of moronic, blame the cuts comments. But even Sky haven't a clue. They ask questions to emphasise the drama, but give no analysis. Most annoyingly they keep referring to unrest and links to the shooting of Mark Duggan.
It is not unrest, it is straightforward criminality and it is not linked in any way to the shooting, nor supportive of the anti-police stance. These people need to be found by any means, and once convicted and in addition to any custodial or financial penalty, they must have their benefits removed. If children, then their parents benefits. People like this do not fear authority, because they don't lose anything.
If you own your own house, it can be lost, if you have always relied on the state to house you and give you pocket money while you trade drugs, or burgle houses to fill your spare time, then what can be taken away? Their liberty and in particular their benefits. It will introduce a new level of respect for the law. It will provide a boundary, just like children need.
From early this evening it has been clear to me, as the thieves have been confronted by the police they run away and the police need weapons of reach to deal with them. With the level of lawlessness and the serious arson taking place I think if baton rounds are used and extensively used, it is not the time to consider how much they might sting. Or the whining leftie who earlier said you have to go careful as there are children about. So?
As I write Kevin Maguire has been 'interviewed' on Sky and ah, bless the poor luv had to talk sense as even he couldn't find an angle to support these people with their legitimate grievance, which would be the nonsense he normally spouts. But no, he can see no reason for the behaviour and he is happy to define them as morons.
But again, what are the police doing? Another challenge, another failure.
Friday, 5 August 2011
Coppers
I hate the term 'Coppers' as I find it disrespectful, but perhaps I should admit it is probably a better description of the current lack of standards and discipline in our police. Last night for our televisual pleasure we had some interesting views of modern policing. Interestingly it was an 'old boy' who had something like a correct attitude to the job the public expect of him, as opposed to the revenue obsessed, social-worker oriented, lazy, dictatorial policeman that our current crop of useless Chief Constables prefer.
The 'Old Boy' was watching out for 'speeders' at the side of the A6. He explained he wasn't interested in those doing 5, 10 or maybe 15 mph above the speed limit, but those driving dangerously, likely to cause an accident. This was then proven as he and his colleague ignored a car going past at 88. The road wasn't busy and that is just someone driving a modern car, capable of such speed and not causing any problem. The guy registered at 116mph (and braking at the time) was clearly a different matter, he was driving fast for the sake of it and was pursued. He turned out to be a garage employee using a customer's car.
In a later programme we saw the other side. Police who, talking to camera seemed to have their heart in the right place, but otherwise not terribly sure about anything in particular ('is the Hulk the one on the sweetcorn tin?'). And a police officer who was very sure of his attitude, but not of a need for professionalism. He, quite correctly arrested an oik, bleeding heavily from the nose who was just making a nuisance of himself and swearing at the officer. However, we may have barely heard what he said but the street soon became aware as the officer bellowed it several times, to show his outrage. Had I been walking past with my wife, I would most certainly have expected someone repeatedly shouting obscenities to be removed from the streets, but he wasn't because 'he is the law'. The whole episode showed (apart from the fact that young people today have no respect for themselves, let alone anyone else and cannot drink to any level below excess), that police today cannot police sympathetically as they arrive with a sense of importance they don't deserve, nor is it any part of the role of police in British society. Though of course it does fit left-liberal social engineering and a state-led society.
(Footnote: the nature of policing in the UK is that the law is owned by the people and the police are citizens in uniform. In the state into which we are being taken -without being asked or it being explained- the state exists in itself and the people exist to serve the state. The key difference being that in the historic Britain everything is legal except that which we make illegal. In the French led EU, everything is illegal unless the state says it is legal. A very different balance of power, and why the arrogance of the police, now much more political, is on the rise.)
The 'Old Boy' was watching out for 'speeders' at the side of the A6. He explained he wasn't interested in those doing 5, 10 or maybe 15 mph above the speed limit, but those driving dangerously, likely to cause an accident. This was then proven as he and his colleague ignored a car going past at 88. The road wasn't busy and that is just someone driving a modern car, capable of such speed and not causing any problem. The guy registered at 116mph (and braking at the time) was clearly a different matter, he was driving fast for the sake of it and was pursued. He turned out to be a garage employee using a customer's car.
In a later programme we saw the other side. Police who, talking to camera seemed to have their heart in the right place, but otherwise not terribly sure about anything in particular ('is the Hulk the one on the sweetcorn tin?'). And a police officer who was very sure of his attitude, but not of a need for professionalism. He, quite correctly arrested an oik, bleeding heavily from the nose who was just making a nuisance of himself and swearing at the officer. However, we may have barely heard what he said but the street soon became aware as the officer bellowed it several times, to show his outrage. Had I been walking past with my wife, I would most certainly have expected someone repeatedly shouting obscenities to be removed from the streets, but he wasn't because 'he is the law'. The whole episode showed (apart from the fact that young people today have no respect for themselves, let alone anyone else and cannot drink to any level below excess), that police today cannot police sympathetically as they arrive with a sense of importance they don't deserve, nor is it any part of the role of police in British society. Though of course it does fit left-liberal social engineering and a state-led society.
(Footnote: the nature of policing in the UK is that the law is owned by the people and the police are citizens in uniform. In the state into which we are being taken -without being asked or it being explained- the state exists in itself and the people exist to serve the state. The key difference being that in the historic Britain everything is legal except that which we make illegal. In the French led EU, everything is illegal unless the state says it is legal. A very different balance of power, and why the arrogance of the police, now much more political, is on the rise.)
Thursday, 17 February 2011
Policing Perspective
It is common to hear these days that a distrust of the police is unfortunate and not a true reflection of society's attitudes. But I think it is the norm and I have a fervent wish that it were not so. I read recently of a survey carried out by Geoffrey Gorer, an anthropologist/sociologist in 1950/1. He wanted to know what people thought of the police and expected (naturally, bearing in mind his 'specialities') that there would be a great deal of hostility. There was however an overwhelmingly positive response, with less than a fifth registering any criticism and these usually minor.
The manner of the individual officer garnered respect and because of that respect the police did not need to seek to abuse their powers. The situation created today by the social workers who run the police has of course completely eroded any ability to gain respect. Which is why (and at the same time they rename a force as a service) they now resort to an ever more dictatorial stance. Laws are written as generalities and police officers have in the past used their common sense to apply (or not) those laws to actual, specific circumstances. An authoritarian 'service' however realises that the absolute enforcement of rules in every instance increases power and usefully, raises more money. Why would fairness or justice (let alone common sense) matter to someone who has been given 'power'?
The police today do not prevent crime and they are pathetic in its detection, so when does this expensive bureaucracy earn its place? Oh yes, in attacking countryside marches on government orders. In protecting and not pursuing politicians (except in support of a left wing party).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)