Police State Klaxon

The Met Police have, quite frankly, excelled themselves here:

The Metropolitan Police has asked groups planning to demonstrate during or in advance of Margaret Thatcher's funeral to make themselves known to officers so that their "right to protest can be upheld".

I'm sorry, what?

What fucking shit is this? Why the fuck would the police need to know who wants to protest so that they can "uphold" their right to protest? See that fucker over there protesting? Uphold his right. Jesus.

The next thing you know, people will have to apply to the police for permission to protest. Oh, hang on.

Look, Thatcher was a flawed politician, any politician is flawed. I also remain unconvinced that her "achievements", good or bad, were down to her alone. Unlike Blair, she still believed in having a cabinet where relevant ministers made their own decisions. That the mines closed down and industry was gutted was much more down to the unions having no business sense and believing they could leech indefinitely more and more off a failing, sickly host. So I'm not convinced that her veneration by the right is justified.

I can understand the hatred of the left, however, because it's much easier and more desirable to blame someone external for your own complete, abject failure than to look at yourself and say: "We fucked up." The petulant, pouty lip of people who weren't fucking born or were still in nappies when Thatcher was ejected from power is ludicrous, but typical of the whingeing lack of responsibility of communitarian, authoritarian leftards.

But having said all that, if people want to protest her, they should be free to do so and the police's burgeoning contempt for the Peelian principle of policing by consent needs to be slapped down very soon.

Gothic policing

I see the rozzers have decided to start record attacks on goths and emos as "hate crime".

Sorry. I just had to stop and sit with my head in my hands for a moment and think about how fucking stupid that is.

Apparently, this is because someone got killed because they looked a bit different.

Sorry, I had to stop and rock back and forth again, keening.

I almost can't work up the strength to blog about this stupidity. All this kind of thing does is to encourage people to focus on their differences, not their common humanity.

All this is going to to is to validate the sick fucks who go around looking for excuses to beat people up. Society gives preferential treatment to one group, which makes people not in that group resentful. This then validates them when they express their frustration.

I find it odd that people who support things like quotas and "positive" discrimination never work out the consequences. By highlighting the differences between people, you diminish the things we have in common. Adding to the pool of differences simply adds to alienation. "I'm not in one of the approved groups, so I'm not worth as much as a human being."

The only upside I can find to this is that if this divide and conquer bollocks is taken to its natural conclusion, ultimately we will all end up in some "preferred" group or t'other.

But we could short-circuit that process and immediately focus on that ultimate minority: the individual. Treat every crime against people as an affront to the person, not to some specious, artificial group.

Or is that too much to ask for?

#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."

On yer bike!

Haven't got a bike? The police will give you someone else's.

There is a catch, obviously.

Jesus fucking FUCKING Christ.

Look you fucking cunts ...

... it simply isn't that fucking difficult!

Carmen Valino had images deleted from her camera by police and was threatened with arrest whilst photographing the scene of a shooting in Hackney, East London. The incident happened on Saturday as Valino photographed the crime scene from outside a police cordon whilst on assignment from the Hackney Gazette. She had identified herself as a journalist and showed her UK Press Card to police.

Jesus H. Fucking CHRIST man! Not just taking photos in a public place, but a fucking accredited journalist.

What the cunting fuck is wrong with the fucking Met???

Here are the ACPO guidelines:

Members of the media have a duty to take photographs and film incidents and we have no legal power or moral responsibility to prevent or restrict what they record. It is a matter for their editors to control what is published or broadcast, not the police. Once images are recorded, we have no power to delete or confiscate them without a court order, even if we think they contain damaging or useful evidence.

That is pretty fucking clear to me.

The only possible reason why police don't pay any heed to this is because they know full fucking well that the top brass don't particularly care about it.

Some policemen are in the ditch!

They think it's Raoul over ... it is now!

Michael Harding, come have a go if you're hard enough. You fucking cunt.

