I have made comment previously about IPCC reports and some of the shocking things police do and that are above criticism by the IPCC. I was thinking the other day though in the context of government departments having a careless attitude to their duty to the public, that I perhaps hadn't highlighted this failing by the IPCC.
In one report I cited, a police officer discharged a high velocity round inside a house and it was lucky that the walls were brick otherwise it could have entered the next house. The IPCC couldn't bring itself to criticise overall strategy or notice the way police deploy weapons.
On the whole, I think there is a tendency to look down on US law enforcement as less civilised than what we have here, not least because US police officers are routinely armed. But quite a few officers in the UK are armed too and there is an important difference to consider. In the US, officers carry a side arm and often have a shotgun in their vehicle. These are low velocity weapons deemed appropriate, where lethal force is necessary, to the urban environment. Basically the bullets carry less energy and won't go through walls etc.
In Britain however, this wholly sensible notion is frequently ignored as our armed police carry higher velocity MP5 carbines. These military grade weapons are singularly inappropriate for the urban environment. They are compact enough to be used, but the energy of rounds discharged is too high. Think about the dramatic 'armed arrests' you see on the TV. A man is dragged out of a car and forced to lie on the ground while officers point their MP5's at him, tucked tight into their shoulder and cheek. Lord alone knows where a high velocity round penetrating right through the body and striking the pavement would end up, should they decide to open fire.
The IPCC, senior officers and firearms strategists in the police seem to have no view, opinion or criticism of these practices. The MP5 is able to fire a round twice to four times the distance a pistol could achieve. It is interesting to note the persistent suggestion that the police receive training from the SAS and have also selected one of it's favourite weapons. Yet the SAS are not trained themselves for police actions. They are in fact trained to use extreme violence to achieve their result. Which is exactly what you want on a battlefield, though not necessarily in Bromley. We know this to be the case because of their actions in the Falklands and also in the shooting of IRA terrorists in Gibraltar. One in particular was pursued and falling to the ground was shot at close range repeatedly. The SAS train to kill and to make sure the target is definitely dead. And again, this was exactly the technique used on the completely innocent Jean Charles de Menezes.
That our senior police officers are incompetent is becoming daily more apparent (and not just because of their over-riding social engineering bias) and we let them train and equip themselves to military levels. Add to that the criminally lax oversight by the IPCC and you have a dangerous mix.
Friday, 29 July 2011
BBC Bias
You would hope that, with perhaps some personal leanings, news reports would attempt to be just that, reports on the news. However, just watching the lunchtime BBC slot it became apparent just how distorting this broadcaster is. Whilst blatant bias is unacceptable from any broadcaster one that you are compelled to pay for should be squeaky clean. But the BBC feel they are above the mere opinion of the hoi poloi.
Today the head of the Press Complaints Commission resigned over the phone hacking scandal, but what did the BBC choose to lead on? James Murdoch. And what was the 'story? That he had been asked to clarify something. The way the BBC chose to present this was 'James Murdoch no doubt thought his appearance before the House committee would be his last', but it went on, 'the Chairman has asked him to reply in writing' to clarify something he said earlier. In an attempt to justify their misleading intro, the BBC went on to say that one Labour MP on the committee wanted James recalled but was out-voted. And the 'news' was that an email had shown up that seemed to contradict something James had said to the committee earlier. This being something that came to light days ago. So, for absolutely no reason whatsoever, the state broadcaster ran a headline story that was old news and no news. Just to keep their figures of hate, the Murdoch's in the glare of publicity.
The BBC really is a disreputable organisation and one on which you can have no faith that you are being told the truth.
