True heroes

A quick message to the heroic police officers who detained me at the airport today, under the Terrorism Act:

You are the most pathetic, small-cocked failures I have ever encountered. You are exactly the reason why so few people trust the police. You are a pair of utter, utter cunts, a disgrace to your uniform, and an embarrassment to the good officers within the force.

I really hope you are so proud of your work, your pathetic, ego-tripping work. You are liars, you contradicted yourself with your threats and then seemed unable to explain what you were doing. If I was a terrorist I would be delighted that luckless pricks like you are protecting our skies.

I can only deduce that useless, unpopular officers are palmed off to airport duties, because even other plods can't stand them.





fuck you.

For God's sake

What on earth is all this about?

Sikh victims of crime in London are to be given the option of asking for a police officer of their own faith to work on their case.

Palbinder Singh, chairman of the Metropolitan Police Sikh Association (MPSA) said: "It's about understanding and appreciating difference.

"I don't believe a white officer is ever going to be fully conversant with a Sikh for example."

Now what really annoys me about this bit, is that Mr Singh has failed to notice that 'Sikh' relates to a particular invisible magic sky-pixie (or is it multiple sky-pixies in Sikhism?) were as 'white' refers to the colour of someone's skin. Race does not equal religion, or vice versa. Or are victims allowed to specifically state that they want someone who believes in Sihk fairy-stories AND has brown skin? I dare Mr Singh to try that one...

Then of course there is the obvious, if a bit Daily-Maily, issue of role reversal. How do you think the MPSA react if a white victim complained that he/she didn't want their crime investigated by an Asian-looking officer with a funny turban? I am a staunch Pastafarian, would I be able to specify that a Pastafarian officer dealt with my crime? (I would be happy specifying that my crime would be dealt with at all, given the attitude of the modern police force)

I do think that there is a lot of benefit to be had from officers with specific cultural knowledge, which could be very handy given that certain 'cultures' like to force underage girls to marry their cousins, or kill women who dare to have sex before marriage (assuming they are cabable of having sex, if they've been lucky enough not to have their genitailia mutilated), but to go this far is just ridiculous.

The Met said the new service, which has been pioneered by the MPSA, could be extended to other minority groups in future.

Great.

No particular group should be pandered to, especially not by the police, and it saddens me that in 2009 people are still so keen to segregate themselves on religious grounds. I've not made any secret of my hatred of religion (not of religious people - of religion), and this kind of bullshit from the met does my head in, and I'm sure will just infuriate the majority of the population, and also piss off a few Sihks along the way. Nobody likes being patronised.

Now, maybe I'm being cynical here, but I wonder how big the Sihk vote is in London......

PS. Incidentally, from what little I know about Sihkism, I understand that it's one of the 'less bad' religions.

Crime is bad, mmmmmkay?

Unless you happen to be in the Metropolitan police that is.

This story has hardly been reported in the press, and I really am at a loss as to why.

One in three of the 3,533 officers who were issued with the corporate credit cards misued them and at one point £3.7million of public money was missing.

One in three! That's pretty impressive! But to be fair to the Met, they have taken action; 3 out of the 1177 officers whom committed credit card fraud have been prosecuted. Three.

That's quite some clear-up rate.

Maybe it goes some way to explaining why the met did absolutely nothing about the fraud committed by their buddies in parliament.

Throwing caution to the wind

Sorry about the lack of posts of late, I've been really really busy with work - a poor excuse I know, but there you go. (Contrary to the many condecending comments I have received on various police blogs, I do have a job)

Anyway, as most people are now aware, the police are big big fans of cautions; it is the easiest way to to chalk up a conviction, involves next to no work or troublesome evidence gathering etc.

Whilst they often dole these things out for nonsense crimes, they are using them more and more for nasty, violent crime. Crimes such as kicking your way into an old couples' home, smashing their place up, putting their windows through and threatening to 'put you in a wheelchair' for example.

I suppose it is a result in a way, as in many situations like this the police would just ignore it, fobbing the victims off with the usual "there's nothing we can (be asred to) do" line, but in this case poor plod was backed in to a corner and had to do something as the attackers left a trail of blood leading from the scene. They did still manage to trot out another favourite line - "we were only following orders".

