Friday, 24 April 2009

STOP PRESS: SHOUTY SLAPPER GETS SLAPPED

What IS going on?

Sure, with events as described below by Lanky, and what I’m being told about events in Liverpool yesterday, the police are not exactly flavour of the month with our local and nearby BNPers. But let’s be honest here shall we? The police don’t want to do this stuff; at least, the constables out there on the street don’t. They’ve got better things to do with their time and they know it.

No, it’s not them – it’s a combination of local (and national) politicians and council (Common Purpose?) officials putting pressure on the senior police officers, to send their constables to disrupt BNP election activity. Being a uniformed service, they generally obey the orders given by their senior officers, on pain - so they are threatened anyway - of losing their jobs if they don’t. They know they have more important real-world things to do but, well, ‘orders is orders’.

I’ve been a member of a uniformed armed service, so I can fully understand that (though bear in mind that holding the Office of Constable allows a lot more leeway to the individual concerned than does being a soldier, sailor, airman or marine. Individual constables ought to have a serious think about that). Even the armed forces are able to refuse unlawful or just plain wrong orders – it should be, and is, a lot easier for a constable. In the army, so the story amongst the enlisted men goes, the first duty of the platoon sergeant, on contact with the enemy, is to keep as many of his men alive as possible by immediately shooting the lieutenant. Make of that what you like.

So remember folks, don’t lash out blindly in the blame game: target the original source of the problem.

Now then, let’s get on with what I really wanted this post to be about …

Couple of weeks ago a shouty slapper in London got a bit of a … er … well … a slapping, actually, for being just that little bit too shouty with a man who was at the end of his tether. Consequences of that? Acres and acres of newsprint, videos everywhere you looked (and still happening); lead stories on al-Beebeecera and other television channels and radio stations.

All par for the course, of course.

Last week, in Newham in London, Police Constable Gary Toms was killed – murdered – trying to arrest robbery suspects. Heard about it? Has it been all over the papers, telly, radio? Seriously, I’m genuinely asking here – did you even know about this?

It HAS been reported, but hardly at all, and certainly given no prominence whatsoever. Surely I’m not the only person here who can remember the days – and it isn’t THAT many years ago – when the killing of a constable was a shocking event, all the media was plastered with it until the inevitable national manhunt, with all police and all members of the public keeping an eye out for the suspected perpetrator, was concluded with the arrest of the suspect? Nowadays, barely a mention anywhere and hardly a ripple across the public consciousness. However, a shouty slapper getting a slap is “News” you just can’t get away from.

Google (pages from UK only) ‘constable Gary Toms’, the conscientious constable murdered in the line of duty and you get 66,900 hits. That sounds like respectable coverage doesn’t it? Well, it does until you:

Google (pages from UK only) ‘Nichola Fisher’, the shouty slapper who got the slapping she was begging for and you get 403,000 hits.


What is going on?

I think the media – all of it, no exceptions – is suffering from an advanced case of priority disconnect. For every story of a conscientious constable murdered on duty, there are SIX stories of a shouty slapper getting slapped. And it’s not just numbers of stories alone: it’s the prominence given to each. Cops must be feeling the frustration and resentment BNPers feel in this respect. For the cops it’s what I just described; for BNPers it’s white-on-non-white crime given widespread prominence in the media, whereas non-white-on-white (overwhelmingly more frequent) crime is barely mentioned and soon slips from the news.

And showing that it's not just the British media suffering from this priority disconnect, do those same Google searches worldwide:

Police Constable Toms - 239,000 hits

Nichola Fisher - 3,350,000 hits.

So here we get a 14/1 disparity in coverage.

All par for the course, of course.

What IS going on?

As a final word, let’s talk about the Office of Constable.

Constable. Sergeant. Inspector. Chief Superintendent. Chief Constable of Manchester.

To me, and to the law itself, they all have IDENTICAL STATUS. There is no such thing as the “Office of Chief Constable”, or whatever: there is only the “Office of Constable”. All hold identical Office. In law, and to any member of the public, all are equal. You should all bear in mind that that man over there in some very comfortable chair behind a desk – the Chief Constable – and that newly qualified policewoman passing you in the street, ARE EXACTLY THE SAME THING – “CONSTABLE”.

The public should bear this in mind at all times. As should all Constables when given what are obviously wrong or stupid orders by what is only another Constable. He or she may wear fancier badges on their epaulettes, or scrambled egg on their hat peaks, and maybe even carry a small baton, or as I prefer - stick (that makes me laugh so much) – but they are still only Constables, exactly – EXACTLY – the same as you. Holding the “Office of Constable” gives you the power to use your own discretion. USE IT! Do not allow the politicians and senior officers (also politicians – they stopped being cops when they became Inspectors – most of them anyway – and morphed into managers. By the time those managers – most of them anyway - became Chief Superintendents, they stopped being managers and morphed into politicians. And somewhere along the way many of them became Common Purpose graduates; a sinister organisation with an agenda all of its own. You know it, and although you may not realise it, we know it too. Use your discretion as constables because apart from your Sergeants, there aren’t many real cops up there telling you what to do) to lead you away from the right to use your discretion, and that vital connection to the public.

Read this:

http://inspectorgadget.wordpress.com/2009/04/18/policeman-killed-no-story-woman-slapped-big-story/

And this is from Australia: watch it. Exactly this happens here too every day, somewhere. Constables – set your own priorities – use your discretion:

http://bfbwwiii.blogspot.com/2009/04/horrific-racist-attack-in-australia.html

And do I really need to reiterate the Peelian Principles? Here they are anyway:

Peelian Principles describes the philosophy that Robert Peel developed to define an ethical police force. The principles traditionally ascribed to Peel state that:

Every police officer should be issued a badge number, to assure accountability for his actions.

Whether the police are effective is not measured on the number of arrests, but on the lack of crime.

Above all else, an effective authority figure knows trust and accountability are paramount.

Hence, Peel's most often quoted principle: The police are the public and the public are the police.

Police Principles

The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.

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

Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observation of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.

The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.

Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.

Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice, and warning is found to be insufficient.

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.

Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions, and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.

The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_Principles

Does it really take a thick knuckledragging fascist racist BNP nazi scum scrote like me to tell you, public AND police, all this?

Morg
.

5 comments:

red said...

what vileness you do spout charles.

Sir Henry Morgan said...

Hey Red - or should I say Socialist 1? - it's me Morg (known to you in Wigan Today comments as Morgan), not Charles. He's not responsible for what I say, I am.

And what, exactly, is vile about it, anyway?

It must be awfully frustrating for you not to be able to delete what anyone says here just by a click on a button that says "Comment Unsuitable".

The only people who can do that here are Me, Charles, and one other.

Hard luck.

Sir Henry Morgan said...

Red - if you really have a desperate urge to censor something, there is a facility for you to delete your own comment. It might be better than having your head explode.

Anti-gag said...

On the BBC's News-page a search for 'Gary Toms' brought up only relevant 1 hit.

Tragic!

From
Chris Hill
(Lancaster)

BFB said...

Can't be bothered to click on the links, red?

I am not surprised that 'red' resorts to the typical one-liner that is exemplary of Commie commenters.

Here's an original one for you, red:

"You are all nazi scum"

Copy/Paste as required.

yaz