Today the head of the Press Complaints Commission resigned over the phone hacking scandal, but what did the BBC choose to lead on? James Murdoch. And what was the 'story? That he had been asked to clarify something. The way the BBC chose to present this was 'James Murdoch no doubt thought his appearance before the House committee would be his last', but it went on, 'the Chairman has asked him to reply in writing' to clarify something he said earlier. In an attempt to justify their misleading intro, the BBC went on to say that one Labour MP on the committee wanted James recalled but was out-voted. And the 'news' was that an email had shown up that seemed to contradict something James had said to the committee earlier. This being something that came to light days ago. So, for absolutely no reason whatsoever, the state broadcaster ran a headline story that was old news and no news. Just to keep their figures of hate, the Murdoch's in the glare of publicity.
The BBC really is a disreputable organisation and one on which you can have no faith that you are being told the truth.
Tuesday, 26 July 2011
Rum Do
We appear to be in a financial crisis, but can you be sure? Politicians are doing some bizarre things that seem quite political rather than useful. Printing money. I thought that money supply was a tiny bit crucial to how your country's economy ran, but there seems this idea that if we re short of money then we should print some. Does it really work like that? Blair and Brown kept the country drugged and so believing that this Laurel and Hardy duo were is some way competent or useful. The drug was borrowed money. Yes we all felt part of a wonderful, prosperous, successful country because we, and Gordon borrowed on a massive scale. Now the debt falls due and we really don't like or want the pain, well no, but what to do. Ed Balls, trying to keep the idea that stupidity might be a winner going, says we should carry on borrowing and feeling good (and probably print a load more dosh too).
I can't help thinking that our parents (and I'm no youngster) had a better understanding. They thought education was important and they revered wisdom, which came as is said, with winters. Now we don't need education as a benign class of left liberals has seized power and they will do everything for us. And here we are, in what the old Suffolk wits would call a rum do.
I can't help thinking that our parents (and I'm no youngster) had a better understanding. They thought education was important and they revered wisdom, which came as is said, with winters. Now we don't need education as a benign class of left liberals has seized power and they will do everything for us. And here we are, in what the old Suffolk wits would call a rum do.
Murdoch Runs Britain
A facile comment, but one designed to serve a purpose. The Sun newspaper, of the Murdoch 'empire', has happily in the past taken credit for winning elections. So be it. If people are dim enough to follow the advice of a newspaper written to a reading age of 8, then that is the nature of democracy. I don't remember too much bleating from the Left when Murdoch was, for totally selfish business reasons supporting the snake-oil salesman Blair.
But how much influence does he have? A Channel 4 programme seemed to suggest he is an immense power in the land and not a good one either. I confess to not being able to watch much of such a programme, but the snippet I did see contained a typical, left liberal deceit. They said that the government (which was Blair at the time) wanted to amend a law to allow foreigners to own terrestrial broadcasters in the UK. The edit then cut to Murdoch and Sky TV and the recent attempt to gain 100% control. But Sky isn't a terrestrial broadcaster. The stunt Murdoch pulled was that the law on satellite broadcasting was written specifically to allow only one digital broadcaster, so the winning company could establish itself and recover costs before having to compete. But Murdoch skirted this by launching an analogue system. BSB, the proposed digital broadcaster was taking a leisurely, money no object approach to getting their service up and was eaten up by the efficient rival.
The power in this land clearly lies with a left liberal leaning media that will have no truck with any opposition. What it believes and says is right, no matter what, because they are inherently good people. Definitely the right people to tell others what to do and definitely right on everything. When their beliefs differ from reality, then reality has to be altered to fit (known to ordinary people as lies). This was the role of Alistair Campbell and others in the Blair government, though here the 'narrative' was more self-serving than to support an ideology, this being a concept that Blair did without. Most of the brain-washing in this country is done by the BBC, which believes in some very strange and unsupported things, with religious fervour (religion being something it is not keen on, ironically). They have been convinced by political activists, who are people very like them, that the world is subject to climate change caused by man. To avoid any embarrassment they have declared that the subject must not be debated and they will not give airtime to anything that disagrees. Particularly not science, scientists or facts. And they also assure us Murdoch is a menace.