“Two males were arrested and questioned as part of this investigation. Under Home Office guidelines that dictate what action can be taken under specific circumstances they were both cautioned for criminal damage."

Once again, justice was done and seen to be done. British style - 2009.

Whatever happened to the bleachy lads?

I was happily proved wrong when West Yorkshire Police (I actually hit a 't' there instead of the 'r' then - is there such thing as a Fruadian Typo?) arrested the perpetrators of a shocking bleach attack.

As I said, the hero police for once did their job and did it well, but all has gone silent with regards to the tough judges. The lad was due before Leeds Mags on the 7th of August, I expect the case to be passed up to the Crown Court, but I can't find ANY reports anywhere of what happened on the 7th or what has happened since.

Does anyone have any info on this case?

Lockerbie bomber released on 'compassionate' grounds

Well, it looks like he's about to be. Sorry for my language; but what the fuck is that about?

Standby for action!

Many people suffer from nuisance crimes such as vandalism. Many people are left waiting and frustrated when the police tell them there's nothing they can (be bothered) to do about it.

However I have a feeling an almighty investigation will be carried out by Greater Manchester Police, as Hazel Blears has had her tyres slashed.

This is of course the very same Hazel Blears who made a killing on the sale of her main/second home (depending on whether she is talking to the tax man or the fees office) and then appeared on telly waving a cheque around whilst overflowing with denial and faux apologies. (Incidentally, does anyone know what happened to that cheque? Did she actually send it and did HMRC accept it?)

So now we will see just what the police can do about nuisance crime. To be fair to the government though, I suppose they expect special treatment from the police, because what's the point in having a paramilitary wing if they don't look after you?

No poop Mr Holmes

Yet another report has found that victims of crime are let down by the Criminal Justice System, the Criminal Justice System that is heavily balanced in favour of criminals.

This report focusses on the third point of the justice triangle, the CPS.

It is well known that the CPS take a similar approach to the police, in that whilst the police concentrate their resources and efforts on easy prey who have 'committed' non-existent crimes to gain easy detections, the CPS charge as the lowest possible level to gain easy convictions.

I think I have been pretty clear with my opinions of the modern police ethos, but when you hear about such depressing charging decisions from the CPS, it becomes slightly more understandable why the police operate as they do.

Maybe I should change the name of the blog to Hero Police, Tough Judges, & Utterly Spineless Despicable Prosecutors...

/sarcasm

A genuine well done and doff of my hat to the police who have acted promptly and arrested the perpetrators of a dispicable bleach attack.

I admit I thought this was going to be yet another of the many serious crimes ignored by the police, but on this occasion the police have done what they are paid to do and what every law-abiding member of the public wants them to do: arrest criminals.

So good work by the police, now it's over to our learned betters at Leeds Magistrates' Court.

I give 3-1 on that both of them will walk out of the court (well they would, if they weren't appearing by video link). They might have some impressive sounding 'community orders' or other such nonsense, but 3-1 on that they will be out on the street ready to attack again.

Appalling, disgraceful, even unbelievable - but not unexpected.

This is such a tragic story of how all three emergency services refused to climb down a 15ft bank and rescue a man from 18in of water, that I'm not going to write anything more about it; lest I belittle the seriousness of it.

When is this kind of shit going to end?

It's not good to be back

Just back from a brilliant holiday, no internet or telly (through choice, not because I was on holiday in Cornwall or anything), or other such distractions. One of the first stories I read when I got back was this horrifying case with an absolutely staggering 'sentence'.

So much for an eye for an eye, with our judges living in some bizarre different world, we now have community service for an eye.

I really don't know what more to say, I would not wish this kind of thing on anyone; so I will not go as far as to say that I hope the attacker who walked free from the court does the same to the judge.

At least the CofE are embracing non-religious ideas

Off-topic, but I couldn't help notice the madness spreading.

Can't fault them, the Church of England have taken a very public-sector approach to their problems;

When everything is going to shit, you need more managers!

We often hear the police complaining (quite rightly so) that there are ever fewer police on the beat, but ever more senior managers in ever more ludicrusly invented roles. The same thing is constantly reported from those in the NHS; never enough medical practicioners, but plenty of managers, managing... erm, well not managing an awful lot really.