Nicked from 27bslash6.com, which looks like it has been shut down by the rozzers:



Protecting the community from burglars, murderers and blogs

Michael the Police Officer has kindly pointed out to me that it is a criminal offence to solicit money with the intent to purchase drugs and sell them at a profit.

As such, I have amended the previous article accordingly.

I did not mind caving on this request as I find the amended version more amusing than the original.

Also, I actually spent the weekend in jail recently due to unpaid parking fines. Adelaide police are generally a bunch of pricks and when I stated that I was vegetarian, I was given a raw potato to last me the two days. While the hardest part is not being allowed to smoke, declaring that you have a low blood sugar count means they have to bring you cups of coffee or tea when you request them so I requested around a hundred and forty.



From: David Thorne
Date: Friday 26 February 2010 8.12pm
To: Michael Harding
Subject: Censorship

Dear Mike,

Thank you for your letter. At no time have I condoned the use of drugs. I simply stated that I wish to purchase and sell them at a profit. I do however understand the importance of censorship. Without an enforced system of guidance from agencies such as yours, people would be forced to exercise their own discretion.

Regards, David.


From: Michael Harding
Date: Saturday 27 February 2010 10.27am
To: David Thorne
Subject: Re: Censorship

David, your obvious disrespect for authority doesn't change the fact that soliciting money for the purpose of purchasing and selling drugs is a criminal offence under South Australian law. I advise you to remove the article and I will check that you have done so by 5pm tomorrow.

Yours sincerely, Michael Harding


From: David Thorne
Date: Saturday 27 February 2010 10.44am
To: Michael Harding
Subject:Re: Re: Censorship

Dear Michael,

Despite your assumption, I have the highest amount of respect for authority. I actually wanted to become a police officer but failed the IQ test when I arrived on time at the correct building.

While not exactly a police officer, when I was about eight I desperately wanted to be Tom Selleck from Magnum PI. I painted my Standish Selecta-12 bright red and constructed a moustache by clipping a large amount of hair from the neighbour's cat and gluing it to my upper lip. This is how I discovered my allergy to cat hair. Dragged to my neighbour's house, my apology through lips the size of bananas came out as "Imsryfrctnheroffyrcat iwntdtobemgnumpi." I also wanted to be frozen and thawed out in the 25th century due to Wilma Deering's jumpsuit but despite emptying the refrigerator and sitting in it for over an hour, the only result was mild hypothermia and a belting.

I have been considering sitting the police exam again as protecting the community from burglars, murderers and blogs must be very fulfilling. I am fairly fit due to regularly thinking about jogging and I once performed a jumping jack. It was unintentional and involved a spider on the bath mat but still counts. I am also experienced in self defence and recently built a moat. Sometimes, I dress as a French mime and pretend to walk against a strong wind to the delight of those around me. Everybody loves a mime. This skill would obviously come in quite useful during police stealth operations.

Due to restrictive Australian gun laws, I do not have much experience with weapons but I did construct my own bazooka when I was about ten using a length of pipe, a securely tightened end cap, a golf ball and a three to one ratio of chlorine & brake fluid. While the design was flawless, the resulting broken collar bone from the kickback and two inch hole through two plaster walls then a television set brought a swift end to my foray into ballistic research and development.

Regards, David.


From: Michael Harding
Date: Saturday 27 February 2010 2.09pm
To: David Thorne
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Censorship

David, this isn't the first time we've received complaints regarding your website. You have until 5pm tomorrow to remove the article and I'll be checking your website regularly. You might not take this seriously but I can assure you that we do.

Yours sincerely, Michael Harding


From: David Thorne
Date: Saturday 27 February 2010 3.18pm
To: Michael Harding
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Censorship

Dear Michael,

I do indeed take the matter seriously and will attempt to facilitate your request by 5pm tomorrow despite the fact that I am extremely busy this weekend. I need to bury the two dead backpackers I have in the spare room as the smell is starting to attract suspicion. And wolves. It is a fairly large job as one of the backpackers is American and will therefore require a hole several sizes larger than normal. On the plus side, the other is from England which obviously means no dental records.

