Asking for info...

Tonight I decided to test this freedom of information malarky, just to see if we as normal citizens can actually get any info we want or need.

So I went to the Metropolitian Police web site and filled in an online application.....

Asking for a list of all politicians (specifically Labour) who are not on the Police DNA database.


Now I wonder if I will get a reply??? or will I be fobbed off? Any bets??

Can we have some gun's now please?

I want to bring back the right to bear arms, that was given to us in the Bill of Rights, not that the Bill has ever really been repealed or cancelled out. During the Metric Martyrs fight back, Justice Laws, decreed that the Bill of Rights was sacrosanct and could never be taken away.

With this in mind, does the legislation in place that bans owning hand guns, have any legality?

With the rising amount of serious crime and the proof that criminals have and will use guns at even the slightest provocation, does this not suggest it is about time that we as people started to look to our own defence and protection?

How many friends and neighbours do you personally know, that keep baseball bats or other weapons near the front door, just in case? I know of a couple of people that do and one of them is an ex copper!

As someone who has served in HM Forces, and carried weapons and seen the damage that they can and do inflict. My first instinct was that they should all be banned, but as we have seen and continue to see, the banning of hand guns doesn't work! All it does is make it easier for the criminal to overpower their victims.

Another point to ponder, is the Police Force, as it cannot do the job it was set up to do, ie. protect the citizens and bring to justice criminals, would we be correct in thinking that we are therefore entitled to defend ourselves? Does this not offer more proof that we should be able to arm ourselves?

Without wishing to bring about a vigilante culture, I think its about time we took back our laws, after all they were made for us, hence the term common law. The law doesn't belong to the judges nor the solicitors, they can interpret it, but its our law handed down to us by those who fought and died for all our freedoms. The law doesn't belong to the political classes, they may make suggestions, they may legislate, but as one Parliament cannot be bound by another, so too, laws that are ill conceived can be repealed and changed and declared null and void.

My mother has an idea or two about sex offenders, well more about their punishment and how it should be doled out. She suggests putting the convicted person in a room with about 20 unarmed women who's children have been abused for about 15 Min's. She reckons this would cure most of the offenders chances of re offending when the justice system releases them early. As she says with what is left of the offenders wedding tackle, (if anything) he will be unable to re-offend. Not too sure about what the Human Rights Act would say about it, but it is seriously biblical in its simplicity.

Tasers to be used....

If these tasers stop one innocent person from being killed by inept and ill trained fire arms officers, then they are to be welcomed.

How ever I would argue for and like to see, that well before the Political elite give their approval for the use of these weapons, every politician should have to suffer the effects first hand!

Too many times we suffer legislation that never really has any effect upon those whom make it! Get Gordon, Milibrat and StrawMan to suffer the effects, then see how quick they are to permit it! After all if it good enough for the normal population, then its obviously good enough for the politicians!!

It also raises the possibility of a TV show dedicated to see just who is the "Strongman" or woman of politics, taser each politico, just to see who lasts longest, it would be great areas could vote for their local MP or councillors, to take the shot. The leader board would show who is able to withstand the shock without pissing their nickers.... A sure fire money winner,,,,, my money is on hague he seems to have some balls, I would cherish watching Darling piss his silky women's underwear...

In these days of equality, our lady MP's should also be forced to undergo this trial, but I wouldn't want to watch Ann Widicome...... Ggrrrr sends shivers down my spine just thinking about it...

So who would you taser and why?

IPCC Report is out

For those of us able to string two sentences together, and able to look on the Internet for information. The IPCC report has vindicated what most of us thought, that the Police mislead (Fucking lied) the media about the fatal murder of Mr Jean Charles de Menezes.

Having read at the time on the News websites and more specifically the BBC's Have Your Say, I came to the conclusion earlier on that something had gone tragically wrong, the issued Police Statements did not confirm what eye witnesses were telling reporters.

