Now what on Earth is that supposed to mean?

Flippant, glib, disrespectful, self-serving and a sign of total denial. That's the only conclusion I can draw from Inspector Gadget's response to the news that the DPP has reconsidered the decision not to bring charges against Simon Harwood over the death of Ian Tomlinson. It simply reads:

Maybe, if we work at it, we can get PC Harwood charged with the Kennedy assassination.

It would appear that the Inspector does not agree with the decision to bring charges.

I can only guess why, as the Inpsector is unusually brief. Given his rather fatuous comment about the Kennedy assassination, I think I can safely put some words into his mouth.

The problem seems to be that a police officer who kills someone in the course of his duty should not, in Gadget's opinon, be subject to the same laws as the general population. This obviously gives a lie to the seventh Peelian principle:

Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

In other words, from his short posting, I can only draw the conclusion that Gadget believes that the laws the police enforce do not apply to them.

I can also only assume that Gadget feels it is also wrong that the affair was subject to an inquest, and that obviously the inquest returned an incorrect verdict of unlawful killing.

That's unlawful killing.

That's a police officer, on duty, taking the life of an innocent man, without any lawful grounds, a man who was walking away from him, apparently peaceful, nothing to do with the protest that was going on, indeed trying to get away from the protest.

Are we to suppose, Inspector, that you consider this inquest should not have gone ahead? Because I have a real problem with that.

I do not want to live in a country where the police can act without any fear of accountability, where they can kill people in the street without fear of consequence.

Gadget would no doubt point to the fact that Tomlinson had been drinking and was over the legal drink drive limit.

So? Does that mean he deserved to die?

Let's reverse the roles for a moment, shall we? Let us assume that  an individual shoved a policeman with significant enough force that the officer died. Let us assume that the officer who had died had just been walking the beat and had not been engaged in any controversial activity.

Would Inspector Gadget be so dismissive of an inquest verdict of unlawful killing? How would he react if a non-police blogger made a jibe about fitting the individual in question up with the murder of Keith Blakelock as well? Not well I'm assuming.

The Inspector will know well that in the public at large you get bad people and good people. Bad people will do bad things. Sometimes good people will make poor decisions. Sometimes people do things in the heat of the moment which are out of character, actions which they regret. Would the Inspector suggest that as this was out of character it is somehow unfair that they are called to account and held responsible for these actions?

PC Simon Harwood did a bad thing, one of the worst things someone can do. If Gadget would expect someone who does not wear uniform to stand trial for doing a bad thing, then he must surely expect someone who does wear uniform to stand trial? To suggest otherwise leads us down a road that finishes with scenes similar to those we have seen in Egypt, with a police force that is detested by the whole of society, not just those whose illegal activities mean they dislike the police.

I support Gadget's railings against the idiocy of those in management positions in the police, but I will temper it with the observation that I don't hear the Police Federation making much noise on the subject, an indicator of a lack of pressure being brought to bear by the membership, perhaps?

What I cannot agree with is Gadget's seeming inability to consider that anyone below the rank of Ch. Inspector is capable of any wrong doing. It does him and the police no favours at all.

Mixed feelings.

Things have been a little busy round these parts for the last few days, hence my silence recently. There are three stories which I'm having trouble getting a handle.

The first is the biggie, the death of Osama Bin Laden. Like Martin Luther King Jr said, I cannot celebrate anyone's death, even someone as evil (and that isn't a word I throw around lightly) as OBL. That being said, the world is undoubtedly a better place for his departure. In the long run, I'm not sure what effect his death will have. Al-Qaeda and the Taliban lot seem so fragmented that it has probably just been like cutting off the head of a hydra, there's plenty more.

The conspiracy theorists are out in force, but I don't buy it. I've never bought the idea that the Americans were somehow complicit in 9/11, and I don't believe this is a set-up. OH has a bit of photographic detective work over at his place, and no doubt the truthers, birthists and moon landing loons will seize upon it. I reckon the reason is that once the Navy SEALS had done their thing, there probably wasn't much of his face or head left, one story I will not support is the idea of US special forces firing just one kill shot when confronted with the biggest enemy they've had since Hitler. Uh-uh, I don't think so. Even the release of the video footage that Obama and pals were supposedly watching wouldn't suffice, it would be dismissed as CGI or something, the quality of footage would be too bad to make a judgement, or too good to be genuine. I guess you just can't please everybody.

For me, the most encouraging thing has been the 'Arab Spring', irrespective of the outcomes in Libya, Syria, Yemen and Bahrain, I think it shows that the population has had enough of this shit, and that will do more damage to extremism than all the coalition missiles and bullets could ever do. True change and freedom can only come from within, it cannot be imposed or gifted.

Then on to Ian Tomlinson, another case which I just can't get a grip on. I take no pleasure in the fact that a jury found PC Harwood had unlawfully killed the newspaper seller. It is reasonable to assume that if the CPS reconsider their decision not to press charges, and if the evidence in court is presented in a similar light, that a jury will return a guilty verdict in a manslaughter case.

In high profile cases involving the police, I naturally turn to Inspector Gadget, he is a man I have a great deal of respect for although I do not always agree with him. He rightly lambasts the managers in the police for their detachment from the front line and reality, their craven and self-serving target and political correctness driven style and general wrong headedness.

However he is, in my opinion, a little too quick on occasion to leap to the defence of rank and file officers who have done wrong. This is reflected on his comments regarding the Tomlinson verdict:

the man who was five times over the drink-drive limit with a diseased liver and a heart complaint who died after being pushed over by a police officer in London.

Well, he wasn't driving, so I don't see how his blood alcohol levels were relevant, unless he was acting in a disorderly fashion and in a manner which had resulted, or was likely to result, in a breach of the peace. He may well have had a diseased liver and a heart complaint. I don't see how that is relevant either. Had I, as a private citizen, pushed him to the ground, without provocation (despite Harwood's claims of fearing for his safety, it is obvious the jury did not accept that) and he had died, then I would be up on a manslaughter charge. His poor health would have been no mitigation. As a believer in the Peelian principles I hold by the phrase that the public are the police and the police are the public. The police are not seperate from us, they are part of us, and thus what is legal for me must be legal for them, and what is illegal for me must also be illegal for them.

The thing is this, these episodes, or to be more precise episodes not as severe as this, are becoming more and more common place. We hear regular stories of photographers being hassled when lawfully taking pictures, of buskers being arrested on suspicion of racism for singing an old 1970's hit record in seeming innocence, of crimes being left uninvestigated because the alleged perps belong to a minority group, kids being arrested for being in possession of an egg with intent to throw. All these actions are carried out by front line officers, some because they are instructed to do so, but by the same token also by some because that is the course of action they have chosen for themselves. It is not the Chief Supers and Borough Commanders out on the beat doing this, it is the PCs.