I remember when I was in the RAF, after one particularly large round of cutbacks, they got rid of a lot of us flightline monkeys (the guys who actually service the jets and get them off the ground), and created a load of nice cushy Wing Commander posts - great! That'll do the trick!

I've not quite seen so much of this since I've had proper jobs, so I'm sure the private sector's nowhere near as bad for this kind of caper as those organisations funded by the taxpayer.

It will be interesting to see if the church start hiring consultants on £1000 a day.

(Don't even get me started on consultants...)

Now then

Three cheers to the brave officers who effected this arrest, as the kind of character "threatening to cause criminal damage" could be quite a nasty piece of work.

Except when it's a father trying to have a 'protest picnic' with other parents after the council effectively tried to burst their kids' football.

I am not commenting on the council's rules and demands, that's a different issue, what I am commenting on, as the name of the blog implies is the actions of the police.

You often hear that the police aren't interested in clocking up easy arrests for nonsense crime, they want to help the community, blah blah blah, that it's just a myth that they'll always take the easiest 'detection' available etc, yet the simple fact remains that a sworn officer, granted the power of arrest, thought it was a good idea to arrest this man.

Nice work boys...

Prison doesn't work?

There's a few things that don't quite make sense about this story, especially to a mere pleb like me. Maybe my gracious betters in the judiciary could explain it...

Craig Chilman, one of Peterborough's most prolific house burglars has been allowed to walk free from court after a judge decided prison was doing little to prevent his offending.

Now I don't claim to be a legal expert, but I'm pretty sure that when he was in prison he was not burgling houses. However the judge said:

"He has a substantial record as a domestic burglar, and he shows every indication of continuing in that way (if he is sent straight to prison). The only legitimate alternative is a suspended sentence."

WTF? The judge feels that the guy is extremely likely to break in to more people's houses and yet he thinks it the best thing to do is let him walk straight out of his court, back on to the streets, and possibly in to your home?

Then of course we have the special world of Home Office maths;

In 2002 he was jailed for three years, he was given a four-year prison sentence in 2004 and then he was again locked up for three years in 2007.

Erm, hmmm, erm, hang on...

Individually, 2002 + 3 = 2005, 2004 + 4 = 2008, 2007 + 3 = 2010!.

Or even better 3 + 4 + 3 = 10, starting in 2002, yet it's only 2009 by my calendar.

Gotta love automatic early release!

Now m'learned friends will immediately jump up and down screaming "oh the guidelines, we're bound by the guidelines!" as to why they continually let this type of scum continue their careers, but as stated in this story, under the guidelines anyone convicted of three house burglaries should get no less than three years inside. So it seems that judges only follow guidelines if it means they can send nasty, recidivist, prolific criminals back out to make our lives a misery.

When this man reoffends, will the judge be held to account for the fact that his actions directly led to an innocent person's house being burgled? Nope!

I'm going to repeat this quote again, because it is so breathtakingly unbelievable, and perfectly illustrates how the judiciary fail to grasp that the entire premise of the CJS is to protect innocent members of the public from criminals.

a judge decided prison was doing little to prevent his offending.

If my house is ever burgled by a man (or woman) who is in prison, I will give them my car as well.

You can almost understand why the police don't bother any more...

Religion

Christianity. n; The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...

Right, cards on the table here. I hate religion. All religions. They have caused unimaginable harm throughout history, and they continue to do so. I do not respect anyone's religious views. Not one of them. If you chose to believe that Mohammed rode up to heaven on a winged horse, I will call you foolish for believing something so absurd. I will happily allow you to believe it; you can believe anything you want, but I will absolutely not respect it. I also despise the way religionists indoctrinate children. The very concept of 'faith', that is belief without evidence, is a dangerous one. Religion is divisive, it causes people to segregate themselves according to which fairy-story they believe in, or even according to which version of the same fairy-story. In many cases it teaches that people who don't believe in the same fairy-stories are inferior, unworthy, dirty, and even deserve to die.



Anyway, in the comments section of an earlier post, a police blogger known as 200 called me a bigot.