From November 2005 until March 2006 the Police were slow at handing to the IPCC documents for their investigation, whilst this in itself does not constitute a cover up, it certainly hints at one. Any government body under investigation seems to have the ability to deny access or be extremely slow at producing documents, yet let a private company try and it and they are lambasted from pillar to post. Not only that but during the investigation the IPCC was threatened with court action by some of the serving officers, with I might add the full backing of the Metropolitan Police! Which in my opinion goes to show that serving Police Officers seem to have nothing but contempt for the IPCC.

Some of the facts that came out in the Context of the Investigation were as follows:

Jean Charles de Menezes wore summer clothing
Jean Charles de Menezes did not run at any time
Jean Charles de Menezes did not know he was being pursued by the Police
Jean Charles de Menezes did not struggle with Police
Jean Charles de Menezes did not refuse to obey Police Instructions
Jean Charles de Menezes was not challenged by Police

The IPCC stated " The Police knowingly issued misleading and inaccurate information about the shooting." and went on to say "Jean Charles de Menezes did nothing out of the ordinary and there was no action he could have taken to save himself"

The murder of Jean Charles de Menezes, for that is ultimately what it was, is entirely in my opinion due to the knee jerk reaction of the Government, permitting the Metropolitan Police to operate under a "Shoot to Kill" policy for suspected terrorists.

In questions prior to the IPCC investigation starting, a journalist asked if CCTV footage was available that showed what happened to the then alleged terrorist suspect, he was told that film was not available as the cameras were not working at that time.

Yet the IPCC were shown CCTV footage during their investigation, which clearly showed Mr De Menezes did nothing wrong. I wonder if the footage showing the actual shooting was made available or if it mysteriously disappeared.

Sir Ian Blair, Police Commissioner came under some flack from the IPCC, but they could find no evidence that he deliberately misled the media and public, in interviews. They went on to state that senior members of the of the Metropolitan Police Management Team had made serious errors in the way that information was passed to the Commissioner and subsequently to the Press.

Whilst not quite the ringing endorsement that Ian Blair wanted, as it does raise questions about his ability to lead, it at the moment means he gets to keep his job. But as every ex squaddie will know, at the end of the day, Blair is just a Rupert, a face that can toe the party line, without whom the government would be deeper in the shit!

56 Days detention?

In the Press and news are reports that Gordo is considering giving Police an extension to the current 28 days to hold Terrorist without charge.

Now Political shyte out of the way, I am not into the Police, as far as I am concerned they have too many powers as it is. I can understand their calls that they are misunderstood and its a few bad apples etc, which I can just about wear coming from the rank and file coppers. But it gets my goat when ACPO start bouncing up and down about stuff. Because all they seem to say and want it exactly what the Government of the day want, its as if they're reading from the same hymn sheet. If they want to be political, then they should resign and run for office!

Now many of the commentors on the BBC Have Your Say (HYS) have likened the suggested request for this additional power, to the start of a police state. Well I'm really sorry to tell you, we already have one, whats more its been creeping in since NuLabour came to power, and unless you've actually had any dealings with the police you won't have noticed.

Its been insidious a slight creep here and there, one of the first things to go was politeness, instead of "excuse me blah blah blah", now its "and what the fek are you doing". The newer officer are worst for this, or maybe its just the standard of recruits at Lancashire Constabulary.

The second thing to appear is the attitude, now maybe its living in Blackpool, and having the Party conferences here, but stop to drop someone off in your car, and its a mouthful of abuse, park on yellow lines and within 20 seconds, little hitlers are there mouthing off, and champing at the bit. Look lads I know its fucking boring stood around all day, but Jeez lighten up a little, I mean do I look like a feking terrorist? If you have the temerity to answer them back, its threat time, the "I can have you down the station for wasting police time, you'll be there for hours, so lets do us both a favour and you fuck off now Right!" Yes its petty stuff, and probably is more to do with party conferences, but its still there afterwards, there is less politeness than there used to be. The threat is always a P4 or P5 what were called "Breach of the Peace", which basically is a catch all for the police to arrest you if you don't or won't do as your told.