I could hire one of those mini bobcat tractors for the day but will probably just let the children out for a game of 'best digger gets food this week'. I am sick of hearing "I want my parents" and "Please don't lock me in the spare room again, it smells funny" but many hands, no matter how small, make light work.

Also, I was watching Crime Stoppers last night and was wondering if you need anyone to play the perpetrators in crime re-enactments? I have several years acting experience convincing co-workers that I am listening and care about their relationship issues or what they did on the weekend while really thinking about robots or what would happen if a car made of diamond drove really fast into a wall made of diamond. I would prefer to play either a black professor or an Asian bus driver.

Regards, David.


From: Michael Harding
Date: Sunday 28 February 2010 10.26am
To: David Thorne
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Censorship

I suggest you spend the time deleting the page as you have been requested to do rather than writing about dead backpackers. What is wrong with you?


From: David Thorne
Date: Sunday 28 February 2010 2.02pm
To: Michael Harding
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Censorship

Dear Mike,

My apologies for not getting back to you earlier, I was busy torching my vehicle. Did you know that if you report it stolen the insurance company gives you money to buy a new one? I usually do this every eleven months as it saves having to pay for an annual service.

I do not have dead backpackers in the spare room. I was just being silly. There is no space in there due to the hydroponics system, pots and bags of nutrients. I read somewhere that it is ok to have up to three hundred and seventy marijuana plants for personal use. Correct me if I wrong. As I do not have a backyard and the plants take up most of the apartment, I sleep in a hammock stretched between two of the larger trunks. It is like sleeping in a jungle and sometimes I pretend I am a baby monkey. Due to the 24 hour UV lighting, my electricity bill this month is nearly four thousand dollars but I have an awesome tan.

In regards to the website, rather than deleting the article, I will amend it to be about cats. Is this acceptable to you?

Regards, David.


From: Michael Harding
Date: Sunday 28 February 2010 2.31pm
To: David Thorne
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Censorship

It isn't legal to grow even one plant which I'm sure you already know. Possession of less than 100g or one plant has been decriminalised but still carries a fine. Changing the page to be about cats is fine. I will be checking to see if it has been done by 5pm. I strongly suggest that you do so.


From: David Thorne
Date: Sunday 28 February 2010 4.17pm
To: Michael Harding
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Censorship

Dear Mike,

5pm eastern standard time or ours?


Regards, David.
From: Michael Harding
Date: Sunday 28 February 2010 4.41pm
To: David Thorne
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Censorship

Ours. I've had enough of your nonsense. If the page is not removed or changed within the next 20 minutes I will be filing an order under the e-crimes act of 2006 to have the website shut down.


From: David Thorne
Date: Sunday 28 February 2010 4.59pm
To: Michael Harding
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Censorship

Done.

But somehow, David Thorne's website is gone. So I'd like to say a great big "fuck you, fuck you very fucking much" to the cunts in the South Australian police force. It sounds like that's a fucking shit hole you want to give a wide fucking berth to.

And Dave, if you're reading this: Blogger isn't as "pretty" as your website was, but the yanks will tell the Australian police to go fuck themselves with a spoon if they try that shit. Best of British luck to you!

Update: It's cached here.


Update 2: It's back!

Here we FUCKING go again

What the fucking fuck is it with the plastic plod and cameras?

Police questioned an amateur photographer under anti-terrorist legislation and later arrested him, claiming pictures he was taking in a Lancashire town were "suspicious" and constituted "antisocial behaviour".

For fuck's sake!

"Because of the Terrorism Act and everything in the country, we need to get everyone's details who is taking pictures of the town."

I think I'm going to have an embolism, really. "Because of the Terrorism Act and everything in the country"? How did this fucking imbecile get into a position of even being a plastic plod? And which fucking dildo-brained fuckpiece thought that this imbecile would be a useful addition to community policing?

When are the fucking police going to give up with this shit, stop fucking about with "anti-social behaviour" and start fucking paying attention to crime again?

