On this day after the memorial service for PC David Rathband, I am reminded of that day in 1966 when a shocked nation woke to the news that three police officers, walking towards an old van parked in Wormwood Scrubs without a vehicle licence had been brutally cut down in a hail of bullets.

The shock was not just that three men had been murdered without a word exchanged, though that was still rare enough in 1966, but that they had been murdered solely because of the colour of their working clothes.

Today we reserve that sort of disgust for someone murdered for the colour of their skin – working clothes are considered a matter of choice, and those who wear the blue police uniform are somehow complicit in their own untimely end by choosing to be police officers.

Raoul Moat shot David Rathband for no other reason than that he was wearing a police uniform, and thus, in the twisted logic of the sub-culture he belonged to, deserved to be shot. Nay, Moat was lauded and continues to be lauded in some circles, for his actions.

Since 1966, 4,000 men and women have been shot, stabbed, or bludgeoned to death, because they wore the working clothes of a group seen as inimical to a certain way of life.

PC Rathband was more than just one of those statistics. He was a husband, a father, a son, a brother; an ordinary ‘working Joe’ from a council estate who thought being a traffic policeman was a secure job, a means of paying a mortgage, providing for his wife and children, building up a pension. All the things that those who profess to ‘hate’ coppers’ would not deign to do for themselves. A traffic cop. The butt of a million police canteen jokes. A noddy car driver. Even the police don’t exactly respect traffic cops. Not glamorous, won’t lead to promotion, you don’t normally make the national news. Just a humdrum, go to work every day, fall asleep in an armchair at the end of the day sort of job. Your responsibility to sort out the traffic chaos when some idiot drives down the motorway in the wrong direction – with a thousand complaints if you don’t get the Stella tanker driver on his way fast enough to stock the bars for Saturday night. You do get working clothes, and a car with fancy go faster stripes on the side. That is good enough reason to try to murder you.

I defy anyone to listen to Victoria Derbyshire’s sensitive interview with his twin brother Darren and not be moved to tears. David, he said, had trained as a plumber with his father originally; ‘always finish the job’ he had been taught. Quite so, you don’t go home because it is six o’ clock and leave the housewife with no water or heating. He had carried that work ethic into the police with him, and e’en though his mind was filled with resolve to kill himself, his last request to his brother was that he ‘clock him off at the police station’, he couldn’t bear to think that he had left his duty unfinished.

Yesterday, David’s hearse stopped briefly at the police station so that Darren could do that one last thing for him – and clock him off.

Across the river, a brief few miles away, the great, the good and the mediocre of the Liberal-Democrats were gathering to pontificate on their collective views on the future of policing amongst other items. How best to interfere with our great institutions.

4,000 policemen and women murdered. In some cases they had been in the vicinity of their murderer simply because they had been called to help him or her. Not to harm them, nor to hinder them, but to help them.

As a group, they are collectively vilified; the ‘all coppers are bastards’ mantra. I can almost guarantee the appearance of a comment that mentions Jean Charles de Menezes. Indeed, individually they are capable of massive mistakes, gross under judgements, corruption even – but that is individually. It is collectively that they are judged.

Yet, as a society, we are obsessed with ‘individual rights’; the belief that none of us should be judged by the colour of our skin, or our gender, or our sexual proclivity. None are more frenzied in their belief that all are equal than the liberal-democrats. Did any of them take a moment out to speak of the great credit the majority of our police are? Did any of them wonder who was standing out on the hotel roof in the wind and the rain, ensuring that no one attacked them for their collective beliefs? Not a murmur.

There could scarcely have been a more appropriate day for a leading political figure to speak out against this culture of vilification of the police. They didn’t all shoot Jean Charles de Menezes. Some of them were just making sure that protesters arrived safely at their destination, or helping the harried Mother’s of schizophrenics persuade their sons that it might be a good time if they went back to the clinic and caught up with their medication again.   Some of them got stabbed for their trouble.

Like WPC Mackay. Magdi Elgizouli stabbed her to death when she was called to assist in his arrest. Just a young girl, doing her job.

Elgizouli has just been released back into society. The psychiatrists in charge of his treatment have deemed him ‘not a danger to society’.  but Elgizouli is a very real and credible threat to any policemen. He has been diagnosed as having a ‘pathological hatred of the police‘. Can you imagine the outcry if his pathological hatred was of gays, or women? Is that the final recognition that policemen are no longer considered part of ‘society’?

He is to be re-housed, at our expense naturally, in an area where he is not likely to be offended by the sight of a policemen, for fear that it could ‘affect his mental health’.  When he was released on day release four years ago, police officers were warned to ‘stay away from him’. It is apparently his individual right not to have his mental health scarred by the appearance of stray uniformed police officers defending our collective freedom.

Elgizouli is a criminal. He is a habitual cannabis user. How long before he preys on his new neighbours to fund his habit? How long before an innocent traffic cop is diverted to his neighbours house to attend a ‘possible break-in’ and is stabbed to death by a man with a ‘pathological hatred of the police’.

Nowhere near as long, sadly, as we will have to wait for any of our politicians to speak up and defend the police as being comprised mainly of decent, ordinary ‘Joe’s’ just doing a job. It’s just not fashionable.

Gamekeeper-2-Poacher March 14, 2012 at 18:43

“If it isn’t broke don’t fix it” Or so the saying goes! Therefore if it is
broken it clearly needs fixed?
A fish rots from the head down!!!

Able March 14, 2012 at 08:56

My sympathies are with David Rathbands family.

I have mixed feelings about the police, as they now are, in this country.

I suppose I am a normal and law-abiding citizen (a complete weirdo
according to popular culture). As a nurse I have had considerable contact,
both professional and social, with police officers over the years, and I have
noted the obvious difference in how I am treated by those who know me and
those who don’t and how it has changed over the years. Why?

As a nurse I have worked in many areas but for a period I worked in acute
elderly care. I, like most, developed the ‘feeling’ that all old people were
frail, usually confused, invariably incontinent and subject to so many ills
and disabilities I’d rather ‘go out in a blaze of glory’ than get old. But is
that reality? No! As a nurse I have contact with a tiny section of the
population, the self-selecting frail, confused, incontinent part. The absolute
majority of older people have no more contact with me than the ‘last fatal
illness’, being mostly healthy until then. If I tried treating every older
person like they were a patient I’d probably end having a Zimmer-frame wrapped
around my head by a blue-rinsed octogenarian.

The point? Police are exposed daily to the ‘scum’. They are as guilty (and
no more guilty than any other profession) of judging by their experience. I
have been treated as a potential trouble-maker by officers, who don’t know me,
and find it offensive. I do feel that this is in part due to the lack of daily
contact with the ‘normal’ members of a community (sorry I hate to use the C
word) on a ‘daily beat’. Do I blame them, when due to shortages (amazing how
there never seems to be a shortage of senior officers though) they are
effectively running from one scrote-induced-incident to the next. No!

Society has changed, and not for the better (thanks Liebour!). The worst
change has been how a member of the public is treated if they either defend
themselves or attempt to stop a crime (yes, I have personal experience having
faced verbal censure in court for restraining a man who had thrown his three
year old down a corridor and started beating his wife [again] whilst in
A&E waiting for her to be treated forhis previously inflicted injuries –
for inciting the situation FFS).

The police are there to do professionally what we as citizens would do
normally, but are now prosecuted (or at the least threatened and berated) for
doing. They would receive more support, I feel, if they acknowledged that fact
and supported the people acting in this way (yes I know it’s forced on them by
senior officers, the judiciary and the politicians but more and more the
elitist meme seems to be a trait exhibited by police ‘only we are
allowed/should do this’ -wrong!).

And yes I do support the arming of the police (the criminals are already
armed after all), but on condition the law-abiding population are as well. You
can advance the argument that “If you’re arguing for easy gun ownership- take
a look at the Jeremy Kyle show and think do you want people like that owning
guns” but that is the point. Those scrotes are already armed (what’s another
law being broken). The people who the victims are the normal people (yes they
are the majority even if you never contact them). What else will allow a
petite lady to survive a rape attack by a large man? What will allow a
pensioner to survive assault by multiple thugs intent on the few pennies in a
purse? Only a gun allows it. Oh, and look to the US to see that there aren’t
‘rivers of blood’ and mass-shootings but a reduction in crime and a return to
a ‘polite society’ when ‘shall issue’ permits become the norm. The police,
unless you make very second person an officer, will never be there in time,
the average person will be.

YMMV

SadButMadLad
March 14, 2012 at 13:12

+1 and all that. Very good description of the current situation. Both
sides only see a small proportion of the other’s population, and the worst
proportion too. The police only see the criminals not the law abiding
majority. The public see only the bad apples spread across the red tops.

Sir William Waad
March 13, 2012 at 23:28

The figure of 4,000 police officers murdered since 1966 is a ludicrous
overstatement. See, for example, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_police_officers_killed_in_the_line_of_duty

Frankie March 15, 2012 at 13:37

But… even one murdered is ludicrous overkill…

simon March 13, 2012 at 18:07

I am a serving uk pc. Whist on duty on a very cold November morning at 4.15
am i witnessed a thug hit a female to the face twice , then hit her husband
then attack the group they were in. I ran to intervene and the thug tried to
headbutt me. I pushed him away for fear of being hit. Due to him having
consumed 8 pints of lager he fell over .He was duly arrested by me. Two days
later he reported me for assault, stating his cheek bone had been fractured
when he fell over. I have been formally spoken to and await to hear if i am to
be charged to court for gbh. How many other people go to work and have their
employer actively seek to press charges against them. It is any wonder the
police service is totally demoralised

PC Lightyear
March 13, 2012 at 18:19

Hence so many of us are retraining and getting out.