Anyhow, the Police want these new powers in order to be able to control us, and it won't be long before they are using the threat of being banged up for 56 days, even though its supposed to be aimed at terrorists. One of my friends Dave, used to be a special and still has mates in the Force, a few of whom I have met. The consensus of opinion amongst the older PC's, the ones aged around 40, is keep your head down, do the last few years and get your pension, leave the current crop of yes men and gung ho merchants to it! Real Policing died years ago!

The older officer the one who has seen it all, knew when to apply common sense and turn a blind eye, is now leaving fed up of the shit that comes from the top, the targets, the constant alienation of the Police from the general public by the powers that be.

I would guess the following comment from HYS, is just such a copper:
From BBC News Have your Say

I am an ex police officer. If you can't garner enough evidence to charge a suspect in less than 28 days you need taking off the case and the suspect needs to be bailed. When I was a Met Police Officer during the height of the PIRA Terrorist Campaign we managed to do this in 7 days. There is a sensible case for a change in the law which permits further questioning of a suspect in relation to the same offence after charge but this is not the change I suspect the Government wants.
STEPHEN THORNHILL, United Kingdom

I suspect that having been in the line of fire, but unable to comment whilst serving, he's just glad to be out of it all.

I really do think that 7 days is too long, if they have the evidence, get him/her to court, if they don't then tough, keep working until you do have it. But to curtail someones freedom for 56 days on a "they might be a terrorist" or "the intelligence showed" is just not on. Just hink on how much shit you would be in with regards to Mortgage payment, loss of job, stigma attached etc etc, after all they name the suspects, and when they're released how many are given an apology? Would you like it to happen to you?

Police and guns!

The Daily Express is calling for all officers to be armed.

Talk about knee jerk reaction, to actively call for the police to be armed as a matter of routine is very wrong.

I vaguely remember a tale from an American Police Officer, who when asked about when he would draw his weapon replied "only as a very last resort", when asked to explain further he stated, "once my pistol is out of my holster I only have two options, not to shoot, or to shoot and kill. I refuse to limit my options, whilst my gun remains in its holster I have many options, often just talking and giving the guy chance to reflect, is enough to bring the person round to my way of thinking". This from a land were we expect the Police to be gung ho!

I am against our Police Force being armed for a number of reasons,

. It encourages criminals to arm themselves.
. It makes Police lazy, far to easy to pull a gun.
. We no longer have the death penalty, so why should a Police Officer be Judge, Jury and executioner.
. To many mistakes have been made by Armed Officers.
. We have unfortunately lost most of the rank and file officers, who knew how to control a situation, you know the real coppers, the modern younger officers tend to go for the gung ho approach to policing.
. Just how many Officers have been killed by firearms, in the line of duty? Now set that against how many people Police have shot by mistake or caught in crossfire, or even just got it plain wrong!
. Police are trialing tazers in parts of the UK, why are they not nationwide?

Many will say the Police are doing an important job, and deserve to be armed to protect themselves, but the Police do make too many mistakes and better that ten men escape and go free than one innocent person is killed. We have had people shot for carrying chair/table legs, mistaken identity and then the most heinous crime, a man murdered by Police after a shoot to kill policy was allowed by the Government. These mistakes are just that mistakes, but if the Police were not armed they could not have happened. Now don't get me wrong if an armed blag is going down, then an Armed response is warranted, but I have a do problem with armed police as I believe that the training is insufficient! They seem to lack any common sense and appear to be policing in fear whilst armed!

The papers recently reported that one woman was killed, whilst the police waited outside, the suggestion was that whilst there was a chance of them being shot or injured, they wouldn't make a move and the woman died, whilst across the pennines a man was shot for carrying a samurai sword, when the neither the police not the general public were in any danger!

I noticed this starting about 9 or 10 years ago, my youngest, well he was then, was just an eight year old playing in the street, with a plastic gun borrowed from a friend, when a routine police car pulled up and told him if he didn't put the toy gun away he could end up shot and dead, no niceties, just plain terrifying to a youngster, bringing a climate of fear to a youthful mind. This in an area where gun crime is very very rare.

