Category: Policing

Policing the UK in the modern day.

Substantial

From the OED.
A. adj.I. Relating to size, quantity, solidity, etc.Thesaurus »

 1. Of food, a meal, etc.: ample and nourishing; (in some contexts) large and heavy. substantial, adj., n., and adv. : Oxford English Dictionary (oed.com)

A meal that’s ample is a meal that stops one’s hunger and a meal that’s nourishing is one that provides nourishment. Whether that be the famous Scotch Egg, a three course meal or a packet of crisps. Under the right circumstances all three of these could be #substantial, surely the test is the reaction of the diner.

Has the packet of crisps stopped the diners hunger, does it provide nourishment? Only the diner, not the #police can answer the first point, as for the second the nourishment is printed on the back of the packet. far be it for The Dormouse to tell folks to disobey the law as promogulated by an ever more authoritarian plod but speaks for himself – assuming he can find a publican brave enough to serve him it’s a pint of Best and a packet of crisp please and *&^% the boys in blue.

Stupid #UK #Covid regulations, an occasional column.

On line harms … but who’s harming who?

Curious one this. The UK’s top anti-#terrorist gruppenführer, Assistant Commissioner Neil #Basu is in the news again. This time it’s not to label children playing video games as suspected terrorists in the making (right wing of course, never left wing or Muslim); but instead to open the doors to “talk” about new censorship laws. And not anti-terrorist laws either, but health ones.

The Dormouse asks, should a police officer involve himself in health policy and more to the point should a police officer be involving himself in gestating new laws rather than enforcing the ones we the public through our elected representatives set?

Fine looking chap

Mr Basu suggested that it might be better if scientific information posted on line that casts doubts on the government’s handling of the Chinese Plague be censored. He didn’t actually put in in those terms, he actually highlighted “anti-#vaccination” articles but effectively that’s what his suggestion amounted to. These remarks of his hit the press on the 19th of November, curiously the following appeared on #Twitter on the same day.

300+ identical tweets, saying exactly the same thing and all calling for internet censorship.
(1) Laura Dodsworth on Twitter: “On 19 Nov there was a coordinated campaign of over 300 tweets, comprised of accounts which look genuine and some which seem to be bots. Who initiated this campaign and who deployed these accounts to push for online censorship? https://t.co/DDKR5GqUf2” / Twitter

Coincidence? I’d like to hope so, maybe some Chinese internet slaves tasked with pumping out post after post that will ultimately undermine the police in the UK by making them appear part of a conspiracy were responsible. One hopes so because no one would like to think any attempt to wrongfully sway public opinion by such clumsy methods could be made by London’s finest. #Covid is being used as an excuse for far to much political excess, lets not allow to much more!

And to answer Dormouse’s somewhat rhetorical questions. No, a police officer should not involve himself in health politics and even more so he should not be involved in setting out new laws. That’s the job of the public and our representatives.

Political policing by the Met … again

Compare and contrast. Early in the epidemic when staying at home might have made a difference we have the #Metropolitan Police facilitating the #BLM riots by circulating the meeting place.

By early November though we can see that the tone has changed and the Met are now bragging about the arrests they made at a recent event. The major difference being that the #BLM event was a violent riot and the November event was a peaceful protest march conducted by ordinary men and women complaining that their businesses have been destroyed, that the rights commonly afforded to people in the UK are being trampled into the dust, that the Met are out of control and that that generally the #Covid crisis such as it is is being mismanaged on a colossal scale.

The Dormouse suggests that the bragging below makes the point quite adequately.

Image

But don’t take our word for it here’s what the police have to say. Complain about lock down and we’ll deal with you.

Thou shalt not complain …

And you know what? In law he’s correct. the right to protest has been removed from the current regulations. Do as you’re told, don’t complain or we will arrest and prosecute you …

… The Dormouse suggests that enough is enough.

As a final note for today, this is how the Met, Lock Down and UK policing generally is seen from abroad.