Frankie March 13, 2012 at 20:12

This sucks… but something similar happened to me! Fortunately, common
sense prevailed. People just don’t realise.

Carole March 13, 2012 at 12:15

When Dixon was shot back in the day it was totally shocking and was
intended to be. It was so rare then in this country that anyone was shot never
mind a police officer. Now, well we hear of it almost every day, it’s
awful.

Mark H March 13, 2012 at 10:51

Don’t blame the player – blame the game!

Abrupt asked…. “I wonder how we look, viewed from inside a blue uniform.
Are we still the same people that Dixon had to deal with?”

The answer in my humble opinion is “no”. Do we still have the same levels
of respect and consideration for others instilled in us by our parents as was
the case in Dixon’s day? I wager that in today’s society some parents couldn’t
even spell the words let alone teach it – yet they are the first to demand it.
A refusal to accept personal responsibility and a culture of blaming “the
system” has evolved for those who transgress the laws of the land.
Apprehension in the course of committing a criminal act is now seen as an
“occupational hazard” for many who not only blame the system but also use it
to its best effect.
Criminals have never had it so good. They can complain
about anything a police officer does (or doesn’t do) and the officer being
complained of has no right of recourse if the complaint is either malicious,
slanderous or libellous. They have PACE to protect them as soon as an officer
lays hands on them. Dixon never had to contemplate PACE or a complaints
procedure that was heavily weighted against him. If he locked someone up he
didn’t have to cancel any plans he had later that evening because he was
required to get his detainee out of custody within 24hrs – he could clock off
at 5pm, go home and come back in the morning and carry on from where he left
off. This, assuming that he hadn’t knocked a written confession out of his
suspect first and was able to charge him before going home. Of course for
Dixon, arrest was always the last resort – especially a troublesome teen who
would be “clipped” around the ear before being taken home to be dealt with far
more severely by its parents who had always vowed that if they were brought
home by a policeman they would be bounced off every wall in the house for
bringing shame and disgrace to their door. Dixon, in my opinion, was portrayed
as a work-shy police officer always looking for a short-cut to make his life
as easy as possible. I worked with a few like him when I joined over 22 years
ago.
When I applied to join I had tests to complete that tested both my
physical and mental ability followed by a very “aggressive” interview by a
panel of three – pass or fail. Today there are no basic entry requirements –
you don’t have to be able to spell (because that would discriminate against
dyslexics) you don’t have to have any maths ability and so long as you can
walk back and forth for 6 minutes without falling over you can have a uniform.
At training school I was taught discipline, respect, and the law. Drill at
0800hrs on the parade square every morning. Poor standards were rewarded by
weekend leave denied and a “duty” at the station house. No drill now. Its
deemed to be too militarial and not in keeping with the modern police service.
There was no “diversity training”. Could it be that the rigorous interviewing
and application procedure quickly identified those who were incapable of
showing respect for others and they were canned straight away? During one’s
time as a “proby” I was the tea boy, subject of many (attempted) practical
jokes and denied the use of a vehicle unless I was the only one on duty (I
worked in a rural station wiith 350 sq miles to cover including 2 towns). If I
got it wrong I was told in no uncertain terms that I got it wrong. I may have
disagreed on occasion but I bit my tongue and responded “yes sir”. It was,
without doubt, character building. Now one can’t use the words “fail” “wrong”
“weakness” or anything that suggests negativity. Practical jokes are deemed
“bullying” and arguing with someone senior in rank or service is the norm. Any
kind of critique of a colleague has to be delivered in the form known
coloquially as a “shit sandwich” – start with something nice followed by what
you really want to say “but in a really nice way” followed by something nice
before they walk out of the door. Is it any wonder that the police never seem
to learn from mistakes?

What has happened since Dixon’s time is that rigorous application /
screening processes, regional training centres, drill first thing in the
morning, provision of direct but constructive feedback and respect for rank
have all been de-valued. Accordingly, the office of Constable has been
de-valued and the politicians and public alike no longer value the police
service of today.

Ironically, Dixon got away with far more “wrong-doing” than a constable
could in today’s society yet he is the epitomy of policing in the majority of
the public’s eye.

Hexe Froschbein
March 13, 2012 at 10:40

1) Working for the police is voluntary.
2) Every cop by now knows they
will be discarded onto benefits if they get hurt on the job.
3) Most cops
are competent people who could easily find another job.
4) Most cops also
know that their efforts are useless, unless the effort is useless in the first
place.(courtesy of our ‘justice’ and bureaucrazy system)

So, it’s entirely self-inflicted, they all know the deal is unethical to
the hilt, but still, there is a long queue for policing jobs.

Policing is quite like taking drugs in this regard, so, should we ban it to
save people from self-harm? 8():

Mark H March 13, 2012 at 11:29

1. Of course – nobody is forced to become a police officer. It is however
a vocation and not everyone is suited to it. They don’t do it for the money
– they need the money to live just like everyone else does. By virtue of it
being a paid profession it is not voluntary.

2. Must I expect to be hurt doing the job? Do I not have a right to be
treated with respect by all just as I would treat anyone else with respect?
If I worked in a bank should I expect to be robbed and hurt during the
robbery? You suggest that a police officer is not entitled to basic
rights.

3. True but most cops give a life-long commitment to serving because it
is a vocation.

4. Cops do it “without fear or favour” as in the oath. Cops make the
effort no matter what the politicians say or do because they see the
difference they make in the faces of the victims of crime, the people they
help and genuinely change the lives of.

The “deal” I signed up to wasn’t unethical at all. I give my bit to Queen
and country and in return I get paid and a pension (that I contribute 15% of
my salary to) when I have done 30 years of shift work and my body is no
longer fit for purpose. I entered into a 30 year “contract” with my employer
when I joined the job – just as everyone else does. I had no intention to
renege on my side of the “deal” and have never done so yet my employer seems
to think its OK to do it to me and my colleagues. So your suggestion is that
all 130,000 of us walk out of our jobs and overnight we will have 130,000
new officers who will be fit for purpose providing a service that you’ll be
happy with?

Hexe
Froschbein March 13, 2012 at 16:01

“The “deal” I signed up to wasn’t unethical at all. I give my bit to
Queen and country and in return I get paid and a pension (that I
contribute 15% of my salary to) when I have done 30 years of shift work
and my body is no longer fit for purpose. I entered into a 30 year
“contract” with my employer when I joined the job – just as everyone else
does. I had no intention to renege on my side of the “deal” and have never
done so yet my employer seems to think its OK to do it to me and my
colleagues. So your suggestion is that all 130,000 of us walk out of our
jobs and overnight we will have 130,000 new officers who will be fit for
purpose providing a service that you’ll be happy with?”

I think your impression of the deal you signed is a lot rosier than the
grim reality — you even admit that your employer (we, the public) is
stiffing you big time, so no, the deal you have signed is unethical and
unfair to you.

Your pay and pension is not great either: http://www.police-information.co.uk/policepay.htm#constables
— some jobsworth in an office easily earns more than you — in fact, a dole
claimant trivially rakes more in than a constable.

The tools you’re issued with and the protection for you against
vexatious court cases and disability is an insult to common sense and
decency.

You may well think you’re serving the country (and I think it’s a great
attitude!) but exactly this this honourable sense of duty is grossly and
deliberately abused by the government and the public, and not
reciprocated.

So, yes, I think you should all walk out because most of you can and
will do better, and it’s about the only thing left that will convince the
current sweatshop owners to improve their act.

4000 cops dead and (amongst many other scandals) insane cop killers let
out and installed into areas where they are less likely to meet a cop they
can and will attack — where is your cut-off point at which you decide to
stop taking part in this insanity?

Mark H
March 14, 2012 at 11:07

“where is your cut-off point at which you decide to stop taking part
in this insanity?”

Hex,

An interesting question. The answer is; I simply don’t know. Its
difficult to escape it when the lunatics are running the asylum!

I would just clarify though; While I am accountable to the public,
the majority of whom pay taxes, my employer is the Home Secretary. The
reason for making this clear is that I don’t feel or believe that I am
being “stiffed” by the public. Unfortunately, the public perception of
police pay / pensions has been skewed by biased and misleading reporting
and a desire to perpetuate this by those determined to impose their
ill-considered policies and objectives. I think that the majority of the
public, if they knew the reality of what police officers do, the
restrictions placed upon them personally and the conditions under which
they often work would probably stand up and argue the case for the
police.

There have been a number of calls for a Royal Commission into
policing in the UK. I and many of my colleagues believe that this is the
only way that the public will be able to get a “fit for purpose” service
that will last for decades to come. The Commission is a completely
non-partisan, independent review of the service from top to bottom,
inside and out. It has no political agenda and will expose the realities
of policing in the 21st Century. We need this Commission now more than
ever – and before it is too late when we will no longer be the envy of
the world.

Frankie March 13, 2012 at 20:09

On the money! Well said!!

binao March 13, 2012 at 12:11

You’d better just hope they keep doing it as well as they do Mr
Froschbein because the alternatives are very unattractive.

Hexe
Froschbein March 13, 2012 at 14:19

I guess this is what the people thought whose chimneys were cleaned by
kids back in the day — someone has to do it, even if it kills them.