I despair, not because I'm anti-police, far from it, I work quite closely with the police from time to time and I understand very well that they do a bloody difficult job, under impossible management, with little thanks from above or the public, I envy them not one jot and as an organisation respect them a good deal. But there has to be an acceptance that whilst the number of officers are what still makes our police one of the model forces in the world, there are also a number who let the side down. It was ever thus.

What concerns me is a feeling of powelesness from the public when such an individual is encountered. I'm talking in generalities here, I don't know enough about Harwood as a man or as a police officer to pass any comment. Nor am I naive enough to believe that it would have prevented what happened from happening, but I do believe in cases such as these that directly elected police chiefs would provide an invaluable link between the public and their police.

Gadget would throw his hands up in alarm at this, citing the sort of people who live on 'the swamp' being allowed to elect their own police chief and the sort of person they would put in the job, but let us also remember that these same people have the opportunity to elect the people who make the laws the police enforce. Wherefore the burglary legalising MPs?

It wouldn't be a panacea, but I would submit that any police chief who ran a force/constabulary/borough where officers were off on diversity training instead of visiting burglary victims, and where officers take half an hour to assist in an event where someone is confronted with a group of knife and chainsaw toting ne'er do wells and then take away that person's means of self-defence, would find themselves out of a job PDQ.

And whilst we're on the subject of elections, I almost made my mind up for the local council ballot, I've a choice of candidates from the cast-iron Blue Labour party, LimpDims and Liebore, there's enough boxes on the paper to write 'l-i-a-r-s, a-l-l' or 'b-a-d p-e-o-p-l-e'. I can't make up my mind which, or I may draw my own box and mark it 'none of the above.'

The real decision is over the AV referendum. I was initially quite positive about the yes campaign, and attended the local meet of the yes campaign group. My ardour was cooled pretty quickly by the LimpDims and Watermelons (Greens) using it as a recruiting tool for their parties. It may surprise you to learn that I didn't see eye to eye with them. There were a couple of the 'The Queen is a Space Lizard' brigade with gently swivelling eyes and then the frustrated middle aged early retirees who found it absolutely vital that they were in charge because they knew best and needed to feel very important. I didn't go to the second meeting.

That being said, I think FPTP is grossly unfair, I'm not sure AV is much better, but I think it is a bit better. I've been turned off by the no campaign banging on about ill babies and limping kittens, but the constant high pitched whine from the LimpDims has turned me off from the yes campaign. Cameron wants me to vote no, so I'm minded to vote yes. Miliband wants me to vote yes, so I'm tempted to vote no.

Truth be told, I don't want AV. But nor do I want FPTP. I think I want FPTP less than I want AV, and I don't particularly want AV. Maybe I am naive, but perhaps if this referendum is carried, the genie will be out of the bottle. I'd like to think so, but I won't be holding my breath.

I think I'll mark my referendum ballot paper with a small 'x' in favour of yes. Small change is better than no change, I suppose.

What goes around comes around.

Lord Prescott criticises Met's handling of phone-hacking inquiry.

Courtesy of This Is London.

"I just don't trust the Metropolitan Police to conduct a proper inquiry," he said.

"I can't trust them to carry out a proper inquiry and that's why I asked the courts for a judicial review on the Metropolitan Police and the way they've conducted investigations."

You reap what you sow, John. This sort of thing was fine all the time your lot were holding the Commish's leash, but now the other lot have got their turn, all of a sudden a politically directed police force ain't so much fun, is it?

Did you really think that Cameron would allow the sniffer dogs to be set free whilst his comms bod was in the firing line? Would you have done it? No. Of course not.

Thing is, you had 13 years to make sure this sort of thing could never happen, but you embraced the concept of being able to call the shots over police actions completely, without hesitation and without reservation.

Tough shit.

You have the power.

It is important to know what you can do and what you can't. OH for example has run a couple of articles on this very point. I neither condone nor condemn Holby's suggestions for behaviour. Your rights are not conditional upon anything, written down, they are a simple statement of fact. How you use your rights is up to you.

Don't assume that people in 'authority' will always play by the spirit of the rules, if not the actual rules themselves. Whilst 'they' may not actually be breaking any rules, some people will attempt to use your ignorance of the rules to get the better of you, or by hiding things in plain sight to trip you up.

As Ambush Predator pointed out the other day:

She said: ‘We couldn't believe it and were annoyed that other people in our group got in. I would like to know what we can and can't do.

So go and find out then. No-one is going to tell you, you'll have to do some research and some reading, no biggie, just takes a little thought. It is in nobody's interests but yours, so don't expect anyone to take an interest other than you.

However it does not follow that people in authority WILL attempt to hoodwink you or bully you, but one should be aware of the potential. Always think before you act or speak, and as a general rule of thumb, if you're not sure, do and say nothing.

The Libertarian Party blog has posted up a notice from an acting police inspector about the fitwatch website. Now, I've little time for the students and their protest. Firstly because they are asking for money to be taken from people under threat of imprisonment to give them a material advantage over others. That sounds like extortion to me. Secondly, as soon as you start throwing objects at police officers any sympathy I do have vanishes.

The police often get it wrong, usually in the Senior Management suite, occasionally on the ground. I believe that when they get it wrong in the nice big leather chairs it is because they are self-serving, promotion chasing opportunists who neither understand nor care what is happening on the ground. When individual officers get it wrong on the ground it is in the main, I suspect, because there is no chance for them to keep on top of the endless parade of new legislation which makes little or no sense. To keep on top of it all would probably involve a police officer being in the classroom for a fortnight every month. There will of course be a number of people in the uniform who are completely unsuited to the job through attitude or aptitude.

However the vast majority of police officers you encounter will be trying to do their best in very trying circumstances with nowhere near the resources and support they need.

On this occasion, the police inspector has got it very wrong.

APPLICATION FOR CLOSURE OF A UK BASED DOMAIN NAME

Fitwatch.org.uk - IP 69.175.66.250

To whom it may concern at Singlehop

Op Malone

In connection with our criminal investigation into registration or use of the domain name set out in this letter, we hereby confirm that:
* The domain is being used to undertake criminal activities.
Attempting to Pervert the Course of Justice, contrary to Common Law
We hereby request Singlehop to de-host this website for a minimum period of 12 months. Please note that this request will be also sent to the domain name registrar for the website. You should provide the following contact phone number, email address and reference number to the registrant: 0207 230 8100 pceu@met.pnn.police.uk

REASON FOR CLOSURE 

This website are committing offences of attempting to pervert the Course of Justice under Common Law. The website is providing explicit advice to offenders following a major demonstration in Central London. The demonstration was marred by violence and several subjects have already been arrested with a major police operation underway to identify and arrest further offenders.

The person controlling these websites has posted material held to be contrary to Common Law within the UK. Therefore to prevent the domain names from being used in crime we request that the domain name is suspended for a minimum period of 12 months (or until expiry of the domain name if earlier).