British Police just who do they serve?

Over the summer we’ve seen UK #police forces (services!) facilitate rioting by #racist mobs. We’ve even seen the various forces grovelling on their knees or running away from the self same mobs. Later we’ve seen peaceful protesters beaten to the ground for merely challenging the national lock-downs.

This has lead to a certain degree of navel gazing. Who makes up todays police forces, who commands and directs them, who sets policy and who on earth tells them that it’s OK to drag a middle aged woman of a chair and apparently punch her to the ground?

Attacked from behind by one of London’s finest and then shoulder barged (or punched) to the ground. Compare and contrast to the image below.

An absolute disgrace from start to finish but to date no announcement of the officer being arrested for assault, placed under investigation for discipline matters or even an apology.

Police grovelling to a violent BLM mob
This lot fights back, best we get on our knees.

OK so it’s a big question and the answer is to long for a single blog post so what we’ll do today is just get the ball rolling and see what it is our police officers actually promise to do when they sign on the dotted line.

The current oath

’I………………..of………………..do solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve the Queen in the office of constable, with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality, upholding fundamental human #rights and according equal #respect to all people; and that I will, to the best of my power, cause the peace to be kept and preserved and prevent all offences against people and property; and that while I continue to hold the said office I will, to the best of my skill and knowledge, discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to law.’”

Police Reform Act 2002

The 1996 oath

I, … … … … of … … … … do solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve Our Sovereign Lady the Queen in the office of constable, without favour or affection, malice or ill will; and that I will to the best of my power cause the peace to be kept and preserved, and prevent all offences against the persons and properties of Her Majesty’s subjects; and that while I continue to hold the said office I will to the best of my skill and knowledge discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to law.

Police Act 1996 Which just happens to be the same as the historical one.

The 1964 oath

Police Act 1964

The 1964/96 oaths are straightforward enough, must treat everyone fairly, mustn’t play favourites, don’t pick on folks, do the best job they can and of course acknowledge that they are serving “Our Sovereign Lady the Queen”. Great, long live Queen Liz the absolute fountainhead head of law and justice in the UK.

And then we come to the 2002 version. The first thing to note is that Queen Liz, ‘gor bless her is no longer “Sovereign”, she’s still a Queen but she’s no longer the top dog. Niether are we in Britain no longer her subjects. A little worrying is that there’s no mention of who actually is sovereign nor is there any mention of who UK citizens are subject to. As it happens we know that this change came about as a result of the Treaty of #Maastricht 1992 and in preparation for the #EU constitution, later the Treaty of #Lisbon 2007. It had been assumed by a series of pro-EU governments that the UK would at become fully subject to EU law. It will be interesting to see if the words “Sovereign” and “Her Majesty’s subjects” return to the oath in 2021.

What else can we take away from the 2002 oath. At first glance it looks very much to be a rerun of the earlier oaths converted to “Woke-speak”. This in itself is no big deal, we all have to move with the times. There are though two very worrying elements to this new oath (not including Liz’s demotion).

The first is this, “upholding fundamental human rights” nonsense and then this “according equal respect to all people”. The sound good don’t they but here’s the thing:

“Upholding Fundamental Human Rights”

Consider the above and ask yourself just what are “fundamental human rights”? Focus for a moment on the “fundamental”. Where are these fundamental rights defined, who enforces them, who defines them? Does such a collection even exist? No.

All unanswered. Our modern day plods are swearing to uphold something that is both undefined and non-existent.

“According equal respect to all people”

That’s great to see, at last the victims of crime will be afforded the same respect given to Billy the Burglar and Robby the Robber.

Not what it means? Well here’s the thing, not all people are deserving of equal respect. Being treated fairly in accordance with law? Of course, absolutely. But equal respect? Gods no! Respect is earned.

So our modern day plods are also required to “respect” offenders and those who harm society.

No wonder modern plod doesn’t know his arse from his elbow.