Oh, and can we please shut down the failed experiment that is the PCSO clusterfuck?

Forehead smacking update: Genius:

Maybe the truth of this is that these PCSOs are simply picking fights with people, in order to prove that they are doing something other than just wandering about rather aimlessly and not really earning whatever they are paid. Maybe it's that simple.

Did I miss a memo or something?

I see that the Home Office is making noises like they finally understand that central control of the Police and how they work is not a good thing. On the face of it, this is wonderful. But really, does anyone believe that they will actually chop the rules and "guidance" (and especially targets!) they have? Or is it more likely that the existing rules will be "simplified" and "clarified" and absolutely fuck all will change?

But one thing stood out for me:

In a White Paper to be published later today, the Home Office will set out policies it says will improve police accountability, increase public confidence in officers and help tackle anti-social behaviour.

Why is there this continual banging on about anti-social behaviour? What happened to "fighting crime"? Is "anti-social behaviour" really that much more important than crime?

There are two things I see here, and I'd like to ask you to put your tin foil hats on for a moment.

Firstly: is crime (against individuals) being lowered in priority by the "justice" system, when compared to "crime" against the state? It certainly seems that way, when a pensioner not paying their council tax gets shoved in jail, but rapists (and not just one or two!) get a police caution.

Secondly: who gets to decide what is anti-social behaviour, then? Which group of wise men and women will decide for us what is anti-social and what is not? Could it be that the government will make this choice for us? Gosh, aren't we lucky that such an agreeable bunch are taking our best interests to heart?

And of course, they would never, ever denormalise things like smoking and drinking or eating too much or driving or leaving the lights on so that these can be classified as "anti-social behaviour", would they? Only a complete madman would imagine that the end-game might be a society where the state controls what you eat, what you drink, how you travel, how much energy you use and what you think.

Because, of course, things like smoking have not been denormalised, have they? There are no campaigns afoot to denormalise drinking or eating or driving, are there? Big business is in no way complicit with the government in encouraging our concerns for their rent-seeking profits and curtailing our lifestyleGaia to make us change our behaviour in a way that it deems appropriate, based on incredibly weak data.

Now, I don't believe there is a cabal somewhere that is sitting in a smoky room somewhere, planning all this. Primarily because they've banned smoking indoors in public buildings and they would never be so hypocritical as to exempt themselves from such inanities, would they?

Seriously though, I don't think it's a deliberate cabal, but it's the mindset of a growing section of our society that they know better than we do how we should live our lives, not so much a Militant Tendency as a Managerialist Tendency. There is far too much willingness to defer to "experts" without a hint of either common sense or what people actually want from their lives.

So I can't see this changing anything for the better, but I am increasingly worried about where this country is going.

You can take your hats off now, you cunts.

Instant? Sure!

Justice? Not so much:

The top prosecutor has demanded an end to the use of police cautions to deal with thousands of serious assaults every year amid concern that the justice system is failing to rein in violent offenders.

Keir Starmer, QC, the Director of Public Prosecutions, is seeking a review of so-called “instant justice”, with up to 40,000 assults each year now dealt with by on-the-spot cautions.

These include a 15-year-old boy who was cautioned for rape and a man who was cautioned for smashing a beer glass into a landlady’s face at a pub

You might feel that a caution for rape is a ludicrously trivial penalty. I couldn't possibly comment.

Costs up, detections down ...

... so why are the police so keen to keep our DNA?

Over the last two years, the number of individual profiles held on the NDNAD has risen from around 4.4 million to 5.6 million in March 2009.

Is it working?

However, during the period in question, the total number of crime scene matches dropped from 41,717 to 36,727. Given the increased number of profiles held, this is not inconsistent with some criminals changing their behaviour to avoid leaving samples.

I'll take that as a "no", then.

And how come there's been a 25% increase in samples held when the government keeps telling us that crime is down. But I guess the there's an even bigger issue here:

The raw figure for offences where crime detection resulted directly from a DNA match show a fall from 19,949 to 17,463 in the same period.