He called me a bigot because I was attacking the catholic church for being able to duck out of anti-discrimination rules and continue to discriminate against non-catholics and homosexuals. (Despite my objections to the cathloic hatred of homosexuals I was also branded homophobic)


I can only assume that 30 years in the police removes one's sense of irony.


The catholic church has so much to answer for; it is difficult to know where to begin. The masses of instances of child abuse maybe? Where the church not only turned a blind eye, it actively protected the perpetrators. Priests were having sex with young children and the church allowed it.

Or was that just a cheap shot at the catholics? What about the untold millions who have died of AIDS and other STDs as a direct result of the catholic stance against condoms. How much more morally abhorrent can you get than telling millions of people who believe your every word that condoms have tiny holes in them, and that it is a sin to use them?


Hmmm, how much morally abhorrent can you get than that? Perhaps the muslim leaders who caused the failure of the World Health Organisation's attempt to wipe out Polio could stake a claim. Yep, as I write this, the entire world could have been completely Polio free. But our friendly religionist nutters told people that the vaccine was a trick by the evil west to make muslims impotent, and that no muslim should take the two small drops of liquid. As the project hinged on getting everyone vaccinated in a very short time of each other so that the virus had no hosts, the entire project failed because of this. Polio is now rife again.

Nice work faith-heads.

Of course it isn't just koran-bashers who like to stand in the way of disease prevention. Yep, bible-bashers would rather see women die from cervical cancer than allow HPV vaccines to be given out, in case it causes girls to be more premiscuous. You can't make this shit up. Maybe we should create some more STDs, that'll put people of the horrible sinful act of sex, what do you reckon, bible-fans?


As I said earlier, 'faith' is a very dangerous thing. Muslim suicide bombers have 'faith' that they will live on in heaven with 72 virgins. They actually believe this.
Had it not been for religion, those guys would not have flown planes in to buildings on September 11th. There is no evidence at all that people live on in a magical world up in the clouds, yet these people had 'faith' in it. Now they are dead, along with thousands of innocent people.


Why do religionists think that their absurd beliefs should be respected? Why do they think that the rest of us should accept them? Why is it considered rude to question somebody's religious views, and point out how stupid they are? It is fine to question someone's political views, their taste in clothes, or anything like that, but when it comes to religion; views no matter how absurd, must be respected.

Not here they ain't.

Peace

200 was right!

Equality laws don't work! Taken from this little story; where a tourist attraction wants to hire someone to play a witch.

Note how I said someone, as opposed to a woman.

Due to sexual discrimination law, the job cannot demand that the post is filled by a woman.

Under sexual discrimination law, unless Wookey Hole can provide "documentary proof that the original witch was female it can't issue a gender-specific job description".

Brilliant!

Bible bashers

You may or may not be pleased to see that this post is a break from the normal themes, but this little article reignited my anger over this issue...

How on earth is this allowed to happen in this day and age? 'Equality' laws are applied to the extreme in most cases, often resulting in ridiculous cases like this, yet once again the god-squad are going to be allowed to openly discriminate against people who don't believe their stupid fairy-stories.

My missus is a teacher, and she cannot get a job in a catholic school (if she wanted one that is). Yep, in the UK, in 2009, a fully state funded organisation can legally say "we are not employing you because you don't believe in the same utter utter nonsense/religion as us". How on earth is this the case?

Arrrggghhh!

Courts defend crims - again

Well, the Ministry of Justice to be precise, but that's not very catchy.

They are refusing to release the names of escaped prisoners.

Yep, that's right, they won't let the public know which convicted criminals are on the run. Normally, these kind of absurd decisions are based on the Human Rights Act, but on this occasion it's the Data Protection Act. The very same DPA that allows the DVLA to flog your details to anyone with the cash. The very same DPA that allows ISP to monitor every packet of internet traffic on millions of people's broadband connections. (and let BT carry out a covert trial without telling ANYONE)

But I digress... What 'Data' needs protecting? We're not asking for bank details and copies of birth certificates. Even the police - hardly an organisation known or their public-spiritedness - sometimes give out the names of wanted people. So why do those in power go to such great lengths to protect the least deserving, whilst riding roughshod over the rest of us? What exactly do the MoJ hope to gain from this and other stupid policies?

