Traffic Cops

Now, despite disliking the use of the word cops in a supposedly serious context and at the risk of a terrible pun, this programme is turning into Triffic Cops. Really, it is compulsive viewing (having said that I missed the first half and will iPlayer later) though not perhaps for reasons the police or BBC intended.

Last night we had the story of a biker killed waving to other bikers standing on an over-bridge, because thus distracted the biker ran into the back of stationary traffic. To stop a repeat the police this year (it was an annual biker meet that spawned the unfortunate incident) tried to dissuade people from standing there waving. To achieve this they sent two traffic bikes and a BBC film crew. Now I'm not saying that this additional and unusual activity made any difference, but they were able to film a smash on the road below, caused as voiceover man said, 'by a moment's inattention.' Caused by what, I wonder.

The bit that really struck me though was the cyclist. He was spotted by the Traffic Cops cycling without lights and just before they got to him, he went straight through a red light. Initially, as they came alongside, he went up on the pavement and wouldn't stop, despite blue lights and a shout from an officer. Eventually he did, and cue a very dim wattage conversation from both sides. To be fair the police were intending on just warning him about the lack of lights and tell him to walk, but he decided to argue. The officer however seemed equally unable to make his argument cogent. At one point he accused him of being drunk, then said 'forget about that, you haven't got any lights.' Personally, I would think being drunk might have led to most of his wrong thinking and that was what was putting him in danger in the first place, but as we know, the police know best.

So for arguing, they decided to charge him with no lights, running a red light, riding on the pavement and failing to stop for police. He wanted to go to court. Bad idea. Not sure if he thought the arrogant attitude with which the police are imbued hasn't reached elsewhere (he obviously doesn't talk to his local authority either) but he was in for a shock. The court decided to 'make an example' of him and fined him £700 with over £200 costs. I'm not sure who else s was going to know and thus benefit from this 'example' but I'm not sure that is how justice works. Unless the BBC had promised to make the decision public via their film, which again adds just a little more corruption to the administration of justice. The man was clearly a pillock and the safety (his safety) was the main issue, but all this 'example' stuff just shows an arrogant but ultimately weak minded system. Almost as if inserted by God to emphasise the point, as the police were berating (rather than dealing) with the miscreant a dopey woman in a car drove towards them with no lights on. She was stopped and informed of her error, put her lights on and was allowed to then go on her way as, we were informed by the ever knowledgeable voiceover man, 'being in a car with no lights on you are much safer than on a bike'. Not brilliant for pedestrians crossing a road I would guess, or other traffic at junctions and it is an offence, but hey, it's all about proportionality and fairness.

The cyclist thing chimed with me because, in my days as a Special there was an incident where a magistrate had nearly killed someone riding without lights so wanted something done about it. That meant a town with usually about four policemen on duty at any one time, being treated to a flood of uniforms as 8 Specials and some extra regulars were ordered to disperse around town and deal (usually just warn) cyclists about the need for lights. It rankled me then too, because much as I agreed with the safety angle, the fact that it was on the personal whim (and anger) of a magistrate struck me as being wrong. However it did throw up one amusing moment. A foot patrol stopped a bloke and warned him to walk with the bike as he had no lights. So he stomped off and got back on just around the corner. He was then seen and stopped by a traffic car that decided to warn him that there was a drive on to deal with that and a magistrate on the warpath, but chummy decided to go nuts and said that he had already been stopped once! Oops. Out came the fixed penalty ticket.....

Blowing People Up Isn't Funny

The hysterical levels that AGW Believers will go to, in support of their religion are amazing. They want to stop debate, fix the 'knowledge' and kill non-believers. There have been several references to killing people who will not convert but the Richard Curtis film tops the lot. Anyone against the theory that the planet is warming and that it is due solely to the output of carbon dioxide by Man should be blown up, he feels. And a very graphic little film by him shows how it should be done and very modern it is too. It should be done by remote control by true believers. Now, where have I seen that before?

If only there were some camps, with gas chambers. There certainly seem to be plenty of people with innately good hearts who would be prepared to run them.

This has to stop. The idiots that started all this and then couldn't get themselves off the teat of research funding when they found they were wrong, were bad enough. But now, in the inevitable way of these things businessmen and corrupt politicians who facilitate them have got in on the act and invented 'carbon trading', a giant financial scam that requires the lies to go on.

When Galileo made a discovery by understanding his observations, he was held as a heretic by the Church, all powerful as it was and responsible then as 'scientists' are now, for explaining the world to common people. But the Church knew what he was saying was true; they just needed a way to introduce it without upsetting Papal Infallibility. There are many crimes in this world, but undermining a ruling elite is one that cannot be countenanced. As it was then, so it is today. Being right and being able to prove it doesn't sway the Believers and only what the elites permit will become 'mainstream'.

Oh No! Terrorism

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

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

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

Police Shooting -Terry Nicholas

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

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

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

Mark Saunders -Gunman

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

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

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

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

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

Labour

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

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

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

We're doomed

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

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