No-one has to do it, and no-one should, until the police stops treating
their staff as consumables.

We need cops, not cannon fodder.

PC
Lightyear March 13, 2012 at 18:14

Thanks Hexe. Wish more thought the same way

Gamekeeper-2-Poacher March 13, 2012 at 03:14

With regards the original articles headline “Is this the final recognition
that the Police are no longer considered ‘part of society’?” I would suggest
the exact opposite! the police are very much thought of as part of that
society!! Society is broken, the police are drawn from that society so they
are broken too! Therefore the broken values of that society are imposed on
all! Police included! “Simples!!”
The rot set in when society allowed the
police to became a service not a force. Recruits (sorry student officers) now
rock up in civvies at local colleges to study policing ffs! The regional
training centres are being turned into creches for the human resource
departments, and support staff!
KPIs, satisfaction surveys and customer
contact centres !!are what the service is now about!! As for safer community
teams and community support officers WTF! the police are completely out of
step and are now marching to the beat of a different drum! sorry walking !
(marching was when they were a force!) In fact waddling in their body armour,
batons, tasers ,quick -cuffs, pava, maglights, pda’s radio terminals, mobiles,
torches, and safer community neighbourhood watch leaflets!
No wonder london
burned! Forget the rose tinted sentimental Dixon of dock green “Evening all”
b*llocks it stinks of safer community doctrine! Id rather listen to the snot
in my hanky than the spin spouted by the current crop of management teams at
the tasking and coordinating meetings! “Its time to fire up the quattro” and
get back to basics! Promote thief-takers, and officers with moral fibre to
lead by example, the current crop of uniform carriers and fat oxygen thieves,
fail to install confidence in their men (staff) and society (customers) as a
whole! As DCI HUNT would say “Blardy, blardy, history bloody blardy. It
doesn’t take a degree in applied b*llocks to know what’s going on.”

PC Lightyear
March 13, 2012 at 08:59

Well said that man

jaded March 12, 2012 at 22:14

What’s the collective term for a group of nutters?

I suggest a “Melvin”.

JuliaM March 13,
2012 at 05:54

I’ve got another suggestion, but I don’t want to end up in the spam
trap!

MTG March 13, 2012 at 19:49

You recently admitted to be totally confused by the rather basic term
‘turncoat puppet’, Julia. Keep your powder dry until that particular penny
drops.

Engineer March 13, 2012 at 10:57

Sociologists.

Lance
Manley- former STAB PROOF SCARECROW- 12* March 12, 2012 at 21:39

Excellent and very well put together mate. I totally agree.

MTG March 12, 2012 at 20:59

A flock of chattering bigots can offer the bystander but two
rewards.
Such entertainment as may be found in a talent for obscuring the
obvious and the ability to feign benefit from an exchange of views.

Frankie March 12, 2012 at 21:37

@ MTG: Eh?

PC Lightyear
March 13, 2012 at 08:57

Melvin T Gray……. Insp Gadgets old Troll

Frankie
March 13, 2012 at 20:06

Oh… There are far more of these critters than I realised! There is
MTG, someone unmentionable whose initials are ‘C’ and ‘R’ and quite a
few other madmen… Its like a plague!

Mjolinir March 12, 2012 at 19:57

Anna – Thank you (from an ex-Copper) for your post.

Charles Crosby
March 12, 2012 at 18:40

Dear Anna

Like all “in the box” people you’re out of your depth – try opening the
coffee jar a tad just to see if that sense is alive.

Facts are not necessarily The Truth.

2Mac March 12, 2012 at 19:58

Charles,

Did you know. Anna is part of the illuminati and her sole presence here
is to out descenters who can be removed for reprogramming via the
traditional anal probe.

These blogs are used to lure you here so they can record your User Agent
String, key strokes, Browser, OS. Even if you are using a Proxy they will be
able to identify you without and IP Address. (Google Entropy User Agent
String to see how easy it is)

All the Add On’s for your browser to hide the referer info embed code for
Rothschild owned ZOG to track your movements.

Turn of the lights, cut the telephone cable, eat the Sim card, put
silicon on the soles of your shoes and put on a burka. I will meet you in
the mountains at my survival base with the rest of the Awakened. You can
have the bunk between to David Ike & Robert Maxwell. Long live the
resistence.

Alternatively consider that counter intel, blogs, mass media, conspiracy
sites, twitter, etc , etc are all used to cloud and confuse so any truth
that is out their is masked by a tonne of disinfo.

Our Govs, Enemy Govs, Nutjobs, Loons, Truth and Lies are all given equal
platform. The conspiracy is masking the incompetence not putting micro chips
in your head.

See you @ ATS

Anna
Raccoon March 12, 2012 at 20:14

Outed! And I thought none of you suspected……

2Mac March 12, 2012 at 21:54

It was obvious. The Eyes of the Raccoon at the top of the page are
references to the “All Seeing Eye of Horus” a known illuminati symbol.
Once I spotted that I investigated further and saw the other signs. You
live in Frace, the home of the Knights Templar, 3 stripes on the
raccoons tail & 33 parts on the feather an obvious sign you are a 33
degree Mason and member of the illuminati and the most obvious that in
every article if i extract letters from your text I can always spell
NWO.

Don’t try and tell me these are all delusions Grand Master
Raccoon.

Charles
Crosby March 15, 2012 at 18:31

@2mac

Anna a part of the illuminati? That’s the best joke I’ve heard for a
long while.

As for all the other points you raise, I have no idea. Unless you’re
denying that everyone’s internet habits are monitored by someone or some
corporation – MI5 and MI6, the CIA, Mossad etc all being corporations.
They call it the Third Way or haven’t you forgotten already being a numpty
British voter.

Have you joined Anna with the coffee jar test yet?

Charles Crosby
March 12, 2012 at 18:36

@PC Plonker

Go and read the Police Constable’s Oath before you shout off you big
ignorant mouth about the law. You know f**k all about the law.

Hence the old adage that you can easily divide the police into three
categories: a third of ‘em are bent; a third of ‘em are lazy and the the other
third are thick. Obviously you fall into the final third.

Here’s a clue – legal is not lawful – period.

PC Lightyear
March 12, 2012 at 20:31

Ha! You are truly ‘six cats mad’

Frankie March 12, 2012 at 20:39

@Charles: Gosh… a real live conspiracy theorist!! Despite your
protestations, I would suggest that it is you, rather than young PC
Lightyear that knows nothing about the law. So… Issuing Fixed Penalty
Notices is in fact unlawful and a breach of the Oath of Office…?
Really??

Like another poor unfortunate, with the initals ‘C’ and ‘R’, whose mere
mention casts any post into the Slough of Despond (or the spam filter) you
clearly have serious issues. Perhaps you are related, which would be really
sad for you. I have to confess that some of the things you uttered had me in
fits of laughter!! So, someone other than those vile terrorists like… the
Government…THEY blew up those underground trains?? Please stop smoking those
illegal substances, they are doing your brain no good at all, my poor
deluded friend.

Lastly, you lump the police into three categories. So… which do I fit
into?

Bent? No… not in either sense of the word.
Lazy? No… I already do the
work assigned previously to two people. Thick? No… If we were to wave our
paper qualifications at each other I reckon I would trump yours any day of
the week.

Have some respect, Sir.

Charles
Crosby March 15, 2012 at 18:40

Put a man in uniform and he ain’t worth three ha’peth of cold gin. In
other words it’s the ruination of a man.

When you get back to operating under your oath of office I will respect
you, until then you’re a criminal guilty of treason, guilty of offences
against Magna Charta and The Bill of Rights 1689.

Now wave your shite statutes and acts (2nd hand toilet paper) against
that.

Charles Crosby
March 12, 2012 at 16:42

I thought my comment would tie your tongue – don’t forget to wobble.

In fact it’s high time they did put you plods back on push bikes, where you
can wibble and wobble and thereby put an end to your highway criminal
extortion and robbery.

PC Lightyear
March 12, 2012 at 17:06

No, it didnt halt my tongue, it just made me realise youre spouting
wibble.

Cops issuing FPNs aren’t breaking the law you loon!

Think of it logically – if you can- if the government wanted to simply
raise money by this means, they would change the law so that it wasnt
illegal.

It’s not illegal to issue tickets, its necessary so idiot drivers dont
keep breaking the law without disincentive.

Having targets for issuing tickets however – is at the very least
unethical in my view.

And speed cameras are downright wrong, as are inappropriately low speed
limits in some places – especially those lowered to gain brownie points for
local councils so they can claim to be ‘acting on road safety’

Anna
Raccoon March 12, 2012 at 17:50

You’re wasting your breath PC Lightyear,

Facts bounce off Crosby’s Tin Foil Hat like hailstones……

JuliaM March 13,
2012 at 05:52

Put them on push bikes, and they might have a point that their job is
very dangerous…

Charles Crosby
March 12, 2012 at 14:59

THE major problem with the police is that they frequently operate outside
their PUBLIC OATH OF OFFICE as corporate policy officers employed purely for
revenue collecting and NOT as Police Constables – Peace Officers operating
solely under the Common Law.

This means they break The Law every time they issue FPNs etc a Dereliction
of their Duty.

PC Lightyear
March 12, 2012 at 16:35

wibble

abrupt March 12, 2012 at 09:09

Interesting comments on the public perception of the police.
I wonder
how we look, viewed from inside a blue uniform. Are we still the same people
that Dixon had to deal with?