Riiiight ... so we have more samples, fewer crime scene matches, fewer detections ... something is still missing, though. Hmmm.

Oh yes, that's what's missing!

Over the last year, costs have doubled

Don't you just love everything the government does to keep us all safe?

Remember ...

... keep 'em peeled ...

I'm coming across a lot of posts on motoring fora about rozzers in unmarked cars trying to provoke people into "competitive" driving. I don't know if it's another planned "milk the driver" campaign or just a coincidence, but either way, be warned that the fucktards are out there, driving like dicks to take your money off you.

And no, they don't have anything better to do with their time, since you asked.

This is why

One of my commentors on a previous post raised an important issue here, and I feel I need to comment on it:

We can barely imagine what drove this mother to take her own life and that of her daughter. OK, some of these 'street urchins' do get on our tits but the thought of suicide, I hope, never crosses our minds. Clearly the mental state of the mother had a part to play in this ghastly tragedy, as well as the utterly reprehensible behaviour of the youths in question.

The questions we need to ask are why the police felt there was nothing they could do about this situation- is it because they couldn't (say due to legal restraints) or because they simply didn't want to (why?).

And here's another question- why the hell didn't the neighbours make a stand or show any kind of empathy with this woman. Didn't they have the guts to stand up to a few oiks?

Or is it because they simply didn't give a toss? Did they just shrug their shoulders and think "well it's not my problem so I don't give a fuck".

I'm not being rhetorical here, I'm simply asking why there was no communal solidarity at work here?

The police should be ashamed of themselves.

And so should the residents of that particular street.

It's very simple, and if you doubt what I'm saying, I'll tell you how to prove it.

The reason there is no communal solidarity is that the state has made itself into the ultimate arbiter and provider of all things. If you don't believe me, have a look for local problems in your area and then talk to locals about it. It doesn't matter whether it's yobs, flytipping or graffiti, the answer will be the same: "The council just doesn't care," or words to that effect. They won't ever say: "You're right, let's go sort it out." And why should they? They pay richly for the council to do this kind of crap, unfortunately, the council is too fucking busy "pursuing green and diversity agendas" to actually do the things that people want them to do. It doesn't matter whether your local council is Red, Blue or Yellow, the focus of the political classes is not on our priorities.

And on the national scale, for example, people won't go and talk to their kids' teachers about school standards or anything, they'll sit and wait for Ed Fucking Bollocks to decree how to make things better.

Locally and nationally, the state has positioned itself as the fount of all goodness, all wisdom and all discipline.

Unfortunately, the state's mouth is writing cheques that it's arse can't cash.

The state doesn't actually have the nous or the resources or the fucking intelligence to perform all these wondrous tasks that it's claimed ownership of, but the vast majority of people have been brainwashed into accepting that "the government needs to do something," and not "I need to do something."

The particularly nasty side effect of this is that the police have become refocused from worrying about crimes against individuals, to worrying about "crimes" against the state or the political orthodoxy. When last did you see a policeman actually doing something constructive? Or at fucking all? The only representatives of law and order that I ever see are:

• plastic plod
• speed cameras
• jumped up uniform-clad jobsworths (who aren't police)

The only time I ever see a pukka policeman, is when I pass one walking to the local McDonalds or M&S to buy lunch. And then the fuckers are all tooled up like it's Compton or something. No, you cockwads, it's a genteel market town. But they never do fucking shit. They just sit in their offices, filling in forms and then drive home in the company Transit. Cunts.

And God forbid you should actually stand up to any of these little shit-kickers - the police will be round in a flash, alright, but they'll be there to bang you up for kiddy-fiddling. And take your DNA.

So there are actually many reasons why the people in the street didn't do anything.

