What Sort Of World Do We Live In?

It's a funny question I suppose, but one we'd all do well to keep asking ourselves.  Superficially we seem to live in a generally benign state where the government only wants what's best for us and most people are happy to accept that premise.  The government wants to help us and smooth life's difficulties with job-hunting, preventing homelessness, ensuring we eat our 5-a-day, lose weight, stop smoking and drinking, tide us over if we fall on hard times, cure us if we are ill and generally act as benefactor.  It says.

I've just caught up with this article which was published in Games Monitor while I was offline earlier this month.  It concerns security measures being taken for Olympics 2012 which include the construction of an 11 mile, 5,000 volt electric fence, topped  with 900 daylight & night vision surveillance cameras spaced at 55-yard  intervals.

"A new genre of military futurology has emerged which owes as much to  apocalyptic Hollywood movies as it does to the cold war tradition of  ‘scenario planning. Often outlandish and bizarre in its prophecies, and  always dystopian, this new military futurism sees threats to the western  way of life emanating not only from rogue states, weapons of mass  destruction and terrorism but also from resurgent nationalism, conflicts  over dwindling resources, migration, disease, organised crime, abrupt  climate change and the emergence of failed cities where social disorder is rife.

"Other security measures to be implemented for London 2012 will include facial and iris recognition, finger-print and hand recognition, guards with attack dogs and search dogs. New software is planned to integrate all of London's CCTV cameras, and will have the capability to follow you through the city. A scheme to search people and vehicles will include machines capable of looking through your clothing. The Air Force will deploy its Reaper pilot-less drone aircraft, which will carry laser-guided bombs and missiles including the Hellfire air-to-ground weapon. While on the Thames, the Royal Navy will deploy its new £1 billion Daring class Type 45 destroyer. These are also to be fitted with laser-guided missile systems able to shoot down a target the size of a cricket ball.

"The Olympic Act 2006, which sets out various laws relating to the Olympics, gives the right of forced entry into private property to remove unauthorised advertising or protest banners.  ... the right of forced entry is extended outside the police force to staff contracted to the ODA.

"... security measures for the London Olympics will include the nationwide use of Section 44 of the Terrorism Act, allowing police stop and search without suspicion. The London Olympics and its security does not exist in isolation but in a continuum of increasing state surveillance and security hysteria."

Take a look at this article too: The Police are considering the forcible chemical sedation of suspects.  "The Federation is currently undertaking work to formulate a strategy which we intend to lead to recognition and acceptance of excited delirious syndrome by the British medical profession."
Are you feeling safer yet or can you feel the noose tightening?  When has any government voluntarily relinquished power and control once gained?  Oh, grandma, what big teeth you have!

Cross-posted from Calling England

What Sort Of World Do We Live In?

Why People Don't Like The Police

Note this story in the Mail today:

"Many a miffed driver has received a fine in the post after being photographed breaking the speed limit. But one motorist has taken his dislike of speed cameras to the extreme by attaching a bomb to one in the dead of night and blowing it to pieces.

Police were today hunting the person who blew up a yellow roadside camera, leaving parts strewn across a road in Eastleigh, Hampshire. Residents living along the Bishopstoke Road were woken up by the sound of an explosion in the early hours of Christmas Eve."

Now, the police could have issued a statement just saying they were looking into it etc etc, and not make a massive deal out of it. Instead, we get this Armageddon-laced nonsense:

"This is totally irresponsible behaviour by whoever committed this offence. There could have been a potential risk to passers-by although this was minimised by the time of the incident.

There was a risk to the nearby petrol station and the attack could have had serious consequences."