This common law offence is committed where a person or persons:-
(a) acts or embarks upon a course of conduct
(b) which has a tendency to, and
(c) is intended to pervert,
(d) the course of public justice.
Registrant Information for fitwatch.org.uk
Registrant : [DELETED]

All other personal details withheld

Registered on : 17-Nov-2008

Authority to close the website and IP address given by
Will Hodgeson, Acting Detective Inspector
Metropolitan Police
CO11 Public Order Branch

Many Thanks in Advance

Yours faithfully

DI Paul Hoare
Police Central e-crime Unit (Computer Crime Unit)
SCD6 Economic & Specialist Crime Command,
Metropolitan Police.
1st floor, Indigo Block, Cobalt Square
1 South Lambeth Road,
London
SW8 1SU
0207 230 8100
pceu@met.pnn.police.uk

As Guthrum points out, there is no word for any magistrate, judge or court. I'm sorry, but in this country you cannot restrict peoples' freedom of expression on the word of an acting inspector, it just doesn't work like that.


But go back and actually read what the statement says. Go on, I'll wait. . .


Did you see it?

We hereby request Singlehop to de-host this website 

Request. There is no order, no command, no obligation. A request. But if you got that letter, would you see it that way? Unlikely. It is hidden in plain sight. I said the police officer got it very wrong. Well, not wrong, he's perfectly within his rights to ask the host of this site to take it down, but without an order from the court, the host is well within their rights to decline.

Not just in situations dealing with the police, but with every authority figure you come into contact with, every contract you sign, every time you agree to something, take the opportunity to consider what is going on and what has actually been said or written.

Don't assume that people you deal with have your best interests in mind, because likely as not, they don't.

Don't think 'Oh, but they wouldn't do that.' Because they would.

Look out for yourself, because nobody else will. If you are ever uncomfortable with a situation, say so and state that you will pause the situation until such time as you find out your rights and the truth. Power companies calling at your door to get you to switch providers are a good example of this. Don't get your rights from them, don't get their 'truth', find it out for yourself. For 99% of things to happen to you, you have to consent. So withold your consent until you are absolutely sure about the consequences and recourse available to you.

If you are unsure (and it is perhaps good practice even if you are sure), politely and calmly, yet firmly, challenge the person in front of you. Who are you? Where does your authority come from? From which Act of Parliament? What sanctions are available to 'them' if you do not comply? Where is this set out?

Don't be abrasive or smug, point out that you ask because you want to know, to understand. Anyone who is on the level will explain and provide evidence and/or will not object to a delay whilst you establish the facts.

Once they try to tighten the screw, to apply pressure, to hurry proceedings along, to give a garbled or over-complicated explanation, or fail to offer any explanation at all, then it is time for your alarm bells to ring. In the instance of a private company, show them the door, in the instance of the police, say nothing and make sure you get a solicitor who can answer your questions to your satisfaction (remember, the duty brief is not free, you've paid for them via your taxes), and never ever sign anything until you've had the chance to read and digest the document, even if it is only a mobile phone contract, and if the beneficiary is hovering over you to get it done, walk away, they're up to no good.

More of this please.

The best way of learning is through one's mistakes.

So when Saeed Khan, the man who, as far as I can make out, runs the only remaining branch of the Post Office in Kent not situated in a bastard WHSmith, was robbed in his shop, he considered the chain of events and wasn't about to make the mistake of being caught unprepared again.

So. . .

Saeed Khan, 62, was alone in his shop in Byron Road when a man armed with a knife entered and demanded money. 

Mr Khan said he had kept a hammer near the counter to protect himself after his shop was targeted last month.

He said: "I hit him on his arm, but then he tried to come closer so I raised the hammer again and that's when he ran off.

Fair play to Mr Khan. Mr Khan sounds like just the sort of chap we need more of in this country.

However. . .

Mr Khan, who has run the post office for 27 years, said he believed the same man was involved on both occasions.

So it would appear our robber has now learned a valuable lesson; don't try and turn over Saeed Khan's Post Office, because he'll hit you with a hammer, and that bloody hurts.

The outcome? Well, this may be a little shocking.

You think I'm going to tell you he's been nicked for twatting this cretin with a hammer, don't you? Well, he hasn't been. I doubt this is due to an outbreak of common sense at Gillingham CID, it is probably down to the fact that the robber has not come forward to make a complaint.

No, the outcome is actually quite predictable.

Det Insp Ann Lisseman said: "(Mr Khan) was very brave but I wouldn't advise that people make use of weapons nearby or try and physically challenge offenders." 

Now, if we had country where the Police (and I attach no blame to the rank and file here) actually arrived when asked and had a better than average chance of catching the little scrote, where protestations about being hit with a hammer whilst engaging in the act of robbing a Post Office being a flagrant breach of one's human rights would be dismissed with suitable alacrity, and where the judiciary had the latitude and disposition to lock these arseholes up in a proper prison for a term longer than the 50% handed down, then this would probably be decent advice.

My advice would be the opposite. Keep a hammer near, and if someone tries to turn your gaff over, go at him with said hammer like a kid with ADHD at a fairground whack-a-mole stall. Once someone tries to harm you and/or yours or to take you and yours stuff, all bets are off. You get what you deserve.

Mr. Khan, I salute you.

As an aside, and to highlight the wonderful stupidity of some of the criminals within our midst, a couple with whom Mrs. Wolfers and I are friendly with had cause to have a late supper at one of my city's numerous Indian restaurants recently. They were surprised when the old bill arrived during an unremarkable dinner service and thoroughly enjoyed the sideshow as two men sat a table nearby were arrested following the inspection of CCTV footage shot within the restaurant earlier that evening.

It transpired that the two gentlemen in question had entered the restaurant earlier that evening and had swiped the tips jar sat on the counter. No doubt having exchanged the contents of the jar for some drinks in one of the city's fine hostelries, they felt a little peckish and decided to go for a curry.

In the same place they'd turned over earlier, where they were instantly recognised by the staff.

/facepalm.

Still it continues.

Time and time and time and time again the message is sent out.

You cannot do this.

Time and time and time and time again this message is ignored.

Two stories today.

Firstly the NUJ report that a photographer has again, amazingly, been threatened with arrest by the Met Police for taking photos in public, and was made, quite unlawfully, to delete the images she had taken.

How many times do they have to be told? You cannot do this. It is illegal. If a police officer is incapable of acting within the law, then he/she should be sacked. Possibly prosecuted. It is the one message that ACPO send out which is actually correct and desirable.

It may be irksome, it may be inconvenient. But you cannot prevent people from taking photographs in a public area, or arbitrarily destroy the images that have been taken just because you don't like it.

This is not how the police in a civilised, free society act.

I support the police, but fuck me, they make it difficult to justify that support sometimes.

Stupid, thoughtless and unilateral acts like this do nothing but stir up resentment and mistrust.

And if it isn't the police, it's the local council.

If you or I were to break the law, we'd be arrested and probably locked up. Well, that's not true, if we put a brick through someone's window, or knocked a granny off her electric buggy we'd suffer no penalty at all. If we didn't pay our council tax or TV licence, then it would be land of the stripy sunshine.