And to be honest, I don't judge them. We had a bit of trouble in my street, nothing like as bad as the Pilkingtons. The police dropped heavy hints that I was wasting their time. The council said it was a matter for the police. I knew that if I went out and did something, I'd be on the wrong end of the stick. I was lucky, the troublemakers fucked off somewhere else. But if they hadn't, I would have either had to wait for the impotent and uncaring state to do something, or I would have had to face possible criminal charges.

Just for "standing up for my local community."

The solution is worse than the problem

How not to do it:

An internal police report has raised serious concerns about whether CCTV is being used effectively in the fight against crime.

The document, obtained from Scotland Yard using the Freedom of Information Act, reveals that CCTV footage was used to solve less than one crime for every 1,000 cameras in the Capital.

And that's despite the huge amount of money chucked at CCTV:

Each case helped by the use of CCTV effectively costs £20,000 to detect, Met figures showed.

So, we're caught on CCTV 300 times a day and feel oppressed as a result, huge amounts of money are spent on this lazy policing and it's effectively useless? How very New Labour!

Ah! But that's not even the best bit:

"All the cameras around here are high definition zoom, not being laid down to tape or hard drive. And down the road there are just cameras with live views, so unless someone's actually watching them, they're a complete waste of time".

And even if they are watching them, how useful would that be in court?

Britain has 1 per cent of the world’s population but around 20 per cent of its CCTV cameras - which works out as the equivalent of one for every 14 people.

Yep, even the Chinese don't spy on their population like the Brits!

It costs a bloody fortune, gives the filth another excuse to park at a desk, is useless, isn't implemented properly, doesn't stop crime, has a terrible cost/benefit ratio, will be used to justify even more cost and then there's this little thought:

Nor are cameras much good in getting convictions. Evidence from them is only allowed in court if the images are securely stored and handled, so that there is no possibility that they have been tampered with.

Just remind me again why we're doing this at all?

An argument in favour of privatising the police

Which makes you wonder whether, if the police carry on being this pointless, we should just scrap them, give the tax money back to individuals so they can use it to hire private security that actually does the job properly.

I rather think that the Police Force is one of the things that should be left to the state. But it's hard to argue with reality.

Ooh, yes, please!

If these three cretins want to take the In Your Shoes scheme further, however, perhaps we could arrange for their homes to be burgled so they know how millions of their fellow countrymen feel when they come home to see that their homes have been violated? Or for them to be stopped and searched pointlessly when they are going about their lawful business one evening? Or for their cars to be stolen? Or for the peace of their neighbourhoods to be shattered by yobs terrorizing locals?

Works for me!

A public service announcement

Via various sources, Nightjack's most useful post:

A Survival Guide for Decent Folk

Paul has posted a number of lengthy replies on the “Modest Proposal" thread. In these days of us increasingly having to deal with law abiding folk who have fallen foul of the “entitled poor” and those who have learned how to use us to score points and exact revenge, I thought it would be a good idea to give out a bit of general guidance for those law abiding types who find themselves under suspicion or under arrest. It works for the bad guys so make it work for you.

Complain First Always get your complaint in first, even if it is you who started it and you who were in the wrong. If things have gone awry and you suspect the cops are going to be called, get your retaliation in first. Ring the cops right away and allege for all you are worth. If you can work a racist or homophobic slant into it so much the better.

Make a counter allegation
Regardless of the facts, never let the other side be blameless. If they beat you to the phone, ring anyway and make a counter allegation against them. Again racism or homophobia are your friends. If you are not from a visible minority ethnic culture, may I suggest that that the phrase “You gay bastard” or similar is always useful. In extremis, allege sexual assault. It gives us something to bargain with when getting the other person to drop their complaint on a quid-pro-quo basis. This is particularly good where there are no independent witnesses. When it boils down to one word against another and nobody is ‘fessing up, CPS run a mile and you, my friend, are definitely on a walk out.

Never explain to the Police
If the Police arrive to lock you up, say nothing. You are a decent person and you may think that reasoning with the Police will help. “If I can only explain, they will realise it is all a horrible mistake and go away”. Wrong. We do want to talk to you on tape in an interview room but that comes later. All you are doing by trying to explain is digging yourself further in. We call that stuff a significant statement and we love it. Decent folk can’t help themselves, they think that they can talk their way out. Wrong.