Anna
Raccoon March 12, 2012 at 09:36

What a very astute comment, Abrupt!

jaded March 12, 2012 at 10:17

Good comment.Even in my time as a plod I think peoples behaviour has
changed for the worst.
The police are picked from the public.I was a
civilian before I joined and I will be one again when I retire.It’s a
two-way street.
Lack of effective punishment,too much human rights
crap,compensation culture etc have all contributed to society’s
downfall.

Engineer
March 12, 2012 at 10:26

Very true – it’s regrettable that those who espouse the culture of
‘rights’ do not give equal weight to ‘responsibility’.

Engineer March 12, 2012 at 10:21

Broadly speaking, yes – human nature doesn’t change much. However, PC
Dixon plodded his beat at Dock Green in a slightly different political
climate, with slightly different attitudes and culture in ‘society’ (better?
worse? who’s to say…), which does make direct comparison more difficult.

Spiral
Architect March 12, 2012 at 10:54

Even in 1950, Sgt George Dixon was still shot and killed though wasn’t
he?

2Mac March 12, 2012 at 11:44

My associates in the police see society differently. Everyday they are
called to deal with the worst type of person, the horrific death, the
accident, the abusers. They see daily in real life what most see
occasionally on TV. They see the scum of society and the horrors of
society.

They rarely get thanked or even taken seriously by the political class
when they give advice about failing policy. Mostly laws are made for
political reasons not practical reasons. Any thinking policeman knows he is
just circulating shit in and out of a flawed system. The effort is never
reflected in a positive change.

Take the perverts. Some shrink deems a pervert cured of abusing kids
based on conversations and recommends they are released. These are some of
the most cunning people in existence yet some shrink thinks they are getting
the truth when it is quite clear what you need to say to get parolled.
Months of police work, a few years in jail and back out to prey on kids
until they are accused again.

The system is madness and the police are expected to manage the
madness.

Spiral
Architect March 12, 2012 at 11:45

We can agree on something then

JuliaM March 12,
2012 at 11:45

“Are we still the same people that Dixon had to deal with?”

I am.

abrupt March 12, 2012 at 15:27

As am I……50 years vanished in the twinkle of a lie. (me not
you)
Discounting the ravages of time and my current lack of maturity, I
have changed. Largely due to the people around me, community not family. I
feel the same, still smile infrequently and grunt my usual monosyllables.
“abrupt” is the result of an uncomplimentary, though accurate,
nickname.
I no longer walk where I once would have done without
thought. I am more cynical in my dealings with strangers and constantly
find myself pausing, to check my language, when talking to somebody for
the first time.
Can we really alter our shell, without the core being
affected.

Charles
Crosby March 12, 2012 at 16:02

No, many of us are not the same people.

A few are now awake no longer deluded – no longer believing in the
illusion and millions today are cynical, but that’s a good thing ‘cos nine
out of ten cynics are right.

bruce March 12, 2012 at 13:24

“I wonder how we look, viewed from inside a blue uniform.”

Someone I know is a serving copper. During the ice and snow of last year
he was out and about on icy roads helping folk who were stuck. Afterwards he
said it was a real pleasure to meet ordinary people. Usually he deals with
criminals, drunk drivers, and druggies, and their unfortunate injured, angry
and upset victims. To be able to tow a grateful driver’s car out of a ditch
and see them drive off was a real pleasure.

PC Lightyear
March 12, 2012 at 14:18

To paraphrase a colleague when we were discussing the effect years of
core response policing has on one’s cynicism and outlook he said “If you
spend your working day swimming in the sewer, don’t be surprised to get a
turd in your pocket”

2Mac March 12, 2012 at 19:40

One of my close friends has long worked in a large city centre. He
has divided the population into two categories to simplify policing.

Scum & People.

There is a window of opportunity a few sentences long called the
“Attitude Test” where a person can be recategorised due to misleading
appearance/projected persona.

How he deals with them depends on the category.

This is how he operates.

jaded
March 12, 2012 at 19:41

That’s how we all operate……..

Radders March 12, 2012 at 07:21

The 4,000 figures is for all officers who have died on duty over the past
175 years ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4451852.stm) – not those killed
by crims. It includes those run-over, those who had heart attacks in the
canteen etc. as well as RUC / RIC and ‘B’ Specials I believe killed in the
ongoing civil war in Ulster.

While I share wholly the point of the piece, we need to take care over
these stats. Being a copper is far less risky, in occupational health terms,
than being a scaffolder.

Elena ‘andcart
March 12, 2012 at 05:46

I have changed my mind six times reading that. But I ever was blessed with
being able to see both sides of every story.
Not sure where I am at the
moment.

Jonnie Marbles
March 12, 2012 at 03:25

According to the BBC , 37 police officers have been killed in England,
Scotland and Wales in the last 20 years. Unless 3,963 died in the previous 20
years, it seems the poster is telling porkies!

37 Police killed in 20 years, versus over 300 civilian deaths in custody
over just 13. It’s clear society has more to fear from the police than the
police do from society.

JuliaM March 12,
2012 at 05:51

“37 Police killed in 20 years, versus over 300 civilian deaths in
custody…”

Little Johnny would have you believe ever single one of those deaths was
from violence at the hands of the police.

But the figures include the mad, the ill, and the ’40 condoms of heroin
in my lower intestine’, not to mention the sudden onset heart attack.

Subtract those deaths, and the picture looks a damned sight more
rosy.

alan March 12, 2012 at 06:55

Your analysis is quite correct. Less than 1 per year unlawful
killing.

http://inquest.gn.apc.org/website/statistics/unlawful-killing-verdicts

In 2011 deaths while in police custody, or while in contact with the
police. Custody(21), Pursuit(7), RTI(1), Shooting(2), Total(31)
Police
arrests ~1.4 million.

http://inquest.gn.apc.org/website/statistics/deaths-in-police-custody

To put that in some kind of context, 29 people died of accidental
drowning in their bath tub over the same period.

So society has as much to fear from bath tubs as they do the
police.

Span
Ows March 12, 2012 at 08:50

i.e. just over 10% of total that died in custody did so whilst under
police custody. As Julia M mentions there are dozens of other sites
where they have died (saw the official figures somewhere but can’;t find
them) including hospitals, mental asylums etc.

Clearly Jonnie doesn’t know his marbles.

Engineer March 12, 2012 at 10:42

“It’s clear society has more to fear from the police than the police do
from society.”

It’s worth remembering that people take the oath and powers of Constable
so that the rest of us don’t have to (in just the same way that members of
the armed forces put themselves in harm’s way to defend the realm so that we
don’t have to, and dustmen dispose of our rubbish so that we don’t have to,
etc.).

If the police didn’t exist, and you were called upon to make your
contribution to keeping the Queen’s peace, how would you go about it?

Amfortas March 12, 2012 at 03:00

4000 police men and women? How about some clarity. Isn’t it more like 3990
men and 10 women? The average for deaths ‘on the job’ in our society is 94%
male, 6% female. That’s the modern equality, it seems. None happened in
Boardrooms.

ceebs March 12, 2012 at 02:12

Where does the figure of 4,000 police killed since 1966 come from? all the
figures I can lay my hands on seem to show a total of 600, not counting War
casualties during the two world wars from 1900 to the present day, and over
half of those are in Northern Ireland during the troubles.

to reach 4,000 killed since 1966, you’d need to hit one death on duty every
four days. Thankfully this isn’t happening,

alan March 12, 2012 at 06:00

Widely misreported by the media & the wikipedia article is wrong.

According to the Police Roll of Honour Trust ~5,000 British officers died
while on duty in the past 175 years. This also includes British Citizens
serving overseas as police officers in overseas territories (British). And
also includes accidental deaths on duty and medical conditions (heart
attack/stroke etc).

In the last 10 years ~140 officers have died (same source / methodology
as above). Most officer deaths appear to be road traffic accidents or
medical.

The number of officers killed (by the direct/indirect hand of a criminal)
appears to be low. 1-5 per year, on avg 1.6 per year. Less than 1 officer
per year is murdered, the other officers killed were manslaughter cases.

I cant find any official statistics either published by the Police, or UK
National Statistics. All roads lead back to the Police Roll of Honour
Trust.

Source : http://www.policememorial.org.uk/index.php?page=roll-of-honour

Span
Ows March 12, 2012 at 08:43

Thanks Alan, good info. I thought the 4000 figure must include RUC and
Northern Ireland etc and that is what makes the figure so high. In fact,
from that Police Memorial site, “Research has shown that in the 70
years between 1940 and 2010 more than 2,400 British Police Officers lost
their lives in the line of duty in the UK and overseas”. Taking out
the number killed in ‘the Island of Ireland’ (I know we shouldn’t) the
number actually killed by criminals is even lower than your estimated
average, thankfully.

harrythebloke
March 11, 2012 at 22:42

Simply brilliant post.
Lions led by idiots for the most part……

Brian March 11,
2012 at 22:41

We have learned nothing as a society in the quarter century since PC Phillip Olds
QGM also took his own life, in his case after being paralysed by similar
criminal scum.
Why not hang police killers and attempted murderers as an
experiment to see if it has a deterrent effect?
The massacre of DS
Christopher Head, DC David Wombwell and PC Geoffrey Fox in 1966 was carried
out during the five year suspension of the death penalty for murder, made
permanent in 1969. Was there a correlation?

JuliaM March 12,
2012 at 05:48

With all the support in the world, you cannot prevent someone taking
their own life. It has to be their decision.