Is anyone going to lose their job over this? Anyone going to be locked up for a shocking episode of overbearing surveillance?

The bloke on the front line might, but the chap who authorised the operation will probably get out unscathed.

Not good enough.

Actions like these are incitement to civil disobedience.

The One That Is Waiting For The Axe. . .

We all have to take our medicine, and it can taste bitter. Lord knows my medicine bottle is on the horizon, and I may yet have to take a drink. But I'll cross that bridge when and if I come to it. One thing is for sure, the axe will fall in my department, it only remains to be seen if my head is nicked off or not.

Being a public servant with a degree of concern over my job, and a Libertarian who absolutely believes that government is far too big, far too intrusive and far too expensive puts me in an invidious position. Sometimes I sound like the turkey voting for Christmas, knowing that the policy I support could result in my standing in the dole queue. But there you go.

So it is not without sympathy that I learn 75 public sector jobs are to be lost with the disbanding of the British Film Council. But I find myself asking the question, 'whilst the BFC may have had a hand in the production of some fine movies, is it really the place of the state to be making them?'

The arts is without doubt important, but it is also very divisive. Is it acceptable to throw large amounts of public cash at the opera or the ballet, despite the minority appeal? Many would say not. Is it more or less acceptable to do the same for a more popular entertainment medium?

I don't know how the BFC works, but I do know how the public sector works. Whilst films like Vera Drake and the Last King of Scotland were undoubted artistic successes, and I should imagine made a profit, would private investors want to be involved? There's a simple answer, it is yes. If there is a profit to be made of course private money can be attracted. But I'm betting that the bureacratic restraints that the public sector will always bring to the party scares off more private investors than it attracts. Thus it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy that films are hard to make without the help of the BFC, but the BFC makes it hard for people to make films. Sounds rather like the benefits system.

It is rather predictable when Tim Bevan, chairman of the Film Council says, 'Abolishing the most successful film support organisation the UK has ever had is a bad decision'. Well, he would say that, wouldn't he?

It is also rather predictable when the UCU lecturers' union warned that an expansion of the private sector would be a "disaster" and that the creation of a new private university was the "beginning of a slippery slope.

Note that there's no suggestion that any existing universities will be closed, but apparently, "Encouraging the growth of private providers and making it easier for them to call themselves universities would be a disaster for the UK's academic reputation. It would also represent a huge threat to academic freedom and standards."

Well, I hate to break it to you, but our academic reputation ain't what it was. We have people going into remedial classes when they start uni because they karnt rite proper, and when they do get a degree it is a BA in Eastenders or a BSc in Climate Change Management or somesuch guff. My experience of uni, where I did a perfectly useless journalism (sort of) degree was that the tutors were more interested in using us as guinea pigs for their PhD research and making us parrot their political dogma than actually delivering anything of worth. A private uni won't have that luxury. Fail to deliver a course in an acceptable manner and that is worth something, and pretty soon the university will be closed.

As for academic freedom, a bigger lot of rot it is hard to imagine. When has a centralised system ever resulted in freedom?

And finally to the boys in blue, their not at all political brass are complaining about elected commissioners. Sir Hugh Orde, president of the Association of Chief Police Officers[. . .] said Acpo would "need to examine in detail the government's proposals for maintaining operational independence against the practical reality of directly-elected police and crime commissioners".

Operational independence? Give me a break will you. Firstly, the police are not independent. Chief Constables have been effective political appointments for years now, as evidenced by the Sir Ian Blair mess. Secondly, the Home Sec says jump, you jump. Unless that is a new Home Sec says something you don't like, then you ignore it. So by independent, do you actually mean unaccountable? I think so.

Finally, the police should not be independent. They should be wholly dependent, dependent on the support and wishes of the community that they serve. If you aren't producing the results and performances that the public want, then too bloody right your arse should be shipped out.

I refer you to the Peelian Principles:

The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon the public approval of police actions.

That does not mean impounding kids toys such as happened at the Kingsnorth power station protest.

That does not mean beating a man sufficiently to kill him, such as happened with Ian Tomlinson.

That does not mean demanding innocent people delete photographs such as happens time and time again.

Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

You are entirely dependent upon us. You would do well to remember it.

Any candidate Commish who promotes such a simple, clear and effective policy will get my vote in a heartbeat.

The One That Is Touching On A Couple Of Points. . .

My break continues apace. . .

Errrrm. . .

Right.

OK, a couple of little things that have grabbed my attention over the last few days, all completely unconnected.

Firstly, regarding our (hopefully) soon to be erstwhile Prime Minister.

Grumpy Old Twat has a graph which makes interesting reading. It is entitled 'worrying', and here it is in all its glory:


If that graph follows the trajectories shown thus far, then it would seem that come election o'clock that Broon and Cameroid will not have a (banned in enclosed public spaces) fag paper between them.

Good.

Whilst the instant gratification of seeing loads of Labour MPs getting the gooner would be nice, I think the longer term benefits of seeing an immasculated hung parliament will be better. What we need to do now, I believe, is just stop, let the willy waving pass and then see what is left of the detritus can actually acheive when they have no option but to actually, properly engage with other people.

Of course, things still don't go well for Brown, so I think the graph above says more about people's uncertainty surrounding the plastic man in charge of the Tories than it does about any resurgent support for Brown.

This bullying story simply won't go away. I'm not surprised that Brown appears to be a bully, Rawnsley certainly seems to think so, and Raedwald hits the nail squarely on the head when he says that if it isn't true, then Brown needs to back up his claims of lies with action in the court. I'm not convinced he can, because in my opinion, it is probably true.

Again, this is not a comment on Brown individually, but in order to get to be the leader of a large political party you have to be willing to tread on toes, willing to smear and willing to be not very nice at all. Unfortunately for Brown, he comes across as being charmless and graceless, so this makes it all the easier to believe.

On a different tack completely, one of the less reported, but most revealing stories of the last few days has been the storm about young teenagers/old children being taught to drive.

The immediate response when reading the headline is that idiot parents are taking their progeny out on public roads before their 17th birthdays. But they're not. These are kids being taught on private land and closed tracks.

So where's the problem?

The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents has warned the courses could make youngsters over confident and more likely to crash.

Well, that's fine. I'll quite accept the position. I don't accept the argument, but RoSPA urge caution when unwrapping a kit-kat, lest the tin foil you hold find its way into a plug socket which you have carelessly left turned on and with no safety child plug in. That's what RoSPA do, it's their job, although so scared are they about everything that I'm surprised they don't all work from bed via telepathy to remove any risk from the day at all. (Hang on, what about bed sores?)

Indeed, let's hope these kids do crash on the closed course, without injury and learn that over confidence is not an aid to driving. The reverse is also true, when learning on public roads, having never sat behind the wheel the problem of timidity and nerves also appears.

I remeber my first time and was not comfortable. You realise that as well as keeping an eye on what you are doing, you must keep an eye out on all the other drivers, cyclists, pedestrians etc. You encounter other drivers who don't care about the large red L on the rear of the car you drive. You get pressured, tailgated, flashed at, it isn't nice. You wouldn't teach a kid how to make boiled egg in one of Gordon Ramsay's restaurants during dinner service, would you?