You hear that, risk to passers-by, serious consequences - some pretty serious stuff, I think you'll agree. Except this particular incident is the epitome of not serious; the very definition of a victimless and, dare I say it, popular criminal act. What annoys people is seeing the police act in this over the top and fear-mongering way because they really, really want to stop people blowing up speed cameras; and then how casual and indifferent they appear to be when your TV gets nicked or an elderly relative gets mugged. In those cases, you get an incident number, a police visit is a rare thing, and you're just supposed to accept you've been bested by some oik in an Tesco tracksuit. What you need to do is point out that the stolen TV is likely being sold to pay for drugs, which funds poppy production in Afghanistan, which then funds terrorists. Then the police might do something about it, though history suggests they'll just arrest more tourists taking photos of bus stops and Starbucks shops...

Why People Don't Like The Police

ACPO Advises Breaking the Law

I have mentioned ACPO, the Association of Chief Police Officers, before. It is an organisation I believe should be disbanded, and its officers charged with corruption if there is a law general enough to cover their actions, exposed in the press otherwise.

ACPO is not a government body, a QUANGO or even a staff association or union. It is a company limited by guarantee, answerable only to its guarantors. I can only assume it is specifically permitted to leave out the term “Limited” in its name. This is usually required, and leaving it out masks the nature of ACPO.

Now ACPO is advising senior police officers to break the law and keep DNA samples despite a court ruling. Now I disapprove of the European Court of Human Rights. I also disapprove of large tracts of human rights legislation that conveys rights, having seen no case that these rights are inherent. However police of all people cannot just go around obeying only those laws they choose to obey.

Of course there are solid arguments against keeping DNA of innocent people on a database. Political argument (it is unpopular), theoretical science (a large database is arguably less useful) and experience (it has rarely if ever been used to solve serious crime) argue against keeping such a large database.

Anticipating that new legislation on DNA retention will come into force next year, a letter from ACPO states

“Until that time, the current retention policy on fingerprints and DNA remains unchanged.

Individuals who consider they fall within the ruling in the S and Marper case should await the full response to the ruling by the Government prior to seeking advice and/or action from the police service in order to address their personal issue on the matter.”

Why is an unaccountable body making policy? Why is it doing so in secret? On what authority does ACPO determine what any officer ‘should’ do? Why moreover is an independent body coercing the police to break a court judgement?

Cross posted from my blog.

ACPO Advises Breaking the Law

Once Upon A Time

in the West, charities would shake their collection tins at members of the public who could  choose whether to donate, or not, to the cause.  The charity would then use the money to the best of its ability, directly aiding the cause to which it was committed.  Nowadays, we're lucky if we can tell real charities from fake ones (those that receive taxpayer money via quangos, gongos and lobbyists - see 'useful links' in the sidebar).

Now we have a 'new' charity, Witness Confident, which intends to stage mock muggings in our streets in order to compile a set of statistics showing how the we react. 

The charity will provide guidance for people who witness street crime, and what they should do next. It will also work on projects such as attaching details of witness appeals to Google street maps.

Have we all gone stark-raving mad?  To my mind,Witness Confident is no charity at all; what's the betting it's yet another taxpayer-funded lobbying group with its hands in our pockets via government largesse, telling us what to do.  All these groups use our own money to devise ever more stupid ways to spend it so they can lecture and harry us into their culturally-conformed socially-engineered little corner of the world.  We don't need any more of them.

It was only a few weeks ago we had news of PCSO's climbing through open windows in people's homes to warn them of the dangers of burglary, and then there was a report of police officers getting into people's cars, taking whatever it was that was on display, and leaving a friendly little note telling them how stupid they were and where they could collect their property.  Leave Us Alone!

Once Upon A Time

Political Policing

A cross post from My Doubts.

The words ‘politics’ and ‘police’ have the same root, but they have drifted too far from the root and too close to each other. Polis meant a body of citizens or a city state, police protect them and politics represents them.

Now politics has moved away from that body of citizens, as have the police. I have previously made plain my disdain for the idea of hate crime. I don’t think motive should be important unless it mitigates the crime (for example self-defence). Setting apart certain groups as more important victims is not blind justice. Allowing the police and prosecutors to judge motive means they are automatically politicised.

In front of me is a case in point, in a copy of the Operational Directory for Sussex Police. Several parts of the ‘Hate Crimes’ section are politically controversial or likely to encourage misinterpretation.