Brian March
12, 2012 at 10:12

But you can attempt to deter criminal scum from seriously injuring
policemen and women such that they feel they don’t want to continue
existing with their life changing injuries.
By an extension of your
logic, you cannot prevent someone from taking someone else’s life either
as it is also their decision. So why bother having the Police?

JuliaM March
12, 2012 at 11:43

“But you can attempt to deter criminal scum from seriously
injuring policemen and women …”

No, Brian, you can’t even really do that with 100% success. And even
if you could, first we’d have to withdraw from the ECHR and…

Oh! You may be onto something after all.

Frankie March 11, 2012 at 22:22

Excellent post Anna – one of your best – but I have to declare an
interest…

john malpas March 11, 2012 at 22:15

It would be helpful if the police wre not so eager to suppress political
‘hate’ crimes. Say the wrong thing and you are in trouble.
Oh and maybe
deal with old fashioned crims – burglars and the like.

JuliaM March 12,
2012 at 05:48

This!

2Mac March 12, 2012 at 11:27

As one who likes to make vast generalisations I shall add the
following.

Take the stop and search laws. The LEFT complain about how many Efnick
Yuffs are targeted by the police. Yet I bet not one of these same people
would walk through these same areas by day or night as they would get robbed
or worse the first time they did.

The rise of the “Ethnic Community Leader” who are ever quick to raise a
complaint to a political class willing to listen and a media constantly
looking for a sob story has left the police paralysed by political
correctness.

The rise in African and Asian gang culture within our large cities
represents the majority of drug trafficking. The percentage of teens from
this demographic who are actively involved in criminal activities is huge.
You will always hear the statistics quoted as a percentage of the total
population. Never as a proportion of the particular community.

More generalisations that cannot be made by the police:

Chinese/Vietmanese/Asain gangs control the majority of industrial
Cannabis factories operating in the UK. Staffed by illegal immigrants. These
same gangs also control much of the prostitution activities.

Crack Cocaine is predominently controlled Asian/African gangs operating
in every major city in the UK. Yes there are lots of Whites involved in the
trade (especially when crossing the border) but the Control/Import is
originating in these countries and they now have their own people in the
country to arrange distribution

90% of Smack originated in Afghanistan and is run by members of Hamid
Karzi’s Government, family and close friends. We call them Tribal Leaders
but they are just drug cartels. These are the people of soldiers are dying
to protect from the Taliban? WTF!

The entire drugs and prostitution trade has become a vertically
integrated supply chain originating in Asia/Africa/South America and
controlled on the ground by family members who have immigrated to the UK
routing money through Middle Eastern banking system to launder.

We create a huge problem then under resource the police and tie their
hands behind their backs when it comes to solving it. The solution lies not
in stamping out the problem but it rationally considering how to achieve the
best result for society. Assume we accept the junkies or going to get high
anyway. How best to organise the legal system to reflect the enivitable or
should our politicians continue with a King Canute style policy of trying to
stop the tide.

The vast profits made in the illicit drugs and prostitution markets
corrupts whole communities and makes them criminals. Everyone who wants to
get a prostitute or drugs can get them. Even in our secure jails you can
have any drug you want. how can you expect the police to stop it in an open
society. It is impossible.

We can never stop this trade, the gang warfare, the crime committed to
support it, the prostitution to fund it, the loan sharking to hide the
money, etc, etc.

The police have an impossible task forced on them by political
rightousness and prohibition. Overnight be regulating and licensing supply
of illegal drugs and medically treating existing addicts as pathetic sick
people you could.

Kill all power & profits of crime gangs, reduce prostitution, loan
sharking, robbery, muggings, house breakings, vehicle thefts, turf war fare,
media glorification, etc, etc

Junkies are getting high today anyway. It is the supply chain that needs
to be tackled. When an economic model fails so does the goods it supplies.

The resources of the police could then be looking for perverts,
murderers, bankers, corrupt politicians, etc. We could have a bobby on every
beat again, jails with spaces in them for dangerous madmen not pot smoking
teens or single mums on the game.

The cost to society for every single conviction for minor possession is
astranomical compared to the damage of the drugs themselves. Police time,
court time, prison time, legal aid, etc, etc.

If you take the profit from drugs out of the ghettos / housing estates
the drugs will no longer be available.

Let the police return to the priorities of the 1950′s. Policing our
communities for our communities not waging unwinning able wars under
resourced so a fuckwitt politicians can made a speech tough on crime.

JuliaM March
12, 2012 at 11:41

“Yet I bet not one of these same people would walk through these
same areas by day or night as they would get robbed or worse the first
time they did.”

Oh, 2mac, they won’t even live there any more…

PC
Lightyear March 12, 2012 at 14:08

eg ask David Lammy why he doesnt live in Tottenham

alan March 12, 2012 at 11:48

You might enjoy watching The War on
Drugs Has Failed

A presentation given by Stanford “Neill” Franklin, Police (Ret.)
Executive Director, LEAP – Law Enforcement Against Prohibition http://www.leap.cc/

Sgt suburb March 11, 2012 at 21:35

Excellent post and as a evil puppet of oppression police officer who
carries a firearm…I agree totally with the frustrations of the average person
who cannot fathom how we have ended up in this mess!

Ranter March 11, 2012 at 18:16

Fantastic post. Spot on. A shame it will not affect, to any degree, the
future of the British Police Service. The new post of commissioner for each
force is indicative of it’s doom. Madness!

Mark March 11, 2012 at 17:51

I wonder how the story would play if Elgizouli had a hatred of
homsexuals?

The Dirty Rat
March 11, 2012 at 18:20

Or politicians – heaven forbid homosexual politicians?

Lew March 11, 2012 at 16:26

See you’ve got it wrong, the sods at the top do know what they are
doing.

There’s one place Magdi Elgizouli won’t be living, and thats anywhere near
those who decided he’s safe to release.

They might act like fools and talk like fools but they won’t be having a
murdering scum bag living near them.

Twas ever thus.

Bucko March 11,
2012 at 16:24

You spoke of Jean Charles De Menzes then said, “”individually they are
capable of massive mistakes, gross under judgements, corruption even – but
that is individually. It is collectively that they are judged.””

Individually, some cops made a mistake and murdered an innocent man.

Collectively, no action was taken against those responsible.

That’s one of the reasons why it is right to judge the collective as well
as being aware of the individual.

Damn fine post though

PC Lightyear
March 12, 2012 at 14:06

Individually – no one murdered him.

Thats not to say therent failings, but certainly no murders. Look up the
legalities of ‘Murder’ for that.

Charles Crosby
March 12, 2012 at 15:56

It was no mistake, De Menezes was assassinated on the orders of Clarrisa
Dick. It was a police hit – period.

De Menezes was a specialist surge electrician brought in from Brazil and
had been used to set up the triggering of the explosives hidden UNDER the
underground railway carriages on 7/7.

It was later reported by Peter Hitchens that these railway carriages were
shipped off to Hungary for repairs when our own railway yards could have
easily carried out those same repairs. Go Figure

PC Lightyear
March 12, 2012 at 16:34

Why on God’s green earth would police want to deliberately shoot an
innocent man?

Please keep taking the pills and lint that hat with tinfoil so Cressida
Dick cant detonate the charge that was placed in your head when you were
asleep.

Charles
Crosby March 12, 2012 at 16:48

Go do your research Mr Prole.

Steady now, be gentle with him ‘cos he believes the mainstream media.
Oh the mirth, oh the crying with laughter. No doubt he trusts MPs – Oh I
can’t stand it any longer the humour of it is overwhelming.

PC
Lightyear March 12, 2012 at
16:59

Research into the fact that you think the 7/7 bombs were placed
there by the government?

I don’t need to – it’s bolleaux

Charles
Crosby March 12, 2012 at 18:51

You see, you Truth deniers have a problem, because I know from a
first hand witness, who was injured and hospitalised, that the bombs
were beneath the carriages.

The problem here is that you people just live in denial ‘cos you’re
shite scared of facing the truth.

You will need to prove that it’s bolleaux instead of making infantile
emotional non responses.

PC
Lightyear March 12, 2012 at
20:29

Riiiiiiiiight course they were

Spiral
Architect March 13, 2012 at 10:44

You are a C.O.C.K.

Spiral
Architect March 13, 2012 at 10:45

Crosby the Cock.

jaded March 11, 2012 at 15:35

Excellent article.I am a PC and have already put my opinion on this story
somewhere else so I wont repeat myself.
The point you make about us being
individuals is very accurate.When I meet someone socially for the first time
and I tell them my job there are several reactions.The most common one is a
long rant about how once many years ago the person I am speaking to was badly
treated or did not get excellent service from us.The person assumes I know
exactly what happened in that situation.However when I dig a bit deeper there
is hardly any fault at all,just a bad perception.
I ask them what they do
and if they reply for example,i’m a plumber I say to them ” I had a plumber
round once and he ripped me off,did a rubbish job and he was rude”.The persons
replies “why are you telling me,that wasn’t my fault?”.Exactly………..

permanentexpat
March 11, 2012 at 15:16

Does the Public bother about ANYthing?
Does the Gumment it elected
bother about anything?
We have the Police, the Social Services, the Border
Control, the lax immigration policy and the Gumment now extant because the
English (British) have ceased to be bothered about ANYthing that does not
affect us personally.
It doesn’t require much acuity to realise that our
protracted national suicide is almost complete.