But how much influence does he have? A Channel 4 programme seemed to suggest he is an immense power in the land and not a good one either. I confess to not being able to watch much of such a programme, but the snippet I did see contained a typical, left liberal deceit. They said that the government (which was Blair at the time) wanted to amend a law to allow foreigners to own terrestrial broadcasters in the UK. The edit then cut to Murdoch and Sky TV and the recent attempt to gain 100% control. But Sky isn't a terrestrial broadcaster. The stunt Murdoch pulled was that the law on satellite broadcasting was written specifically to allow only one digital broadcaster, so the winning company could establish itself and recover costs before having to compete. But Murdoch skirted this by launching an analogue system. BSB, the proposed digital broadcaster was taking a leisurely, money no object approach to getting their service up and was eaten up by the efficient rival.
The power in this land clearly lies with a left liberal leaning media that will have no truck with any opposition. What it believes and says is right, no matter what, because they are inherently good people. Definitely the right people to tell others what to do and definitely right on everything. When their beliefs differ from reality, then reality has to be altered to fit (known to ordinary people as lies). This was the role of Alistair Campbell and others in the Blair government, though here the 'narrative' was more self-serving than to support an ideology, this being a concept that Blair did without. Most of the brain-washing in this country is done by the BBC, which believes in some very strange and unsupported things, with religious fervour (religion being something it is not keen on, ironically). They have been convinced by political activists, who are people very like them, that the world is subject to climate change caused by man. To avoid any embarrassment they have declared that the subject must not be debated and they will not give airtime to anything that disagrees. Particularly not science, scientists or facts. And they also assure us Murdoch is a menace.
Friday, 22 July 2011
MP Tom Watson And Parliamentary Rigour
Bravo for Tom Watson, a Labour member of the committee that grilled the Murdoch's recently (and who's party also supplied the person who attacked Rupert Murdoch), who has become aware of a possible mendacious statement by James. It seems the younger of the clan claimed not to know something that apparently others say he did. If he has misled the committee, Watson wants the police to investigate.
Now let us be clear, this is a nasty affair and whoever has been up to no good should be discovered and dealt with under the laws of the land. But the thing is, this is still really a minor matter and yet Mr Watson wants to pursue the miscreants at all costs. The same rigour seemed absent though when his ex-leader, Mr Blair, lied to Parliament in order to attack another country, Iraq. This cost the country a not inconsiderable sum and, much, much worse the lives of a lot of completely innocent and uninvolved people, not least our forces who did not need to be there. But why did we invade? Was it just for Blair's vanity? His fame and the impact it could have on his 'saleability' later? There were no WMD's and we knew that, so just what was he up to?
Then of course, we have the related death of a civil servant who was involved in stating that there were no WMD's before the lies that took us to war, Dr David Kelly. There is not only an absence of rigour over investigating his death, there is official interference to ensure there is no proper investigation. These are real issues of national importance that should be investigated at all costs, with no stone left unturned. Then we might see more than mock outrage from a Director of Communications who really was a danger in No 10. But Mr Watson doesn't seem to see any need for rigour here. The Murdoch's may not be the most pleasant people, but the Left represent the extreme in that respect.
Now let us be clear, this is a nasty affair and whoever has been up to no good should be discovered and dealt with under the laws of the land. But the thing is, this is still really a minor matter and yet Mr Watson wants to pursue the miscreants at all costs. The same rigour seemed absent though when his ex-leader, Mr Blair, lied to Parliament in order to attack another country, Iraq. This cost the country a not inconsiderable sum and, much, much worse the lives of a lot of completely innocent and uninvolved people, not least our forces who did not need to be there. But why did we invade? Was it just for Blair's vanity? His fame and the impact it could have on his 'saleability' later? There were no WMD's and we knew that, so just what was he up to?
Then of course, we have the related death of a civil servant who was involved in stating that there were no WMD's before the lies that took us to war, Dr David Kelly. There is not only an absence of rigour over investigating his death, there is official interference to ensure there is no proper investigation. These are real issues of national importance that should be investigated at all costs, with no stone left unturned. Then we might see more than mock outrage from a Director of Communications who really was a danger in No 10. But Mr Watson doesn't seem to see any need for rigour here. The Murdoch's may not be the most pleasant people, but the Left represent the extreme in that respect.