More illustrating is the quote from the Police Federation of England and Wales.

It's a good-un.

Driving on one of these courses at 11 years old, it's another six years until you can get a driving licence. How does it replicate the real world, the spontaneous incidents?

Well, it doesn't. But then that's not the point, is it? That's like asking how a child's toy kitchen set replicates chip pan fires. It gives the child an understanding of the mechanics of the situation and I should imagine is a good way of improving physical multi-tasking, spacial awareness and hand-eye co-ordination.

But. . .

Are kids mature enough at 11, 12, 13 years old to understand what's happening on the roads, to be able to manage all the demands and pressures?

No, they're not, that's why it isn't done on public roads, but on private, closed courses. That is why a driving licence cannot be obtained until one's 17th birthday. Do you see? Your point is perfectly irrelevant.

The real issue here is that people aren't breaking the law, but are only one step removed from breaking it. Some police officers would just love to wade in and nick them anyway, others just think that as the police are now so politicised that they need to act like politicians (shouldn't) act and tell us what to do.

Uh-huh, WE tell YOU what to do. We make the laws through our elected reps. We pay you to enforce those laws. We do not pay you to enforce laws you want to and ignore those you don't. We do not pay you to make up laws on the spot. We certainly do not pay you to preach to us about what should and should not be allowed.

Wind your bloody necks in.

The One That Is Ordering A Really Huge Bucket Of Popcorn. . .

Six MPs and peers may soon face criminal charges of fraud following investigations by Scotland Yard into the abuse of the Parliamentary expenses system.

The Daily Telegraph understands that detectives will imminently pass files on Labour MPs Elliot Morley, David Chaytor and Jim Devine, and peers Baroness Uddin, Lord Hanningfield and Lord Clarke of Hampstead to the Crown Prosecution Service.

Ho ho ho, I think I may even order up a platter of nachos covered with that cheese. Y'know, the stuff that is that yellowy orange colour you don't find in nature.

Keir Starmer, the country’s top prosecutor, is expected to make a decision on whether to prosecute the politicians as early as January, before a General Election.

And listen to the high pitched whine if any prosecution does come before the GE. Wait for the explanation about how it would interfere with the big three's divine right to be elected. Justice must play second fiddle to these arseholes and their desires to rule over us. The other argument will be about how the cost of these trials dwarves the amount of money trousered, and that it was a mistake. It being a mistake is a defence that has to be accepted. But only if you are an MP or a Peer of the Realm, if you're a little person, you're going down.

That's not all justice has to play second fiddle to. . .

The most serious suspected frauds are considered to be those of Mr Morley and Mr Chaytor who both claimed thousands of pounds for “phantom” mortgages that they had already paid off. . .

. . . Mr Morley said: “I have always made it clear that I am not guilty of any offence and that I am very happy to co-operate with the police, and the parliamentary authorities and procedures. I have been advised not to comment on press reports particularly when they are based more on speculation than fact.”

Yep, that's Labour all over. 'I have declared I am not guilty, therefore it is so.' Sorry fatboy, if we get our day in court, that'll be for the jury to decide, and given the rep of MPs in general and you in particular, I don't fancy your chances old chap. Just think about all that DNA on registers, all those CRB checks for you to get a job once you get out.

In May, HMRC wrote to all MPs asking if they wished to come forward and make voluntary payments.

I'm betting I know how many decided they did want to make voluntary payments. Somewhere between sod all and naff all.

The authorities said last night they had opened formal inquiries into 27 MPs.

Looks like the CPS and the revenue men could be giving us all a belated Xmas present. You see, that's the thing, all those civil servants and police officers who have had their jobs made more difficult by your constant tinkering, who have seen budgets for proper work cut whilst more and more social cohesion diversity outreach citizen focus equality officers have been put on the strength, they are all little people too, they hate you as well and now they have an opportunity to kick you where it hurts.

Payback's a bitch.

The One That Finds It All Too Easy To Believe. . .

It’s laughable really.

I know it is ACPO, so normality doesn’t really apply in their bizarre little world, but really, do police officers absolutely need a 93 page, two volume manual on how to ride a push-bike?

The TaxPayers’ Alliance call it:

an absurd waste of police time and thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money.

Which seems fair enough to me.

Has this come about because rank and file police officers are incapable of riding a bike? If so then I would submit that they’re probably not safe to be let out of the house, or is it that ACPO think that rank and file police officers are incapable of riding a bike without step-by-step, idiot proof instructions from them?

I reckon it is the latter, and unfortunately it explains a great deal about ACPO and our police service.

The One That Is Saying 'Enough. Stop Now'. . .

It really does beggar belief. I can think of no pithy or salient introduction to this absolute arsewater, so let's just jump straight in, shall we?

Police have been urged to avoid using greetings such as "evening" and "afternoon", because the words are "somewhat subjective" and could cause confusion among those from different cultural backgrounds.

It's the Muslims, must be, they don't have afternoons, not proper afternoons like Christian people, their's are probably different. And because Senior Police are so consumed with the feeling that we aren't all just members of the public, this imaginary afternoon problem must be stamped out.

A spokesman added: "Terms such as 'afternoon' and 'evening' are somewhat subjective in meaning and can vary according to a person's culture or nationality. In many cultures the term evening is linked to time of day when people have their main meal of the day.

"In some countries including the UK, the evening meal time is traditionally thought of as being around 5-7pm but this might be different say for a family say from America who might have their main meal earlier and thus for them 'evening ' may be an earlier time.

This is just an avoidance of the old dinner/tea debate, isn't it?

'Hello? Is that the IPCC? This un-PC came around my gaff and accused me of having my tea, at dinner time, he thought I was common. I'm incredibly offended, I demand a five figure sum in compensation and that the officer be cast into a dark pit.'

That seems a little unlikely to me.

Confusingly, staff are also barred from using the word "homosexual", for which they are instructed to use the term "gay", while they are warned against using the phrase "straight", and told to say "heterosexual".

Right, well, that makes perfect sense then. I'm not gay and have no strong feelings on the gay/homosexual word debate, I understand that queer and poof are not well thought of, so that seems fair enough. Being straight (deep offended intake of breath) I don't particularly care if I'm referred to as straight, heterosexual or even just hetero. I was even called a 'Breeder' once, I think it was supposed to be perjorative, not that it bothered me.

I'm not a breeder, by the way, I'm a civil servant. Perhaps there's money in breeding? Perhaps I could do that instead?

Anyhow, let's think of the chiiiiiiiiiildren:

A number of organisations, among them Essex Police and Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service, now instruct staff to avoid the phrases "child, youth or youngster".

The 52-page guide used by both organisations states that such phrases could have "connotations of inexperience, impetuosity, and unreliability or even dishonesty". It also states that addressing someone as "boy" or "girl" "may cause offence". Instead, officers and firemen are instructed to use the phrase "young people".