M Barnes March 11, 2012 at 14:27

A great thought-provoking post. We do have a tendency to focus on the
minority high profile cases to the detriment of the majority. Of course the
reason something hits the front pages is because it is unusual: Copper does
job, members of public grateful, criminal charged is not a story that sells
newspapers.
My current bug bear is the coalitions half-baked idea for
elected commissioners. How exactly is this going to help the police and the
public? How much will it cost? After the initial flurry of interest how many
of the electorate are going to be bothered voting? Has anyone costed the
impact of ongoing elections on efficiency, continuity of policy, confidence,
moral….? Ad has anyone considered that this is going to create more
legislation (and cost) down the line when the unintended consequences of this
tinkering become apparent? I doubt it.

Bob March 11, 2012 at 14:49

I respect your comments about elected Police Commissioners, however the
system is already half baked and ALREADY DOES NOT WORK.
This might be a
chance to make changes at a local level.
This might cause very different
outcomes in different regions. This enables an objective comparison to be
made.
This might enable the public to voice opinions and get them heard.
They will have to defend why they ignore the public.
This might cause a
candidate to spell out what he believes in.
All of these mights are worth
trying because the system is vastly polluted with PC PCs now.
If the
public can’t be bothered, then that’s their choice.

Ezekiel March 11, 2012 at 18:42

That Prescott is reportedly going to stand for election to the one of
the first posts should tell you everything you need to now about the
direction of travel of this particular initiative.
I believe it’s known
as BOHICA.

JuliaM March
12, 2012 at 05:47

If it’s a true race, why worry? Do you concern yourself when a donkey
ambles up to the starting tape at the Grand National, as you sit there
on your thoroughbred?

M Barnes
March 12, 2012 at 10:32

Good analogy! I fear these races will be more of a popularity
contest than a contest between experts in policing. Just what I need –
some smooth-faced presser of flesh with good hair, an even smile, neat
nose and SFA knowledge of crime, it’s causes and potential solutions
shooting slogans into the air like an over-viagra’d porn star.

Frankie March 11, 2012 at 14:25

Anna: One of your best to date – although I should declare an interest…

When I read that Magdi Elgizouli was to be released but was still a
credible threat to the police in particular, I neally choked on my cornflakes…
Of course, I thought, THIS is why there are less and less police officers on
the streets, so that psychotic nutters, who, in any common sense society would
be locked away for ever, are now released into areas where there are few
police officers (rather like releasing a dangerous man-eating beast near a
village full of people).

This policy is, I believe, utter madness. I am sure that lawyers acting
formElgizouli would be bleating about his ‘human rights’ if he were locked
away in a loony bin for ever, and that is why we are going to have him
dangerously at large, providing a risk to police officers, who, it is obvious,
scarcely bear consideration in comparison to Mr. Elgizouli’s needs, but, as it
is apparent that such a man could easily mistake a traffic warden or PCSO for
a police officer, the uniforms being not all that different it is obvious that
many other persons should be concerned at this news.

It really makes my blood boil when we have this kind of nonsense, and then
get cretinous fools like Ciaran Rehill or whatever he is called, spraying
their evil comments about the police and, most recently, gloating at the death
of PC Rathband.

Perhaps it is a coincidence, but Rehill’s ‘After Watt’ blog seems curiously
empty of comments recently, on any subject he casts his feeble mind to, as if
he has at last put himself beyond the pale; people effectively voting with
their feet and wishing to have no more to do with him. I note that, quite
correctly, he was barred from this blog due to his appalling comments on this
very subject.

Clearly, Rehill has an agenda and is an utter twerp, as have several others
in the blogosphere. Their comments about the police in general do not take
into consideration the facts – as Anna points out that many of those killed in
the line of duty were in the place where they died to help people, often their
killer.

There will always be one or two rotten apples in every barrel and that goes
for the police as well but… in the great majority, people join the police for
the right reasons and provide a good service, most of which goes unreported.

Yes, of course, being human, they can and do and will get things wrong, but
to denigrate every last police officer in the manner that some do is
completely and utterly wrong.

Anna
Raccoon March 11, 2012 at 15:53

Sorry, you got caught up in the spam filter Frankie – doesn’t do to
invoke the magic curse ‘Rehill’ – the spam filter goes into overdrive……

Ted Treen March 11, 2012 at 13:48

Anna,

Yet again, you have succinctly and lucidly expressed the feeling of those
who, I believe, form the decent greater majority of this country.

Why are we allowing such utter tw*ts to continually stay in power and
continually make things go from bad to worse?

The Dirty Rat
March 11, 2012 at 13:38

Anna.
A+.

GildasTheMonk
March 11, 2012 at 13:22

Very moving.

JuliaM March 11,
2012 at 17:56

Seconded.

Engineer March 11, 2012 at 12:14

I think the police started to lose their place as ‘of the community’ when
they moved away from beat policing to rapid reaction – sometimes, the reaction
isn’t very rapid (ask anybody in a rural area), and they have lost the local
knowledge that came of a local copper knowing his beat. I dare say I’ll be
derided for saying this, but a bit more ‘Dixon of Dock Green’ and a bit less
paramilitary thug would be very welcome, by most law-abiding people,
anyway.

The average Constable and Sargeant are, in general, trying to do their best
in sometimes very difficult circumstances. However, in order to reach
Inspector level or above, they have to toe the line with the political
correctness, and that’s when the wheels start to come off. The entire force
needs to be cleansed of sociological thinking, and taught to use it’s common
sense again – especially in the senior ranks.

As for arming the police – no. They should have access to firearms when
required, as is the case at the moment, but as the public are unarmed by law,
the police must be usually unarmed as well, or they will become even less part
of the community.

Span
Ows March 11, 2012 at 12:30

Engineer, I don’t think ANY ‘normal’ person would disagree with you,
especially “The entire force needs to be cleansed of sociological
thinking, and taught to use it’s common sense again – especially in the
senior ranks.”

binao March 11, 2012 at 12:48

A very fair summary.
My own experience of police here is very good at
the incident. Having lived overseas, our police do pretty well.
I agree
about the loss of the visible presence- they don’t necessarily stop a crime
on the beat, but do remind everybody that policing exists and isn’t 20miles
away. Using police like remotely based emergency call out plumbers has done
enormous damage.

Ted Treen
March 11, 2012 at 13:46

The inadequates who have been the “liberal” political mainstay of this
country for the last twenty+ years have done enormous damage.

And we meekly let them carry on doing so.

In God’s name, why?

Furor
Teutonicus March 11, 2012 at 16:16

XX Engineer March 11, 2012 at 12:14
The entire force needs to be
cleansed of sociological thinking, and taught to use it’s common sense again
– especially in the senior ranks. XX

Too late. Not just in the U.K, but the whole Western world is so poluted
by these “sociological” scum bags, from Nursery school teachers to
Presidents, that there will soon be no one left that even KNOWS how it was
before the rot, WHAT common sense IS. Let alone teach it.

It is self perpetuating. The scum bags only employ those that are the
same sort of scum bag as themselves. Then they put them in charge of
recruiting, teaching and training. And so the circle is closed.

JuliaM March
11, 2012 at 17:55

I fear FT is right. It’s too late. They’re dug in too deep, and there
are far, far too many of them.

PC Lightyear
March 12, 2012 at 14:00

“but a bit more ‘Dixon of Dock Green’ and a bit less paramilitary thug
would be very welcome, by most law-abiding people, anyway.”

Dont be so Daily Mail!

The police are NOT paramilitary thugs, the ‘sociological thinking’ sees
to that. A bit more paramilitary with the discipline that goes with it may
well make the police at bit more effective rather than overly cautious and
risk averse as they are forced to be now.

The law abiding public may well be unarmed, but the police generally dont
deal with the law abiding public, they deal with criminals, who are
increasingly armed.

As for police only having ‘access when required’ to firearms, the ‘when
required’ is usually instantly, ask the unarmed officers who had to stand
back and watch Derrick Bird kill innocent people because the unarmed police
were unable to stop him.

If you want Dixon of Dock Green, who was shot and killed on duty in the
series, then you cannot complain when people are shot/stabbed and police can
only stand by

Charles
Crosby March 12, 2012 at 15:45

“The police are NOT paramilitary thugs.”

Then why dress ‘em up like it, or is it that that is just the ploy i.e.
Robo Cop BS fear tactics.

PC
Lightyear March 12, 2012 at 16:22

They are not dressed like robo cop!

The stab-vests are necessary – personally id rather wear the
undershirt ones as theyre less bulky

Charles
Crosby March 12, 2012 at 19:30

Have you been to the opticians lately? If not, I would make it a
priority.

Stab vests are necessary because the police have alienated
themselves totally from the people they are supposed to serve.
Foisting and enforcing corporate legal crap on the people instead of
The Law. The Law being the people’s friend.

The police serve their political masters only – no one else.

PC
Lightyear March 12, 2012 at
20:26

Stab vests are necessary because criminals attack people that stop
them.

I guess you think all was rosy before police officers wore stab
vests?

Like in 1966 for example

Engineer
March 12, 2012 at 16:11

The point I’m trying to make is that if the police are more visible –
plodding the beat in the old-fashioned way, getting to know their patch
and where the ‘difficult’ families are – the ones with children not yet
wayward, but who may respond to quiet, friendly advice if they start to
signs of it – know where the elderly and vulnerable are, and keep an eye
out for them, drop in at the local shop and catch up on the gossip and
‘intelligence’ that such places tend to accumulate, then they might nip
many things in the bud before they turn into more serious crimes.

