Friday, 3 September 2010

#mehgate (for @jackofkent )

Well known campaigner Jerk Off Cunt has once again got his panties in a wedge. This time it's about possible collusion between the Met Police and the News of the Screws.

I'm baffled as to how someone who is actually in the legal profession can be surprised to hear of potential collusion by the police and the media, especially the fucking Screws, for fuck's sake. I'm sure there's been mutual back scratching going on there since forever.

And I also have no doubt at all that the Screws has had dirt on senior people in all walks of life (including rozzers) since forever as well.

As much as I have called for the police to be disbanded and started up again on Peelian principles (if we must have a state-controlled police force at all, obviously), I find it hard to get excited by new evidence or potential evidence of police corruption. The police have strayed so far from the idea of consensual policing that they are almost entirely unfit for purpose.

Why was Jerk Off Cunt not incensed and calling for heads to roll when the police was blatantly colluding with the government in the (Ian) Blair years? Why was he not hosting smug attack posts from blatantly biased Tory attack dogs then? Could it possibly be because he believes that government is good and it's not a problem that a politicised police force colludes with the government of the day?

Why is he not moaning about the fact that a private company called ACPO has increasing influence in our political process, a private company that is completely opaque and unaccountable?

Really, when faced with accusations that there would be collusion between powerful individuals in the media and other powerful individuals in the police, or collusions between power individuals in the government or powerful individuals in the police, my only surprise is that you're surprised. Large, powerful, largely unaccountable organisations performing shady deals in dark, non-smoking rooms is hardly a bloody surprise, now is it?

And let's face it, you are doing Labour a huge favour in hosting sanctimonious blog posts from political attack dogs who have a huge interest in attacking the people alleged to be involved. The Graun is obviously delighted to have a means to self-righteously attack their competition and they don't really care if it's true. In reality, they were probably just as happy to "share a narrative" with a lefty tosser like Ian Blair, even assuming they weren't actively colluding.

I'm not defending Coulson, when the allegations surfaced last time around, I thought that if Cameron didn't sack him there and then, he would turn into a major liability. But then iDave is clearly blessed with the same amount of nous as his predecessor, which is why I'll be shedding exactly no tears at all if this takes down the coalition.

So yeah, I'd be astonished if the allegations weren't true and if this hadn't been going on since before I was born. What I can't understand is why you're getting all uppity about this now and why you can't see the obvious self-interest of the people you have arrayed on your side in this case.

I have a Peroni here with your name on it if this doesn't wind up with, at best, a couple of low-ranking heads rolling, maybe a whitewash inquiry. And Tom Watson and the piemuncher forgetting your name as soon as the next attack vehicle comes along. Unless they can use you as a platform for that, of course.

A more honest liberal would be calling for major reform of the police because of their increasing influence in the political process, which is far more worrying than the fact that the papers know where some of the bodies are buried.

In essence, all I can say to this hullabaloo is: "Meh."


David Chiverton said...

No matter how watertight you think a bet is you should never EVER risk losing a Peroni on it.

JuliaM said...

" The police have strayed so far from the idea of consensual policing that they are almost entirely unfit for purpose."


Obnoxio The Clown said...

JuliaM, I knew you'd get there in the end :o)