Well now hang on a moment, if you call the nearly dead 'old people' the indignant whining from the Righteous reaches such a pitch that dolphins start knocking on their front doors asking them to leave it out as it's giving them a headache. Surely this should be 'younger people'?

Now I really am offended.

London Fire Brigade instructs its staff not to use the terms "businessmen" or "housewives", because it says they "reinforce outdated stereotypes".

Does that mean that a married woman who raises the kids is an outdated stereotype? What about all those men who wear those off the peg suits and sit on the train into London everyday, on their way to an office where they do God knows what, but the end result seems to be a paunch, baldness, stomach ulcers and an aneurism? Are all they outdated stereotypes as well?

This, people of non-judgemental, all perfectly equal gender is what happens when you have a phalanx of equality and diversity officers.

Mrs. Snowolf has responsibility for the disability stuff at her place of work, most of it goes right over my head, the legislation seems to be complicated in the extreme, but given the phone calls she gets from other places for her advice, she seems quite good at it.

She writes the policy, makes sure it is applied and then puts the policy on the shelf. Once in a while, the policy is reviewed to make sure it is still current. Simple. If you employ Equality and Diversity Officers once all this stuff is done, they're left with nothing to do, so they have to dream up enemies, slights and struggles to be fought.

It's all bullshit, no-one is going to be offended because a Police officer rolls up at 1720 and says good evening, when you consider the evening to start at 1730.

Why not spend money on fighting crime and fires rather than agonising over what part of the day it is?

Give me strength. . .

The One That Knows He Has Nothing To Fear. . .

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I have no beef with the police in general. To re-iterate, I know more than more fair share of police officers and in the main they are people I trust implicitly and I have an almost boundless respect for people who do a difficult job in the face of local and national management that frustrates the hell out of them on a daily basis, and a public which are becoming more hostile and mistrusting as each day passing.

The latter issue is connected very much to the first issue and is then amplified by the actions of officers who simply are not equipped emotionally or have the intelligence to do the job.

My protestations of support become increasingly untenable in the face of reports such as this:

When trainspotter Stephen White noticed some interesting engines, he wasted no time in taking pictures of them for his collection.

It was the start of a bizarre sequence of events involving midnight phone calls, police raids and even, it is claimed, suspected terrorism.

Really, how many more times do we have to go through this ridiculous charade? Yes, I will accept that a Murco oil depot would go bang in a very entertaining fashion and thus could be a target for a terrorist attack.

But, firstly, terrorists like to spread terror. Bombs going off in city centres cause more of a scare than a big bang at Milford Haven. Have no doubt that it would be an enormous bang, I imagine people in Bristol would hear it and say 'what the fuck was that', but it wouldn't create a great deal of terror.

Secondly, how shit a terrorist would you have to be, to be seen on a recce taking photos of a train. You'd be much better off hijacking one of the tankers and setting it up as it sat on the berth. It just doesn't stack up.

Stupid, stupid, stupid. Just use your heads, will you? Because if you don't we'll start living in a country where a ten year old girl will be handcuffed and locked in a cell for six hours.

The father of a 10-year-old girl who was arrested, handcuffed and locked in a cell for almost six hours has criticised police for being 'heavy-handed'.

Shannon Blake was apprehended by police and taken to a police station in the back of a van after she slapped a man who shouted at her in a park.

She then went through the ordeal of having a mug shot and finger-prints taken before she was locked in a tiny cell with just a bucket for a toilet.

Yeah, nice.

I will criticise the father who should have taught his daughter that you don't go up to a strange dog and start petting it, as you know nothing about the dog and what its reaction is likely to be. Ask the owner first, kids.

But really, is this treatment proportionate to the offence? Must every little infraction be treated in this fashion? Would the CPS run with it? Would most Magistrates approach this case with a feeling of enthusiasm? Or would they just say; 'get out of my courtroom, stop wasting my time, and you, young lady, bloody behave yourself'?

Would it not be best in a case such as this to escort the young lady home and explain to her parents that something untoward had happened? I'm not suggesting that we should return to the days of the policeman fetching the kid a clip around the ear, as recent evidence (see G20 protest) suggests that the track record ain't great. There has to be an application of what was once called 'common sense' but is now unfortunately 'rare sense'.

I despair. . .

The One That Wonders What Happens When The Police Break The Law. . .

An 84-year-old activist questioned under the Terrorism Act while wearing an anti-Tony Blair T-shirt believes the powers are "persecuting innocents".

Well, yes. Difficult to pick fault with anything the old boy says there.

John Catt, from Sussex, was protesting outside Brighton's Labour Party Conference in 2005 when he was stopped and searched under the 2000 act.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission found his arrest unlawful.

So, the IPCC said his arrest was unlawful, Sussex police's reaction?

The officer "believed in good faith that the stop and search was authorised by law".

Well, that's as maybe. Firstly, he was wrong. Secondly, where was the injury? Was anyone damaged, was anyone out of pocket, did anyone have property destroyed? No. Quite simply there was no need to make this arrest.

Isolated incident?

He was also put on the PNC with an 'of interest' marker. He was subsequently pulled over by an anti-terror unit on a trip to London when his car pinged on ANPR.

Isolated incident?

I posted the video the other day of the poor old boy being ejected from the Labour Party conference and getting similar treatment when he attempted to re-enter the building.

Isolated incident?

Alex Turner was arrested by Kent Police for being 'too tall' by all accounts (Cheers, OH).

Isolated incident?

A man was detained for taking a photograph of a police car.

Isolated incident?

Police confiscate crayons and toys at the Kingsnorth protest.

Isolated incident?

How many isolated incidents can we have before they cease to become isolated? I hate browbeating the police. I like them. I know more than my fair share of police officers, and those that I know would surprise me a great deal if they proved themselves to be anything but sensible, level-headed, committed individuals who want nothing beyond locking up bad guys.

Is it down to the target culture? Is it down to the politicisation of the senior ranks? Is it down to a small, but ever growing number of over zealous officers who want to exercise a feeling of power?

One thing that is clear, as these episodes increase and become more widely reported (the original article at the start of this posting is a lead story on the BBC down here this evening) trust in the police will erode. As trust erodes, more police officers will feel resentful, if not threatened. As that resent and threatened feeling expands, more people will be stopped, harrassed and slapped back into line, to prevent any action against the police on the street, and the erosion of trust is accelerated.

It must stop, and I'm afraid blood must be let. The officer that made the illegal arrest must lose his job. If he acts like that because an old man is wearing a T-shirt, will he taser a man for doing 10mph over the limit? Will he wrap his asp around the head of a shoplifter? Sorry, he has demonstrated he cannot be trusted with the authority given to him by US.

Senior officers must be called to account. It happens once, the Chief Constable gets a wrap on the knuckles and is told to make it clear this is not acceptable. It happens a second time, the C.C. finds his force subject to a review of all arrests under the Terrorism Act. It happends a third time, the sack. No pay-off. Gone. Take out the Inspector, Chief Inspector and Super if you have to. This ridiculous and insulting policing is just as bad as the old bent copper scenario. This is not why we have them.