I really don’t want to be critical of the rank and file police officer,
as they undertake sometimes very demanding and difficult work on behalf of
the rest of us, and spend a disproportionate amount of their time coping
with society’s dregs, but I do feel that sometimes that skews the view of
the average officer that the other 95% of us are pretty much like that.
We’re not. Most of us just want to get on with life in peace.

Please do not accuse me of being ‘all Daily Mail’. I don’t read it, and
what I do see of it’s output seems rather strident to me. I speak only as
I feel, not as any newspaper would wish me to.

You say that the police generally don’t deal with the law-abiding
public – I think that’s part of the problem. We very rarely see a copper,
except maybe whizzing past in a car with blue lights. Consequently, the
police are no longer seen as part of the community. Until we have more
bobbies plodding the beat, exchanging good-mornings with the law-abiding
majority, the police will continue to drift away from being part of the
community, and the law-abiding majority will continue to feel abandoned by
a service that is supposed to be of them and for them.

Arming police officers will just make the disconnection worse. For a
member of the public – unable to carry any firearm except in very specific
and rigidly-controlled circumstances – to be ordered around by people with
guns would drive a big wedge between public and police – and the gap is
wide enough already.

PC
Lightyear March 12, 2012 at 16:31

If there were the resources on a uniformed core shift then foot
patrols would be a great thing.

Sadly police are being cut to the bone (12 officers on core response
to cover a london borough of over 200,000 is not unusual)

Youre 100% wrong on arming, as it’s well past the point of being a
political point, it’s now a safety issue.

You wouldnt sent a plumber out without a pipewrench so it’s wrong to
send a police officer out to deal with violent people who may and often
probably will have a knife or worse.

I do take exception to (not specifically referring you yourself here
as obv I dont know your background) people who don’t deal with violent
suspects trying to hurt them, telling those of us that do – how to do it
and with what.

‘Disconnect’ is irrelevant, getting armed criminals dealt with
quickly and before they can hurt anyone – police officer or bystander.
You cant deal with them promptly when armed support is even 5 mins away.
If you need a gun – you need it now – not 5 mins after being stabbed or
shot

Engineer
March 12, 2012 at 16:52

I can’t speak for the problems of London, I don’t live there. With
no offence meant to Londoners, I wouldn’t want to – and what you say
reinforces that view.

I can speak for the way the North-West of England is policed,
because I do live there. I don’t want to live in a country in which I
am legally unable to carry a gun, but I am obliged to be ordered
around by people who do. I don’t feel that I could retain any respect
for the police under those circumstances. They would not feel ‘like
me’.

I don’t see why we can’t have both beat policing and rapid
response. We do in the area I live in, and it seems to work – to me,
at least. We’ve had quite a lot of ‘minor’ crime (vandalism, low-level
nuisance from teenagers, petty theft) dealt with by our local bobby,
and such incidents are now rare. We all feel that makes the place
nicer and safer to live in.

I accept that some (especially inner city) areas are starting from
a much lower base, but dealing with the stuff that makes people’s
lives miserable – as above – builds bridges between police and
community. It worked (in a somewhat different form) some years ago in
Middlesborough for Ray Mallon. Maybe it might work in other areas.

PC
Lightyear March 12, 2012 at
16:58

“I don’t see why we can’t have both beat policing and rapid
response. We do in the area I live in, and it seems to work ”

Then youre very lucky. Most places are far too short of officers to
be able to do that, and in some (trust me as Ive real experience of
this) it’s like trying to keep the lid on a constantly overflowing jar
of crap.

Just because the current law stops most people buying guns doesnt
mean that police shouldnt have them.

If a Derrick Bird type incident occurred in your town, Im fairly
sure that if the beat bobby nearby was armed and could shoot the
gunman before the gunman shot you, you’d be grateful.

If you want more relaxed gun laws, then lobby parliament, it is not
an argument against arming the police or – more accurately- giving
them the tools to do their job, protect themselves, and protect you
and others.

PC PC
March 12, 2012 at 19:27

I work in one of the counties forces and fully support PC
LIGHTYEAR, its easy to blame the Police when you are largely shielded
from what really goes on,
the trouble is the vast majority of folks
(not just gangs but also professional wealthy folk too) seem to think
its there right to do as they please, they dont like being challenged
and think that they dont have to face the consequences of their
actions. Its frustrating and upsetting to say the least for me at
times, I love my country but there is no real sense of respect
anymore, ive had 5 year old kids spitting at me because i wear the
uniform, Im not saying that people should fear the Police far from it
but we need to Police the majority that are ruining our country far
more firmer and the decent folk of this country should actually stand
up and be counted, write to your Mp’s its what they’re paid for to
change things in parliament to make this nation something to be proud
of once more!!!!!!!
I agree 95% are good folk but we dont get to
meet them very often due to an ever growing work load, The Police
service is only as strong as the people that fight for and work with
it.

JuliaM March 13, 2012 at 05:49

“If a Derrick Bird type incident occurred in your town, Im
fairly sure that if the beat bobby nearby was armed and could shoot
the gunman before the gunman shot you, you’d be grateful.”

And if the beat bobby is himself five minutes away?

As I’ve pointed out above, the only people GUARANTEED to be on the
scene in time are the public…

Engineer
March 13, 2012 at 10:49

To make something clear – I have no particular need for, or wish to
own, a gun. Should I ever wish to do so (I’ve a vague leaning to
having a go at clay pigeon shooting, but no real strong drive to),
then I have no doubt that would pass all the checks.

I’m quite glad that our gun laws are strict, though for those in
rural areas who use guns as tools of the job for vermin control, they
are a severe pain. I don’t particularly wish to have the public
routinely carrying guns, and I am not arguing for a major relaxing of
the current gun laws.

I hope that clarifies my thinking on the matter.

However, if the public are, by law, unarmed, then the police, to be
of the community and part of the community, must also be normally
unarmed. If they were armed as a matter of course, it would be a major
divide between police and the law-abiding public (ie, most of us).

I accept that policing some parts of some cities is difficult in
the extreme, but would venture to suggest that if the scumbag element
knew that all police carried firearms, they would react accordingly.
It would make things worse, not better.

I have utter contempt for the sort of ‘hands off’ and
‘softly-softly’ political policies that have allowed the situation to
become so bad over the last three decades or so, and would dearly love
to see a government that backed the police to really sort things out –
that would, after all, be very much to the benefit of the law-abiding
majority. I also have utter contempt for those who regard the police
as some sort of oppressors intent on roughing-up everyone they meet. I
have utter contempt for the sort of idiots that regard releasing a
potentially homicidal nutter like Magdi Elgizouli into the community
is a good idea. I just want a police force that does it’s best to look
after the law-abiding by keeping them safe from scumbaggery in
whatever form, and recognise that it’s a never-ending and often
thankless task – the frustrations of the job come across very clearly
in the posts of the police officers above.

But I do want the police to of us and for us, and don’t want the
gulf between police and public to get wider than it is at the moment.
I depresses me very much that the general tone of posts by some
serving police officers suggests that they no longer really care about
that gulf.

For most of us, that’s worrying.

PC
Lightyear March 13, 2012 at
17:57

“However, if the public are, by law, unarmed, then the police, to
be of the community and part of the community, must also be normally
unarmed. If they were armed as a matter of course, it would be a major
divide between police and the law-abiding public (ie, most of
us).”

No no no NO!

Why can’t you get this?

It IS NOT about what ‘gulf’ you would perceive, even though that
perception is mainly of your own making.

It IS about being able to deal with armed criminals properly.

Whether you find officers caring about this perceived gulf of yours
or not pales into insignificance when weighed against the chance of
being shot on duty

Engineer
March 13, 2012 at 18:59

PC Lightyear – I am saddened that you don’t want to see my point of
view.

If you were an ordinary, law-abiding British citizen, would you
want to live in a country in which you could be ordered around by
armed people? That’s the root of my phrase ‘paramilitary thug’ in my
original comment.

Police permanently armed? No, no, no, no. Might as well be under
military law.

PC
Lightyear March 13, 2012 at 19:54

“If you were an ordinary, law-abiding British citizen, would you want
to live in a country in which you could be ordered around by armed
people? That’s the root of my phrase ‘paramilitary thug’ in my original
comment.”

1) You already can be.

2)It’s irrelevant whether you’d be ‘ordered around by armed people’
or ordered around by unarmed people, we have the most excessively
accountable police on earth, so you’re not going to get shot for it.

3) If you were a police officer, bleeding to death, with thoughts of
your life and your family rapidly fading before your dimming eyes….. are
you going to be comforted by the fact that ‘oh well, at least the
‘disconnect’ is lessened….. Or would you rather have a gun to shoot the
armed criminal BEFORE he shot you?!

THIS is the crux of the issue. I have been an armed officer in the
past, I also spent a number of years in HM forces before joining the
police.

I have been injured by a knife wielding criminal and have the scar to
prove it.

I have to deal with these issues on a day to day basis – I have no
problem with that – I signed up for it, but I do take exception to
someone saying I shouldnt have the equipment to protect myself and save
myself from injury (or even death or permanent disability as per PC
Rathband) because people have this abstract view that they’d be oh so
disconnected from a copper with a gun.

To put it bluntly – I don’t care if you or anyone else would feel
disconnected from armed police, I as a police officer would rather go
home alive and uninjured.

PC
Lightyear March 13, 2012 at
20:15

and as for “Might as well be under military law.”