On racism

“In its more subtle form it is as damaging as in its overt form”

What more subtle form? How does the officer know if he is seeing subtle racism or just inconsiderate and unthinking behaviour? Is an officer going to look to find subtle racism reading that advice? How about if he sees subtle racism when someone reports a crime by a non-white, so the police ignore the crime and go after the victim or witness? I would not have considered that 12 years ago, now it is easy to believe.

“The term ‘racist incident’ must be understood to include both crimes and non-crimes in policing terms. Both must be reported, recorded and investigated with equal commitment”

Why should a non-crime “in police terms” be investigated by police at all? Why should they be investigated when there are not enough resources to investigate all crimes? If they are investigated at all why should they receive equal commitment?

“Incidents where visiting international students are the victims of crime will normally be recorded as racist incidents”

Why? This only goes to show that the way police define hate crime has no rational basis.

So the official guidance from Sussex Police advises that police see the bogeyman of racism and hate wherever possible, and to investigate even if there was no crime. This is advice to harass people for their thoughts and opinions. This is, quite literally, Orwellian. Reporting, recording and investigation of opinion as if we have no freedom of conscience is making political issues an offence.

Update: I spoke to a friend with police connections. One of the main reasons for identifying crimes against foreign students as racist is so that the files are easy to find from a large number of police reports. Remember that next time you see hate-crime statistics. Many of those are for convenience of categorisation, they are not hate crimes at all.

Funny how I don’t see this as reducing the relevance of my post.

Political Policing

If You Tolerate This...

If You Tolerate This...

Dead... Alive... Dead

Another delightful story about how the police can't seem to do anything right:

"A man whose death was incorrectly reported by police in Northamptonshire has now died in hospital.

Simon Middleton, 38, of Irthlingborough, was injured in an incident at a birthday party at the Band Club in the town on Saturday.

He was taken to Kettering General Hospital following the incident.

Police reported on Monday morning he had died from his injuries, but later apologised and said they acted in good faith. But he died later on Monday.

A post-mortem examination will be held into Mr Middleton's death. Two men, arrested in connection with the incident, have been released on bail."

So this man's family has, presumably, had to deal with the awfulness of him dying, the hope from him still being alive, and the awfulness of him dying again. But the thing that worries me the most is the police's insistence that they 'acted in good faith'. Just what exactly does that mean? Surely it doesn't mean they were given incorrect information by a hospital or a doctor, because then they would just say they were given incorrect information. To me, 'acted in good' faith sounds suspiciously like 'had a guess, but we 'ain't doctors'.

Dead... Alive... Dead

Police Against the People

I wrote recently on my own 'blog about the incident of an amateur photographer being arrested under so-called anti-terrorism law, and note that the corruption of the legal system in Britain in the direction of that of East Germany under the Stasi is continuing apace.

That particular story was the lead front-page article in this week's Medway News (though, surprisingly, not online as far as I can find). The incident — which is already within the gaze of Kent Police Authority member Mark Reckless — has now been referred to the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

It is interesting to note how there appears to be no shortage of officials including police hanging around ready to pounce on some innocent person, whereas there is virtually never (if numerous reports are to be believed, and there is no obvious reason not to) even a single "bobby" available to deal with real crimes when they are reported. Instead, they might turn up days later and say that there's nothing they can do now.

It all gives the impression that this is a deliberate ploy to allow criminals free rein, and it will be difficult to materially change that widespread public perception. I have a feeling that, although they will try to make that change, their agenda overrides that need, so their behaviour will not change materially, if at all.

The police's case will not be helped by the revelation that they watch social networking sites to find excuses to kill off perfectly innocent events on some trumped-up "concern"-style excuse.

While, taken in isolation, one might be able to be persuaded of the "need" to shut down a small garden party — if there were nothing genuinely serious going on in the country — this operation comes across as way over the top. Notice the sheer level of resource poured into this action: four police cars, a riot van, and even a helicopter. One has to wonder at all the real crime that was unable to be dealt with because so much resource had been diverted to this event.