The One That Says 'Just Stop It, Will You?'. . .

Another day, another senior policeman (retired) trying to make the law rather than enforcing it.

The government should review the Contempt of Court Act, the UK's former top anti-terror police officer says.

Peter Clarke said the law, designed to ensure fair trials by limiting reporting of cases, made it harder for anti-terrorism police to do their jobs.

When the police arrest someone in controversial circumstances, he wants them to be able to shout in the media about what they had done, why they had done it, and that these people are terrible terrorists.

No, Paul. That is what the court room is for. In the court room, the suspect (and do try and remember that in this country it is still, by and large, innocent until proven guilty. I know you HATE it.) can refute the allegations and defend themselves. The suspect will not be able to hold his/her own press conference to do this, on account of them sitting in a locked room with a little blue plastic matress.

That is not fair. Fairness is very important, Paul. Even if they are bang to rights, they still have the right to a fair trial. To do away with that will make us no better than Iran or Myanmar.

Perhaps you see yourself as Judge Dredd? Perhaps you would like to be able to pass judgement yourself, on the street? Then you can tell the media that you proved he was a terrorist and passed sentence as appropriate, but can't give details for security purposes.

Perhaps we can change some more laws to make your job easier?

- Removal of a right to representation? Those defence barristers are a shower, aren't they? They stand up in court and say you're telling porkies, or have got it wrong. If you did away with them, then your job would be much easier.

- Removal of the right to trial by jury? We're getting there already. Bugger Magna Carta, sometimes a jury makes the 'wrong' decision. That has to be a pain in the arse.

- Removal of the right to mounting a defence? If the nasty terrorist wasn't allowed to refute the accusations made, or contest the evidence presented, then it would save an awful lot of police and court time, wouldn't it? Of course, if you did that then you could work on . . .

- Removal of the necessity of presenting evidence? I mean, you are a senior policeman. People should just be quiet and do what you say, your word obviously should be law. You're hardly likely to use duff evidence, are you? No, it would be much better all round if you just led the accused into the dock and said 'Your Honour, he's a terrorist, we can prove it, but don't see the point in wasting everyone's time by showing that evidence, we'll just take him out back and shoot him, then we can all have an early lunch. That OK?'

Once you remove even the thinnest slice of a right to a fair trial, all the above could follow suit as easy as could be.

I don't trust you Paul. Wittering on to the press about this, that and the other won't change that. I want the courts to be robust and to follow a set procedure that has served us well enough over the years. It offers me protection against nasty people. Sometimes those nasty people wear uniform and carry warrant cards. The courts and the rule of law have primacy over you. I'll set it out in simple terms.

The law is made my MP's elected by us.

This means the law is made by us.

The Police are there to enforce the law made by us.

The Police are in this position because the law sets out the need for and responsibilities of the police.

As we make the law, the police are there because we want them to be.

Do you see, Paul? We employ you to do our bidding. We employ the MPs to do our bidding. We do not employ the MP's to do your bidding. We do not employ you to do your bidding.

Another new law has presented itself to me:

Senior Policemen who make bloody stupid comments to be deposited in North Korea with proscribed material on their person, so they can experience first hand the police state they seem so keen to introduce.

The One That Thinks Their Toy Should Be Taken Away. . .

Buried away in the dark recesses of Pravda online is this:

Police stopped and searched three times as many people under anti-terrorism powers in 2007/8 compared to the year before, Home Office figures reveal.

Hmmm, OK. But that doesn't really tell us much does it? One person could have been stopped in the previous year, and three this year would mean, well, I don't have to spell it out, I'm sure you can do the maths.

Some 124,687 stops and searches were conducted in England and Wales under anti-terror laws.

Right, so that means the equivalent of the whole city of Gloucester was stopped and searched. Bloody hell. It's a dangerous place out there, that's a lot of people looking like terrorists, isn't it?

Almost 90% of searches took place in London, the statistics reveal.

Well, now there's a surprise. Given the almost hysterical reaction from the PCSOs in Westminster on OH's little walk last November, I'm surprised it wasn't 99.9% of people. Still, they must have had good reason. I bet they stopped some terrorists.

Didn't they?

73 - 0.058% - ended in arrests for terror offences.

You see, it was. . . WHAT? Seventy pissing three? Out of almost 125,000 people? Christ on a fucking bike with a bell, basket and playing card stuck in the spokes. 73? Are they taking the piss?

Following anti-terrorism searches, some 1,198 people were arrested for other reasons.

Right. So in a total of 124,687 stops, 1271 people, that's 1.01%, had been sufficiently criminal or stupid to get nicked. Let's face it, you can get nicked for anything these days. And they only managed to scuff a gnat's chuff over 1% of the people they stopped?

This isn't anti-terror policing, this is making a bloody nusiance of yourself. A charter for people to be a pain in the bloody arse.

What isn't clear from this report is how many of the 73 arrested under anti-terror legislation* were charged, and then how many were convicted. I'd love to know. Has 12 months of invasive, heavy-handed nosiness lead to anyone appearing in court?

Bloody hell. Surely, surely, there's better things to do with your time than this? Or is it just that the wrong people are being stopped? I mean, we're told they're everywhere. Bloody Diss is alive with them.

This is not a mechanism for national security, it is a mechanism to let people know that they're being watched, and had better behave themselves, or else.

What a crock of shit, and then they've the nerve to put up posters saying things like 'This nuclear power station will not be bombed because someone called us when they spotted someone on their flight back from Malaga looking at it out of the window next to their seat.'

Give me bloody strength. . .

*and why do the media and politicians persist in calling it anti-terror legislation? You're hardly likely to have pro-terror legislation are you? Another example of pandering to the hard of thinking.

The One That Is Saying 'Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear'. . .

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

What a mucking fuddle.

The One That Understands Completely. . .

Having seen this video on the Graun's website, (h/t to OH) I now completely understand why it can lead to imprisonment when you take photographs of a police officer.

I now completely understand why Jack Straw has arranged it so that when you are killed by the State, a whitewash enquiry can be held in camera and without any accountablility at all.

I now completely understand why the police officer in question has his/her face covered by a scarf (nothing to hide, nothing to fear?) and has no distinguishing markings face on.

I now completely understand that the IPCC will condemn these actions, but that any consequences will be limited.

I fail to understand why one human being could act in such a cowardly fashion towards an unarmed, passive and compliant member of the public.

I fail to understand why that officer's colleagues stood around and did not assist the gentleman in question, nor remonstrate with their colleague.

I now completely understand that the police in the UK have abandoned the Peelian Principles and do not serve the community that pays for them, but the political class who control them.

I also completely understand that there is only one way that police states ever finish, and it is never pretty.

The One That Hates To Agree With Them . . .