I believe that all guns should be outlawed completely, anyone found with a loaded weapon should be given life, but at the same time, any officer shooting an innocent person should also be given life! Back when I think it was the Forest Gate arrests in London, a youth was shot, the officer concerned was involved in another shooting a short time after, and nothing was done, no reprimand... nothing.

I ask can the Police be trusted with firearms.. No I think not!

Positive Discrimination

In this piece on BBC News, Police heads are discussing the Positive Discrimination of Ethnic minorities, in order to meet the set quota of Black and Asian officers recruited to the Police Force by 2009.

I personally feel that this is wrong, to do a job effectively, one hires the best candidate for the position, whether the person is black, white, yellow or green with purple polka dots. To get the best from our ( and I stress our) Police Force, we need to know that we have the best for the job.

We as members of the public are policed by our consent. That is we give our permission and agree to abide by rules that benefit us all, for the good of society as a whole. Parliament may make the laws, but we still have to give our consent, to be ruled by these new laws. We can refuse as has happened in the past over the Poll Tax. Civil disobedience is a right we have, and when we feel aggrieved we can exercise this right.

We expect sometimes too much from our officers, after all they are only human. What we as members of the public want, is not ethnic monitoring or quotas, we want effective officers on the beat. We do not want target led policing, we want the officers out on the front line catching the bad guys. We want a Police Force we can be proud of, not one that is used for political ends, as is happening much to often these days.

We as members of the public, care not if the officer who stops us is black or white, we only care about manners, civility and respect. We expect the Police officer to be there when we need them, not in a station filling out forms.

Keith Jarrett, President of the National Black Police Association, said he supported the use of affirmative action.

He told the BBC: "If we look at Hounslow in London, it's a borough that is predominantly from a minority ethnic background.

"Now whilst my white colleagues are immensely qualified to do the job, I would put forward that Hounslow would be better served as a borough by a person from an Asian background, who has got culture in common with the local inhabitants, and perhaps speaks the same language."

I make no excuses for my thoughts and comments, and my first thoughts on Mr K Jarretts' statement about speaking the same language is "that is crap", they should have no need to speak any language other than English, that is the mother tongue of this country, and should the Asians, Blacks and East Europeans choose to live here, then they should learn the language. They have a duty to accept our culture, we only have an obligation to respect theirs. We are bending over much to far, the UK's language is English and English must be used!

Positive discrimination panders to the minorities belief that they have in some way been mistreated in the past, be it through colonialism in the past, or just perceived thoughts of racism. The Police have to prove to people that they can do the job without being racist, and regain the trust of all of the members of the public!

If our Police Force, which was once , one of the most trusted in the world goes ahead with Positive discrimination, we are as a nation on a very slippery slope. Next you will have white youths claiming discrimination because they were stopped by an Asian Officer, that his English wasn't good enough to understand, that he doesn't understand their culture.

If a person applies to join the Police Force it does not matter what his colour as long as he has the required qualifications and can do the job. If the ethnic minorities do not have the qualifications (which I seriously doubt) then they should not be in the police. In my mind I have a sneaky suspicion that the basic Policeman's salary is not enough to entice the ethnic minorities to apply for a position.

Police over the top??

Well, we know how strong the women in Sheffield are now, it takes three Police officers to subdue one scrawny 20 year old woman.

Toni Comer was arrested after commiting criminal damage to a car outside a NightClub in Sheffield.

What surprises me after watching the footage, is the officers defence that she got her hands free and went for his genitals!

Having watched it I am struck by the fact that he hits her 5 times, but only after he has back up from two other officers, one of whom appears to be holding the young womans legs. Not forgetting that all of the Officers tower over the scrawny built woman!

Another thing is why not let us listen to the sound, the CCTV obviously has sound as the dog can be head barking. What was said, and at what point did the woman try to attack the officers genitals.

Coppers these days eh, limp wristed nancy boys. Poor bugger will never live it down, unable to subdue a girly