The utter, utter contempt that such authorities hold the public in is just staggering. And it's us that pay their bloody wages too.....

A big well-done to the police.

This story's got everything! Lezzas, car crashes, domestic violence, PSD complaints, fraud, and er, donuts.

Normal service will be resumed shortly...

Great Britain - Champions of Europe!

At violent crime that is.

This is down to two things:

1) Complete apathy on the part of the police when it comes to dangerous criminals.

2) The near outright refusal of the courts to put these people behind bars, for long enough to give the rest of us a break.

I am not blaming the CJS for causing there to be so many violent, nasty people; quite how we seem to have bred (and imported) so many of them is a different matter. But the reasons above explain why so many aren’t forced to change their ways , ie stop attacking people.

Because of the first point, thugs know they can attack strangers with very, very little chance of getting caught. They are also encouraged by the police’s famed tactic of heavily pursuing victims who attempt to defend themselves, often instead of going after the attacker. The reasons for this are simple: The police know that many people (although now ever decreasing) still see the police as being on their side, and as a result of this will be completely honest with the police, thus implicating themselves to what ever crime plod wants to stick on. For example a decent bloke who is violently attacked but manages to defend himself, who then reports the matter to the police will be asked to say what happened,

Decent bloke “he jumped me from behind and punched me in the back of the head, then tried to steal my mobile”

Plod “Oh yeah, what did you do?”

DB “I managed to land a good punch on his nose, then he ran off”

Plod (with detection signs in his/her eyes) “You are under arrest for ABH etc etc etc”

As more and more people are treated like this by the police, more and more won’t report attacks as they fear being criminalised themselves.

The thugs know this. They know that an ever growing proportion of people will not report the matter to the police, or will not attempt to fight back.

Cases like this also involve an amount of work, which is why desk sergeants and call handlers do all they can to discourage victims reporting them. The top reason for plod’s aversion to dealing with such crimes is that they take time and may not result in desired detections. Why waste time locking muggers up, when you can dish out PNDs for SMS-based rows in minutes; the result is the same – a detection!

The fact that one career scrounger in a free council house getting PNDed is of no benefit to society whereas a violent thief being arrested clearly is, is of no importance whatsoever in modern policing. As far as the police are concerned, 10 nonsense detections for nonsense crimes are far far FAR better than one for a real crime, with real victims.

A detection is a detection is a detection.

All that said, I can sort of see why the majority of officers take that approach; because when they do actually put someone before a court, well, nothing happens.

Point 2) to follow….

Heatwave warning! (police) dogs die in hot cars!

This is absolutely bloody awful.

I've got a lot of respect for police dogs, they do a good job in difficult circumstances, and the vast majority are hard working and decent. So for two of them do die an agonising death of heat-stroke and dehydration is pretty grim.

I'm not even going to use this as an opportunity to slag off the police, but I hope the officer(s) involved are done for animal cruelty.

As an asside, legal minds, what would the courts dole out if the police brought them someone they'd arrested for smashing a car window to allow a dying dog to get some air? What about if it was a baby left inside a car?

Stay cool.

TERRORISM - Intimidating innocent people

Yep, the old bill are at it again.

Now obviously terrorism is a very serious matter, and the authorities should be doing as much as they can to combat it. So, what tactic do the police employ?

Targeting known places where people gather to listen to unbelievably hate-filled lunatics call for anyone who doesn't believe in the same fairy-story as them to be killed?

No.

They knock on people's doors, demanding to see passports, and other personal documents to prove ID and address.

Target people who call for the death and destruction of the country? Nope!
Demand that Mr Bobson proves he is Mr Bobson and lives at 32 Tatterly Street? Oh yeah!

Incidentally (although I'm sure the police don't really care about small details like this), how does Mr Bobson proving that he is Mr Bobson and does indeed live at 32 Tatterly Street imply that he's NOT a terrorist?

What is the penalty for not having ID within your own home (there are people who don't own a passport or driving licence you know. Hmmmm, maybe we best push through your ID card laws after all!), is it another Terrorism Act special like photographing a police officer, ie 10 years in jail?


Nice work boys, I feel safer already.

It's official: Driving at 113mph on a wet motorway is NOT dangerous!

