Supt Roe said tactically, by not arresting the activist, police prevented further “disorder and injury” by not inflaming an already tense situation.Sounds a lot like the excuses made when they all stood aside and let Croydon burn, doesn't it?
That's because it's exactly the same.
He added: “If we were heavy-handed we would be criticised for escalating tensions and people could be hurt deliberately or by accident. If you aren’t going to lose evidence, as this offence was captured on camera, and no initial complaint has been made as in this case, there is nothing to stop you investigating an incident in slow time.”When it's nice and safe...
And we don't get a tick in the 'doesn't play well with minorities' box.
Now, I like to think if it was acid, instead of scalding liquid, they'd have waded in regardless. Once, I'd have have been sure they would.
Not any more. Are you?
8 comments:
Supt Roe said: "It is our job to negotiate, influence and resolve activities peacefully." No it isn't. It's your job to deter and detect crime, and to enforce the law. Which, by the way, is the law in the law books, not the law as you would like it to be.
I don't envy the police their task here, but they have to decide whose side they are on.
@ Richard ..
Supt Roe and those in higher positions (which he would dearly like to hold in the future) have already decided who's side their on .. and its not the side of the general, law-abiding public ..
We are simply viewed as cash-cows or as fodder for their statistics ..
I truly feel sorry for the officers who are obliged to take orders from such cretins ..
[Richard beat me to it]
"It is our job to negotiate, influence and resolve activities peacefully."
No, that's the UN.
@ SBC ..
"It is our job to negotiate, influence and resolve activities peacefully."
"No, that's the UN" ...
And for 99.9 % of the time they manage to fuck that up wonderfully ..
So just how does a full-of-his own-importance Police Superintendent fondly imagine he is either qualified or equipped to assume their role ?
One evening in the mid 90s I was standing in the city centre speaking to a friend as we were about to go our separate ways after leaving a gay pub. We were no more than 3 metres from a police officer leaning against his car eating pizza. Seemingly out of nowhere a young Jamaican appeared, towering over me (and I am not short) and gibbering in my face (at great volume and with evident feeling) vile lyrics from a then-current 'song' calling for the murder of homosexuals. In some shock and not really able to speak, I looked at the officer and made a 'WTF?' gesture. He got in his car and drove away. Thankfully the savage did not press home his advantage but just loped off.
At the time, I put it down to the officer's personal cowardice. Nowadays it seems to be official policy.
Nowadays it would be a doughnut, sorry 'donut', but the outcome would be the same. As there was no actual complaint, and since no-one was actually hurt, he would be procedurally correct to leave the scene and go looking for some upright citizen who had put their bin out twenty minutes early. After all, the law must be upheld.
"Police: We Swear To Uphold The Law Without Fear Or Favour...."
Contemporary amendment:
We swear and uphold uselessness.
"I don't envy the police their task here, but they have to decide whose side they are on."
I think they've decided their path, at least. It's the path of least resistance.
"I looked at the officer and made a 'WTF?' gesture. He got in his car and drove away. "
Good grief!
"Contemporary amendment:
We swear and uphold uselessness."
It's beginning to look more and more like that.
Post a Comment