Police Bonuses

I see some £2.2 million has been handed to Senior Police Officers in bonuses, though quite what for I suppose no-one could guess. Maybe it was for turning up. As if to highlight how ludicrous this 'system' is, the top recipient was the bumbling Acting Chief Constable Sim of Northumbria. Perhaps it was for appearing in the media and blogs most often. It certainly cannot be related to crime prevention, surely. I suspect she had the tidiest paperwork. I see the other notorious bumbler, Richard Brunstrom (I know what my job is, it's to tell you what to do) got a bonus that perhaps should be his salary. Maybe he will be able to put his cap on straight one day (or even realise it is important). Why do we have useless police? Because they are led by these self aggrandising, political puppets.

Another shooting, Another story

Fresh from an Independent Police Complaints Commission report, the tale of the shooting of Bartholomew Buckley by West Yorkshire Police. This time the police have been wound up by the hysterics of the woman calling them fearing for her life and the assailant having a record of threatening police with bladed weapons, apparently. Naturally and quite correctly an Armed Response is decided on and three ARV's and a dog van are sent.

On arrival the woman is seen screaming for help and banging on an upstairs window, so still seems to be serious an a forced entry is made. Now for me, the officers would and should be careful, assertive and high on adrenaline but here, once again the added ingredient is some strange firearms attitude of expecting and meeting aggression with force. When Buckley appears at the top of the stairs he removes his T shirt and shouts at the police to kill him (both civilians in this had been drinking, in fact a bottle of vodka between them). He was unarmed. A taser was fired at him to calm him down but it missed. Buckley then disappeared into a bedroom and three officers mounted the stairs. On reaching the top Buckley threw a drinks bottle at the first officer and another, trying to avoid the missile fell down the stairs. The first officer fired his Taser and again missed and at this point Buckley charged at the officer. The third policeman there apparently feared he was attempting to get the officers pistol (which was holstered and not easy to withdraw if you don't know how) and fired a round from his H&K G36 a rifle (technically a sub-carbine) with a muzzle velocity of 3018ft per sec. He then fired four more rounds. He hit Buckley once, in the arm.

At the gunshot the officer being charged threw himself down the stairs and Buckley fell after him. As they clattered to the bottom and Buckley stood up a further officer, fearing a colleague had been shot (?) fired a baton round hitting Buckley and knocking him down. The report says at this point that the officers 'realised Buckley had a serious gunshot wound and First Aid was immediately administered.' What strikes me is that they then realised a bunch of police officers can actually overpower one man.

I'm sorry if I am banging on about this, but I think that when police officers take high velocity weapons inside houses there is something going on between their ears that is way too martial and self-impressed. Clearly a Taser would have dealt with the man even if he had the samurai sword they thought they may be facing. If in grave danger a drawn Glock pistol would have been more easily brought to bear and plenty lethal enough. Luckily they were not in a modern house, else the rounds loosed off with what appears a little abandon from the G36, may have been killing the neighbours too.

To be fair, the IPCC report does point this out and says that there was a lack of planing and also that the use of the Taser may have inflamed the situation. Certainly does when you repeatedly miss. But it doesn't seem strong enough in questioning the attitudes that lead to these decisions, comforting itself that the officers were correct in most of their actions. Though interestingly, they do go into detail about how difficult it is to remove a Glock pistol from its holster if you haven't been trained to do it.Apparently, an unknowing firearms officer took six minutes. Yet the IPCC think that a policeman opening fire because he fears his colleagues' pistol may be seized, is appropriate. Reading their report it seems plain that this isn't acceptable. It is dangerous and moronic to believe otherwise.

With policeman falling down stairs and trained firearms officers firing 8 times at close quarters, managing to hit the target twice, it would seem comedic but for the fact that these people are loosing off lethal lumps of lead.

Stay safe. Evening all.

Misunderstanding politics

When I was growing up, the general understanding appeared to be (certainly as I picked it up) that politicians ran the country. It was their job. They had to organise the big stuff and handle relations with other countries. I don't doubt that games were played, but not really out in the open. Today of course, politics is about politicians and running the country takes such a poor second place that (as we saw spectacularly under Blair) they make an absolute hash of it and not least that they are delighted to have someone else do it for them (the EU).

Even journals that believe themselves serious talk about politics solely in relation to personalities, personal point scoring and 'how things look'. It is all so much gloss that it seems they have all taken their lead from Hello!. Of course the popular opinion is that people are disengaged from politics because the politicians don't make it 'relevant'. Well, Labour increased taxes massively to pay for their bloated bureaucratic state, which I think is relevant to most people. No, the bit people don't care for is how politicians go about their business, which naturally is all politicians can think about. Also, whilst the last Conservative administration got us back to prosperity (and Brown kept the dream alive by incessant borrowing) people, as is the tradition, ignored politics as everything seemed to be working OK.

Now, once a lack of care from government has resulted in banks stuffing up and needing giant dollops of cash from their friends in Westminster, the attention of the people has refocused. But on what? Blair only ever wanted power and money, he didn't give a stuff for the business of government and nor did any of his cronies. They all lived in a bubble in which real jobs and real people didn't figure. The Conservatives, accepting Blair's view of them as nasty, decided they needed to change in order to be 'electable', by which they mean, be able to kid the people to vote for them. It is amazing that, after the most disastrous government in living memory, the new Conservatives couldn't even gain a majority of the vote (accepting the numerous corruptions introduced by Labour creating a client class etc). And why not? Because Cameron looked and sounded like Blair, and Clegg looked and sounded like both of them. What choice did we have, but to try to pick the least stupid.

Why, if there is a groundswell against this cosy Westminster bubble politics, didn't some other party come to prominence? For the simple reason that politics is now pretty well stitched up by the gang we have and that is also why they are melding into a single ideology. If I decide I want to be an MP and stand as a Conservative, basically the Party has to approve of me. And generally that means I support what they support and will do what I am told. Clearly this undermines democracy, but it is great for Party machines and that is the point. Your MP doesn't trot off to Parliament to represent you. He/she is a number, an element of a voting bloc. It has led to the near impossibility of a debate in that great debating house at Westminster, as all MP's must support their Party and the Opposition must disagree with the ruling Party as a matter of principle (and the good of the country can go hang).

There is a chance that this system would fall apart under its own inertia, except for the fact that most of the governing of Britain falls to the EU, an institution most of our politicians don't even pretend to understand. It has become vogue to talk of an 'heir to Blair' as if this terrible human being had started something. In fact Blair, as a corrupting influence, as a liar was preceded by Heath, who can really be seen as his mentor. This egotistical and useless Prime Minister signed away the sovereignty of this nation, an act of immense hubris bearing in mind he did not have the power to do this. Parliament runs the country for and at the express behest of the people. This temporary power is one way; we control them. But in modern times it has come to seem to politicians that they own the country and the people are there merely to support it. This of course is the Continental pattern, the Code Napoleon where everything is illegal unless the State deems it legal. Here of course, we used to have the very free system, one that works for the people, where everything is legal unless, by general consent it is made illegal.

So it is clear, not only must the power of the Party system in the UK be broken up but that we need to get away from the dangerous and enslaving regime of the EU. The structures, both, are not undemocratic they are anti-democratic. They cannot survive where the people have a say, evidenced by the need to keep repeating referendums until the people get the answer 'right'. The time for navel gazing is over.

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.