Well that is good news, surely. Well actually, no, it isn't. Aside from the fact the driving at 113mph obviously IS pretty dangerous, the official ruling only applies to police officers (police officers who were not responding to an emergency of course).

To clarify my stance here, of course trained emergency services drivers should be permitted to exceed the arbitrary speed limits when responding to an emergency, if it's safe to do so.

This plod had been doing 120mph to get to an emergency. Fine, if it was my emergency, I'd want him to do exactly that.

He was then told over the radio that the emergency had been cancelled, but he continued to bomb along before totalling his Beemer.

The reason he kept going for so long at high speed in a non emergency situation? Was it;

a) He loved it and thought he could get away with it as he is a copper?

b) He was racing a Vaxhuall Corsa with a bodykit?

c) He needed to find somewhere safe to switch his blue lights off?

d) He thought better than his controller and wanted to get to the incident himself?


I am really having trouble understanding the answer to this, not only how a serving officer can bring himself to say such utter tripe, how even a defence solicitor can pretend to believe it, and how a judge can accept it!
The answer is lucky c).
During his trial he claimed his speed was appropriate for the weather conditions, and that he was trying to find a safe place to turn off his blue lights after being stood down from the emergency call.

Police drivers, how difficult is it to turn the fecking lights off?
If I am driving along the motorway and my boot flies open, is it acceptable for me to accelerate up to 113mph to find a safe place to stop?

Then there's the small matter of a judge overruling a jury, but that's a different story.......

Four years in jail for carrying a knife

Oh really?

Yes, just ONE person was sentenced to the full four year jail term. Of course, by "four years", what they actually mean is "two years" (automatic release scheme), which then with a one third reduction for a guilty plea (even if the guilty plea comes at the door of the court, after going not-guilty for months before, running up a huge legal-aid bill and forcing the police and CPS to build up a full case against you) becomes 16 months.

So, one person was given the maximum sentence of four years, which in this country means 16 months.

That's not really relevant though, as only 1 in 5 offenders caught with a knife went to jail anyway.

I don't know why people bother with knives anyway, because even if you're caught with a shooter, you've only got a 4-1 chance of heading behind bars.
My favourite part from this one is how the absolute minimum sentence for possessing a firearm is 5 years; the only way of not imposing it is for m'learned friend to deem that there are "exceptional circumstances".
Exceptional circumstances. Now to me (an uneducated oik), that means that the circumstances have to be exceptional for the judge not to sentence 5 years.

Our learned and wise friends found circumstances so exceptional that they gave less than absolute minimum in no less than half of all cases.

(Sarcasm free) Police; what do you want from us?

I will accept that my negative views of the police somewhat influenced my previous post on this subject, so I will have another attempt here.

It is clear to most, (or at least I would hope it's clear, senior police officers and politicians maybe too far detached) that large swathes of the decent, law-abiding public no longer have any faith or trust in the police. A lot of people, who not so long ago saw the police as on their side, and were reassured with the sight of the police, now view them with suspicion and even fear.

However, I accept that there are individual police officers who do not like the present situation, and they can't change it on their own. So, decent officers, if you would like to change things for the better, what would you like from the public to help you?

Note: when I say public I do not mean the genuine scum, I mean the good guys, hard-working, tax-paying, law-abiding, frustrated majority. (Is there a phrase available to describe such a group?)

Just like Michael

This is a blatant and shameless topic swipe from Bystander's blog, but as the story sounds very similar to one of mine (the story that sent me over the tipping point with regards to the police), and Bystander understandably enough doesn't want his post hijacked, I hope we can discuss it here.

My story, very briefly, is that I was glassed one night in a local pub.
After some excellent first-aid work by the barstaff, I spent the night in hospital. Upon release from hospital and turning my mobile on, I had a few texts from the staff saying that they had it all on CCTV, and they were happy to give statements to the police (as well as asking if I was OK of course!). Just before I got to the police station to report it, I got a new text from the barmaid who was working that morning; the perpetrator was in the pub for hair of the dog! So, I told the desk Sgt what had happened, showed her the fresh stitches in my head, told her that the CCTV was available, and that there were 4 sober and dozens of not completely sober witnesses. And of course, the small issue of the offender being sat in a pub 500 yards away right now. "Nothing we can do, sorry". "It's not really worth it" "we're really busy" etc etc etc et F c.