Admit Nothing
To do anything more than lock you up for a few hours we need to prove a case. The easiest route to that is your admission. Without it, our case may be a lot weaker, maybe not enough to charge you with. In any case, it is always worth finding out exactly how damning the evidence is before you fall on your sword. So don’t do the decent and honourable thing and admit what you have done. Don’t even deny it or try to give your side of the story. Just say nothing. No confession and CPS are on the back foot already. They forsee a trial. They fear a trial. They are looking for any excuse to send you home free.

Keep your mouth shut
Say as little as possible to us. At the custody office desk a Sergeant will ask you some questions. It is safe to answer these. For the rest of the time, say nothing.

Claim Suicidal Thoughts
A debatable one this. Claiming to be thinking about topping yourself has several benefits. If you can keep it up, it might just bump up any compensation payable later. On the other hand you may find yourself in a paper suit with someone watching your every move.

Always always always have a solicitor
Duh. No brainer this one. Unless you know 100% for sure that your mate the solicitor does criminal law and is good at it, ask for the Duty Solicitor. They certainly do criminal law and they are good at it. Then listen to what the solicitor says and do it. Their job is to get you off without the Cops or CPS laying a glove on you if at all possible. It is what they get paid for. They are free to you. There is no down side. Now decent folks think it makes them look like they have something to hide if they ask for a solicitor. Irrelevant. Going into an interview without a solicitor is like taking a walk in Tottenham with a big gold Rolex. Bad things are very likely to happen to you. I wouldn’t do it and I interview people for a living.

Actively complain about every officer and everything they do
Did they cuff you when they brought you in? Were they rude to you? Did they racially or homophobically abuse you? Didn’t get fed? Cell too cold? You are decent folk who don’t want to make a fuss but trust me, it pays to whinge and no matter how trivial and / or poorly founded your complaint there are people who will uncritically listen to you and try and prove the complaint on your behalf. Some of them are even police officers. Nothing like a complaint to muddy the waters and suggest that you are only in court because the vindictive Cops have a grudge against you. Far fetched? Wait until your solicitor spins it in court and you come over as Ghandi.

Show no respect to the legal system or anybody working in it
You think that if you are a difficult, unpleasant, sneering, unco-operative and rude things will go badly for you and you will be in more trouble. No sirree Bob. It seems that in fact the worse you are, the easier things will go for you if, horror of horrors, you do end up convicted. Remember to fake a drink problem if you haven’t developed one as a result of dealing with us already. Magistrates and Judges do seem to like the idea that you are basically good but the naughty alcohol made you do it. They treat you better. Crazy I know but true.

So there you go, basically anything you try and do because you are decent and staightforward hurts you badly. Act like an habitual, professional, lifestyle criminal and chances are you will walk away relatively unscathed. Copy the bad guys, its what they do for a living.

You couldn't make it up!

One rule for us, huh?

Auditors who have examined the American Express accounts of 3,500 officers involved in countering terrorism and organised crime have reported almost one in 11 detectives to the Metropolitan Police's internal investigators.

A senior officer appears to have spent £40,000 on his Amex card in one year, without authorisation. Items bought by others without permission include suits, women's clothing and fishing rods.

The scale of the suspected fraud, disclosed in an internal Metropolitan Police Authority report, will send shock waves through the force. Until now, the investigation into expenses fraud was thought to have focused on fewer than 40 officers.

Dude, seriously ... WTF????????

First we have our legislators exempting themselves from the laws they write for us, now we have the fucking police committing fraud while "protecting" us from terrorists and thieves!

I reckon we're heading for a national upchuck of violent proportions. At least I fucking hope so.

Unless 'stenders is on, of course!

The Policeman -- an occasional series, Part 16

Other books in the series:






It's a fair cop, guvnor.

The Policeman -- an occasional series, Part 15