Again, for someone who doesn’t read the daily mail you don’t half
sound like them….. it seems to work for every other country in europe.
It works in that hotbed of tyranny – Canada, and the other
dictatorship – australia.

Ive also heard that having armed patrol cops is so opressive it
stops thousands of tourists going to France and spain for their hols
each year.

In fact it’s so bad that as soon as British tourists step off the
plane in Majorca they are instantly oppressed and in some cases shot
dead on sight.

…..Oh no wait…. that isnt what happens is it.

Engineer
March 13, 2012 at 22:01

Sadly, from the evidence of this conversation, the problem is not
that the police are no longer seen as part of society, it is that some
police no longer see themselves as part of society.

And that is very sad…..

Gonkione March 11, 2012 at 11:53

Span Ows
“A notorious police killer is being released after 15 years –
but he must be housed in an area with few police on the streets to protect his
mental health.”
Unbelievable, how can he POSSIBLY be safe to release if the
above is true?”

It’s because the dipsticks in charge know better than everyone else. When
he commits his next crime who will arrest him? A risk assessment will show he
is not to be approached by a law enforcement officer in case it upsets him. I
say shoot him on sight……. oh dear! will that infringe his human rights?

Span
Ows March 11, 2012 at 12:27

I fear you’re right Gonkione, I just blogged this after reading Anna’s post and linked back here
but also found this very good post from MentalHealthCop:

http://mentalhealthcop.wordpress.com/2012/03/10/pc-nina-mackay/

“Because if this doesn’t work seemlessly, guess who is going to get
called?”

JuliaM March 11,
2012 at 17:54

Isn’t there also a risk he’ll assume a member of the public is a
plainclothes officer?

MentalHealthCop March 12, 2012 at 15:32

It’s not very well reported now, but it was covered in 1997 that before
the arrest attempt where Nina Mackay was killed, he was attacking members
of the public.

Anna
Raccoon March 12, 2012 at
16:09

Was that not part of his delusions? That he thought members of the
public were undercover cops?

Span
Ows March 11, 2012 at 11:40

Great post and it as a good interview on R5L.

Are there meant to be more links in the blog-post? i.e. This from Daily Mail

“A notorious police killer is being released after 15 years – but he must
be housed in an area with few police on the streets to protect his mental
health.”

Unbelievable, how can he POSSIBLY be safe to release if the above is
true?

Mark H March 13, 2012 at 09:14

With the reduction in numbers it wont be hard to find somewhere for him
to live where he wont see one.

kirk elder March 11, 2012 at 11:12

The problem is that NO policeman EVER gets held to account for the
service’s mistakes. No-one was at fault over Mendes etc.

Squaddies have been found guilty and punished for lesser transgressions.
When the first copper is punished for killing or maiming the public because of
carelessness or abuse of authority, you will have my support. Till then I’m
cynical

Span
Ows March 11, 2012 at 11:45

kirk, you shouldn’t be cynical: I think dozens of Police officers have
been so charged. Just because in one or two high profile cases they are not
charged doesn’t mean it never happens.

PC Lightyear
March 12, 2012 at 13:25

Kirk, don’t be silly

The officers pulling the trigger did nothing wrong.

The commander of the operation however…… well

2Mac March 12, 2012 at 19:22

I hop eyou are not implying Cresida Dick (I think that is her name) I
person who ran the operation, got over her hear and gave unclear
instructions, misleading instructions and generally had no idea what the
fuck she was doing.

I am sure she was fully supported by her friends in the Labour Home
Office. She may be a useless police officer, useless CO but she ticks all
the diversity boxes on her paperwork efficiently.

Spiral Architect
March 11, 2012 at 10:32

Well said.

British cops need individual firearms – but none of the government, local
authorities or management want to pay for the hardware, and, more importantly
for the training – which has to be ongoing.

Times have changed since ‘The Blue Lamp’ and ‘Dickson of Dock Green’ – but
remember even he was shot.

ivan March 11, 2012 at 11:40

If that were to be the case then the public also needs the freedom to
carry arms, after all why should the crims be the only ones armed as they
are at the moment.

Spiral
Architect March 11, 2012 at 12:55

Complete and utter gobbledygook.

Smoking Hot March 11, 2012 at 13:17

Guns? … no, but other defence equipment .. yes. The police can only
be there invariably after the event to pick up the pieces.

JuliaM March 11, 2012 at 17:53

What ‘other defence equipment’ did you have in mind?

PC
Lightyear March 12, 2012 at
14:12

“The police can only be there invariably after the event to pick up
the pieces.”

Not if police get rid of performance monitoring, diveristy,
unnecessary paperwork and put the shiny arsed street dodgers back onto
core teams and out patrolling high streets on foot AS WELL as having a
fast response when called (plus being armed)

Rickrude
March 13, 2012 at 21:39

How does anything you just said make any sense whatsoever? The police
need firearms to protect the public what do the public need them for?

Eddie
Willers March 16, 2012 at 15:21

…because when seconds count, the police are minutes away!

PC Lightyear
March 12, 2012 at 13:24

Spiral

If money is the only factor, I think they’ll find most coppers quite
happy to buy their own sidearm

JuliaM March
13, 2012 at 05:47

“Not if police get rid of performance monitoring, diveristy,
unnecessary paperwork and put the shiny arsed street dodgers back onto
core teams and out patrolling high streets on foot AS WELL as having a
fast response when called (plus being armed)”

Even if we did that, and quadrupled the numbers, you’ll STILL
arrive after the screaming and the bleeding has begun. Even in London,
never mind more rural areas. It’s just the way things are.

The only people guaranteed to be on the spot are the public.

PC
Lightyear March 13, 2012 at 08:52

I come across incidents everyday.

Even more so when we used to foot patrol outside pubs n clubs in the
evening.

If you’re arguing for easy gun ownership- take a look at the Jeremy
Kyle show and think do you want people like that owning guns

Spiral
Architect March 13, 2012 at 10:43

Yes but its the – larger – recurrent expense i.e. the training, that
they don’t want to fork out for.

night_watch
March 14, 2012 at 14:37

@Spiral. I have no idea where you get the idea that more guns on the
streets is a desirable thing. Perhaps from the TV? The “bang, you’re
dead” Hollywood movie, where the bad guys couldn’t hit the broadside of
a barn at 20 paces, but the good guys shots all count? I know for a fact
that most (if not all) of my former colleagues would not want to have a
firearm for routine patrol – ask the Police Federation if you don’t
believe me – they carried out a survey not too long ago. A handgun would
not have saved PC Rathband or any one (that I can think of) of the
Officers killed in recent years whilst on routine patrol. Guns are not
magical talismans; if you pull it out you had better be prepared to kill
with it, its NOT for waving about and threatening people with; if you
carry it, you had better make sure the other guy doesn’t get his hands
on it in a fight: you can’t shoot a guy in a fist fight; if he doesn’t
want to comply, you can’t shoot him for not doing as he’s told; if he
runs away, you can’t shoot him in the back; if he drives away you can’t
shoot out his tyres. You CANNOT “shoot to wound”: UK Police Officers are
trained to “shoot to stop”: it is a euphemistically “unfortunate”
outcome that a 9mm double-tap to the chest is usually fatal. If you have
the gun taken off you in a fight, that’s a handgun and 20 rounds on the
streets (and probably you dead as well). Most cops in other
jurisdictions never use their firearm, many cops, however, are killed
with their own weapon. Sorry Spiral, I see no justification for your
original statement. There’s no evidence at all to suggest that a cop
sitting in a car, minding his own business, is “safer” or “better able
to protect the public” if he carries a gun. In fact, if PC Rathband DID
have a gun, ask yourself what the chances would have been that Moat
would have then had a shotgun AND a handgun? 9mm hollowpoint ammo can go
through stab-proof body armour, you know… BTW, if the UK Government
thought for one moment that giving cops guns would keep criminals in
their place, the UK Police would have been personally issued with them
decades ago (such as during the height of the PIRA attacks on the
mainland, where there was plenty of cash for policing about and police
stations were shot at, bombs detonated and cops were at a far greater
risk of being killed). Cost – initial or ongoing – is not the issue; I’m
afraid you are going to have to show that the “recurrent expense” is the
real reason – trust me , it’s not. There’s no conspiracy, just common
sense : more guns = more dead people and there’s nothing to say that any
of the cops recently killed or injured would have been “safer” with a
gun at their hip. The current model works well and people still get
killed in error, what on earth makes you think that the number of Police
errors won’t increase with the number of armed cops? If you can prove
your last statement – which implies that the Govt want to arm cops but
don’t want to pay for it, go right ahead. Otherwise, please accept that
more guns are not the answer.

Spiral
Architect March 14, 2012 at
14:53

This is not just about David Rathband. It’s about beat/response
officers who face amoral ‘clients’ every day.

You are in a minority – no matter what you say about the
Federation.

British police officers already carry guns……had you not
noticed?

Which force did you serve in? When did you retire?

Mike March 11, 2012 at 10:24

I was brought up not to snivel. However, here I go. An excellent piece,
I’ll be passing it on to my youngest son, a Met copper in Peckham.

Anna
Raccoon March 11, 2012 at 10:32

Having lived on the Sumner Estate in Peckham, he has my total
sympathy.

Friend of Dog
March 11, 2012 at 17:56

Having walked the beat in Peckham in the mid 60s I have sympathy for
Mike’s son.

Anna
Raccoon March 11, 2012 at
17:59

Ah, the 60s, Friend of Dog — back then the animals were on leads and
only crapped on the grass……you should see it now.