Anyway, I am hoping to hear the continuation of the discussions of Michael's story, so enough about me.

I hear you Michael, I know what you're saying.

Legal minds, please educate us.

(That is absolutely genuine, by the way. I really do like hearing from the judiciary and police, so please, say want you want)

Police: What do you want from us?

By us, I mean the honest, decent, hard working, law abiding, vast majority of the general public. You know, the group of society you refer to a "the underclass", "scum", "civilians", "MOPs" etc.

This is an honest question to all serving police officers.

What do you want from us?

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but from my dealings with the police, and from the anecdotal knowledge I have gained through the media and blogosphere (what a bloody awful phrase) it appears that the police want the following from us plebs:

• That we stop bothering you with daft and insignificant things like being burgled or mugged, or stupid minor stuff like having our cars broken in to.

• That we freely, openly, and respectfully accept that you are our betters.

• That every driver should automatically pay you £30 every time they start their engine.

• That we give you absolute catre blanch to use violence on whomever, whenever, you want. Any questioning of this should be met with a charge of treason.

• That it is our civic duty to accept a PND for whatever you decide to issue it for, in order for you to notch up sufficient detections that you get tea and medals at the lodge, and a promotion at the station.

• To wind our collective necks in, and not expect you to deal with real crime that might entail you leaving the station and going after nasty, dangerous criminals that make life a misery for us.

If I have missed anything, please let me know.

Say no more...

Now that's what I call product placement!

Compare and contrast

Last week, Inspector Knacker of the Yard announced that the Met police are finally to investigate some of the fraudulent expense claims made by MPs.

As I write this, precisely nothing has been done; no MPs have been arrested , no offices have been raided, no IT equipment seized, no nothing. This is also about a month after the Torygraph started exposing MPs' astonishing troughing.

Now contrast this with the Damien Green debacle, where the opposition MP was arrested after having his office raided by 6 Met coppers (without a warrant, of course).

Now of course Damien Green was not alleged to have stolen a fortune off of the taxpayer, he was alleged to have leaked documents to the press that were very embarrassing to the government. Much worse. Get in there plod!

If we compare the incredibly zealous and fast-acting police action taken against Green with the complete inaction of the Met with regards to the thieving cheating MPs, I think it paints a good picture of how the police view the taxpayer as opposed to their political masters.

What really worries me, is that the police can't see the difference in these two cases, or why the public were outraged with Green getting done-over by the Labour party's paramilitary wing, but were pissed off with the very same police 'service' happily turning a blind eye to MPs stealing from the public purse. The normally semi-sensible Inspector Gadget just couldn't get his head around it. In that post he boasts about how the police have heroically tackled that nasty Green, but up until the Met's announcement he and his fellow plods were absolutely adamant that no MPs should face action for their fraud.
Hmmmm, there must be a bit of work involved in those fraud investigations....

That worries me.

Dangerous motorist pays the price

I realise that this is an old story, but it's such a cracker I thought I'd mention it here.

The guy had no excuse, the law is the law, and until motorists like him are off the road none of us will be safe.

Hero police tackle dangerous thugs

Please have a gander at this video from the Grauniad of two 'women' getting arrested for the heinous crime of asking a policeman for his collar number.

I would particularly like to hear from serving officers; would you call this a proportionate use of force? Would you have deployed the taser if available? Is grabbing her by the throat to show her face to the camera an "approved home office technique"? Is four days in prison (before being released without charge) par for the course when asking an on-duty officer without visible ID for his/her collar number?

I know the police often have to deal with violent, drunken, drugged-up and downright dangerous people, and in which case force must be used, sometimes a lot of it. But here? Come on lads and lasses...

THIS is the kind of thing that causes people to lose trust, faith, and respect for the police. A coked-up thug kicking off at 2am? Go for it. Two hippy women pestering you for your number? Nah, sorry.

Well here it is...

As I always do absolutely whatever I'm told to by the police, when those great guys over at coppersblog said I should start my own blog, I did just that!

As I have such great faith in everything the police say, I was overjoyed when they said that my blog "would probably be tremendously successful"!

Excellent!