The BNP really are starting to emerge (as one correspondent, I think at OH's place, put it) from being a big little party, to a little big party. It gives me no pleasure to say it, but I shall resist the dog whistle reaction and attempt to address the issue in an emotionally detached manner.

In one respect, that being our departure from the EU, I agree with the BNP. I do not think I agree with them on any other subject.

Pravda report that there is an anti-BNP rally being planned in the delightful Kentish town of Chatham, it seems to be an attempt to shame people into not voting BNP. That is bad campaigning, I want to know why I should vote for a party, not that party saying why I shouldn't vote for their competitors.

A BNP spokesman said the rally was run by "Labour front" groups trying to "pull the wool over people's eyes". And it's hard not to agree with him. I had a conversation on this subject with a young lady this afternoon. She reacted with horror when I said I wanted us to leave the EU. In her mind, I was shutting the doors to the world, no trade in, no trade out, no-one moving between the UK and anywhere else.

That simply isn't the case, but the big 3 and MSM condition you to think that if you aren't pro-EU you are a rabid racist/isolationist.

I put my point of view in fairly simplistic, but effective terms. Knowing she doesn't drink it, I offered the young lady a cup of coffee. She said she didn't want a cup of coffee. I them immediately set about brow-beating her for being a drunkard, drinking nothing but vodka and getting pissed up all the time.

She quite reasonably pointed out that she'd like a cup of tea. Of course it doesn't follow that if you don't like coffee you drink your weight in vodka every day, there are alternatives. Well, the EU is that cup of coffee I don't want. I'll settle for a cup of tea as well.

Pravda also report that Merseyside PC, Steve Bettley has been given the gooner following his name being discovered on the infamous BNP member list that was leaked a little while ago. I disagree with police officers being prohibited from membership of any party, but believe that all police officers should check their political affiliations at the door when they walk into the station. It's a shame that senior officers can't do this. But it was ever thus, one rule for us, one for them.

Bettley has denied being a member (well, he would, wouldn't he?), and the BNP has waded in, with spokesman Simon Darby saying 'We are well on the way to being a totalitarian state.'

Well, yes. Labour, Tories, LibDems are bad. Think the BNP would be any different? Not for one moment.

The One That Is Concerned. . .

A bad day for our police.

I hate saying things about the police on here. I have worked with a large number of police officers in the past and I have always found the vast, vast majority of them to be hard working people who really do want to make a positive influence on their community and catch and lock up the bad guys. If only the people at the top would leave them to police according to the Peelian Principles, then I think everyone would be much happier.

Firstly, a LimpDem study has criticised the tactics employed at the Kingsnorth Powerstation protest in Kent last year. I don't subscribe to the views of the protesters, but absolutely support their right to shout and jump up and down about it. When information about wasp stings and sunstroke being reported as injuries and protesters having their crayons and clown costumes confiscated hits the media, it just looks a bit twattish.

Secondly, there was this poor old sod who found himself face down on the M25 with a gun at his head in a case of mistaken identity following a robbery.

Mr Demeni, 44, who is Kurdish, said there were about 20 police cars involved in the incident, and at least 10 officers with machine guns.

A police helicopter circled overhead with a searchlight directed on him, he said.

"The whole motorway was with flashing lights and there was police pointing a gun," added Mr Demeni, who lives in Arundel Avenue.

OK, robbery is bad. But all that kit for £200? Come on, someone fairly senior must have authorised that. Once again the PC on the front line looks a wazzock, but he's not paid to make the decisions like deployment of aircraft.

And finally there is the case of Victor Anichebe, the young Everton striker (who is of Nigerian descent) who was stopped with his mate (who was cuffed) for the heinous offence of looking into a jeweller's shop window. A case of a bad bit of front line policing there. But perhaps if the officers involved were sent on policing courses rather than diversity and community cohesion outreach programmes, things like that wouldn't happen so much.

*Sigh*

The One That Would Vote For Her. . .

Stella Rimington, the former head of MI5 is someone I'm swiftly getting a liking for. She spoke out about the 42 days detention when all the fur was flying about that, and now she's spoken out about ministers using the threat of terror to clamp down on civil liberties.

There is a school of thought that all this is a Labour plan to have control over every facet of our lives, the idea that real power comes not from the ballot box (and let's face it, political power doesn't reside in Westminster any more, it lives in Brussels) but from control over the individual. That means we must all be measured, recorded, tracked and visible to the powers that be at all times.

The other school of thought is that we are half way to hell on the road signposted 'Good Intentions'. I agree that a significant number of people are of the opinon that what is being done is because those in power really, honestly believe that it is for the best.

I think the truth lies somewhere in between. A small number of sociopathic control freaks, using the dogwhistle of terror to jolly along all those who want to do the right thing, those who say 'OK, perhaps we can let this one go then.' But before they realise it, the zealots are knocking on the door making the case for the next liberty to be taken away. Those reasonable people then consider the point, not for a moment thinking back to how they would have felt a year earlier if this had been suggested.

And so the next one is gone.

Old Holborn was out yesterday, at New Scotland Yard, taking photographs. It is now possible to be arrested for taking photos of a police officer, or a public building, or any public scene that is judged to be likely to support terrorism or acts in preperation thereof. Well, who makes these judgements?

We've seen footage in the past of officer and PCSOs who do not like being photographed and filmed, now those officers can decide that they don't like it and can arrest you for it. Of course it would never end up in court, but you could find yourself locked up for no other real reason than a policeman has taken a dislike to you, or you've proved an inconvenience, or pehaps taken footage which shows an officer doing something wrong, something illegal, and that officer wants it out of the way.

Apparently the feeling is that police officers need protecting from terrorists. I can remember no instance of a police officer being directly targeted by terrorists since Yvonne Fletcher was killed by a shot outside the Libyan Embassy in London in (appropriately enough) 1984.

Well what's the next step in protecting these officers? Removal of their collar numbers so they cannot be identified? Anonymous 'secret' police stations, with cells that don't really exist, for crimes where a solicitor may not be present at interview? Why not just dress our police officers like this?

I don't blame the rank and file officers, but our police force has changed, it seems to me that their primary function is no longer the prevention and detection of crime or disorder, but is now to be deployed in a manner that the political class finds advantageous to them. I have little dealing with the police on this level, but I know this.

I know that if my house is broken into, if my car is stolen, if my property is damaged I will not see a police officer. A PCSO may pop round to take details for recording purposes and then, someone with an eye on targets, will attempt to 'no crime' it, even if it is recorded as a crime no action to investigate will be made. I mean, I've got insurance, that's what it's for. However, I also know that if I walk down the street dressed in an unusual style, take a photograph of a public building, or sit, reading a book, on a bench in a public park that just happens to be near a playground, I will be pounced upon, questioned, searched and perhaps even detained.

This is not the police service I pay for, and it is not a style of policing that is suitable for any country which says it is a free democracy. We're not there yet, but the actions of ministers, ACPO and over excited front line staff take us ever closer to the Stasi and Securitate, and it is almost within touching distance.