It is of course all part of the overall plan to make the public afraid of doing anything that the "authorities" don't like. In a manner of which the Blue Meanies would have been proud, they target the decent people of Britain and their perfectly legitimate lifestyles in favour of the Satanic agenda of their Common Purpose graduate chiefs and policymakers. No wonder there is a Pagan Police Association in this country, which even gets its members time off to practise withcraft…

All of it comes across as completely corrupt, completely evil (i.e. Satanic) and will need to be thoroughly cleaned out and rebuilt before the public-at-large can regain confidence in the police of this nation. The first step is to get rid of the evil that is the present Labour Government, as every journey begins with the first step and without that step no progress can ever be made.

Police Against the People

Where's The Accountability?

In response to a report in today's Telegraph citing how Ian McPherson, chief constable of Norfolk Police, had his stamp duty paid as part of £70,000 sweetener to tempt him to the job, Stephen Bett, chairman of Norfolk Police Authority, responded by sayng, "We are looking for people who can think outside the box, do what we want to be done, be accountable and provide the people of Norfolk with the best possible police force."

Now, putting aside the uber-bollocks* that is 'thinking outside the box' (a term I resolutely detest in much the same way I detest those that deploy it), can anyone tell me how Mr McPherson is in anyway accountable to the people of Norfolk? They didn't vote him in, nor can they vote him out. Residents cannot dictate what police priorities should be in their local area, nor can they have any say in the remuneration that is paid out to chief constables employed by their local force. Where's the accountability? Damned if I can see it.

It is now becoming clear that the upper echelons of the police force in the UK is slowly becoming a law unto itself, and the rising power of unaccountable organisations such as ACPO and APA has to be questioned directly. I was never too sure that the proposal from Tories such as Douglas Carswell, Daniel Hannan and Mark Reckless for locally elected 'sheriffs' would work in reality, but I am now starting to change my mind.

NB - The following FOI and response regarding Ian McPherson is worth a look

*Bollocks is not a swear word

Where's The Accountability?

Have Common Purpose Taken Control Of MPs Expenses Investigation?

When Cressida Dick stood accused of losing control of the situation on the day Jean Charles de Menezes was killed, many of us we thought this would be last we would hear of her. The whole controversy surrounding that fateful day when the Met Police actively engaged in shoot-to-kill policing is still nothing less than a national disgrace.

The fact that no-one has been found guilty or accepted responsibility is just another indictment of just how sick and diseased the forces of the state in this country have become.

For not only has Cressida Dick, a supposed Common Purpose graduate, not disappeared off the scene as one would have expected in days of yore, she has in fact been promoted to the position of assistant commissioner of the Met Police and is now on a salary of £180,000 a year.

But even better than that is the fact that, as part of taking over the role of assistant commissioner, Cressida Dick is also now in charge of the investigation into the MPs expenses scandal. Yes, that's right, a former trainee of Common Purpose, the shadowy charity that exhorts it's members to 'lead beyond authority', will be in charge of investigating our political elite who have spent far too many years at the trough, living it up at our expense.

I for one do not condone the actions of the Keens and the Conways of this world, for what they did was quite clearly morally wrong, if not legally. But, I do feel there is more to the expenses story than we are currently aware, and that the politicians themselves have unwittingly become pawns in the masterplan to undermine democracy in our country, and our status as a sovereign independent country.

Put it like this, if Common Purpose are following a very exact plan as indicated elsewhere on the internet, then who better to have investigating our MPs than one of their own?

The pieces are all starting to fit, and it'll be interesting watching how the investigation by assistant commissioner Dick proceeds. I have a few predictions but nothing I'm willing to commit to just yet, but it's worth pointing to the prominent role she played in the arrest of Damian Green.

Have Common Purpose Taken Control Of MPs Expenses Investigation?

West Yorkshire's Most Wanted!

Full story here. Really fills you full of confidence this one...

West Yorkshire's Most Wanted!