Monday, 18 July 2011
Met Police In A Mess
Well, the Metropolitan Police are currently putting up a serious challenge to the Keystone Cops. Imbued with the novel idea that the police, in addition to being social workers in uniform are also a branch of government, we see some decisions of gargantuan stupidity being enacted. Sir Paul Stephenson, another titled for time-served non-entity, resigns but skweams like a child that it is not his fault. Why, he wonders, does it seem wrong to the man in the street that a senior police officer should dine repeatedly with people whom his force is investigating? And why is it inappropriate to hire someone who is also from that organisation? I mean how did he get to hear of Mr Wallis? And how is it that Mr Wallis has 2 days a week free to be a PR consultant to the Met, if he is the busy editor of a large circulation newspaper?
Now Yates too has gone. He seemed someone on whom to rely initially, but after becoming top anti-terrorist dog, he did seem a little shifty in interviews, nothing you could put your finger on but a little shifty. Maybe his mind was on other things. This is all getting very odd and is not helped by the BBC and the Guardian constantly attempting to bring Cameron's name into every item on the phone hacking scandal. Could Coulsen not really know what was going on when he was editor, not least when you consider the scale of the thing? And is it possible that others were not up to the same thing? Most unbelievable of all is that so far Blair and Campbell have managed to stay out of it.
Now Yates too has gone. He seemed someone on whom to rely initially, but after becoming top anti-terrorist dog, he did seem a little shifty in interviews, nothing you could put your finger on but a little shifty. Maybe his mind was on other things. This is all getting very odd and is not helped by the BBC and the Guardian constantly attempting to bring Cameron's name into every item on the phone hacking scandal. Could Coulsen not really know what was going on when he was editor, not least when you consider the scale of the thing? And is it possible that others were not up to the same thing? Most unbelievable of all is that so far Blair and Campbell have managed to stay out of it.
Friday, 15 July 2011
Abbott on Brown
Unbelievable. Diane Abbott may be most famous for saying that other people should not be allowed to send their children to 'elite' schools, whilst she should be, but last night on 'This Week' she excelled even this.
Straight-faced the champagne socialist spoke of the speech by Gordon Brown in the House of Commons. She started by saying she was actually there, which is nice as the dim witted general public thought parliamentary debate etc was rather what the £65,000+ that MP's receive from them, was for. Still, this allowed the Abbott to say categorically that it was an amazing sight, that the passion that Gordon felt clearly came through. What is the woman on? Brown was passionate about something that completely passed him by previously. It was the mock outrage of the cynical politician, but in this case one with no talent to deceive; he certainly is no Blair. Brown was merely setting up a political position that presumably he plans to come back to later, to attack News International/Corp. in some way. He is unhinged and Abbott supporting such feckless abandonment of principle should be seen as what it is, shameless politicking. It does make you wonder if, despite their protestations of effort, politicians can climb up to the level of respect the phone hacking journalists currently possess.
Straight-faced the champagne socialist spoke of the speech by Gordon Brown in the House of Commons. She started by saying she was actually there, which is nice as the dim witted general public thought parliamentary debate etc was rather what the £65,000+ that MP's receive from them, was for. Still, this allowed the Abbott to say categorically that it was an amazing sight, that the passion that Gordon felt clearly came through. What is the woman on? Brown was passionate about something that completely passed him by previously. It was the mock outrage of the cynical politician, but in this case one with no talent to deceive; he certainly is no Blair. Brown was merely setting up a political position that presumably he plans to come back to later, to attack News International/Corp. in some way. He is unhinged and Abbott supporting such feckless abandonment of principle should be seen as what it is, shameless politicking. It does make you wonder if, despite their protestations of effort, politicians can climb up to the level of respect the phone hacking journalists currently possess.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)