Oh, Is It That Time Of Year Again?

Poppy Day parades to honour Britain’s war dead are facing the axe because police chiefs across the country are refusing to send officers to block off roads.

Yes, it's the time of year when the police top brass get to use the nation's war dead as a stick to beat the government with...

Jock Bryson, 82, who runs the town’s Royal British Legion poppy appeal, said: ‘I feel disgusted that people went to war and gave their lives and now, all of a sudden, the police are saying they are not going to help us this year.’

You notice, Jock, they never say they won't help the Notting Hill Carnival? I do...

Frank Mullen, 80, who served in the Royal Signals, said: ‘It is ridiculous. It is going to be cancelled because the police can’t be there and we can’t by law stop traffic.

'We are one of the richest countries and they can’t even afford three or four police officers for an hour’s work.’

They can afford to make fools of themselves on social media all the day long, though....

Congratulations, Progressives, You Got One Of Your Favoured Class Killed...

Mr Ebrahimi had previously been visited by PC Winter and PC Harris after calling police on July 11, 2013, to report that James had beaten him up over the false belief he was a paedophile.

When the experienced officers arrived, one noted James was so angry he was 'foaming at the mouth' and bragged he would 'do time' to protect his children, the court heard.

The 26-year-old father mistakenly thought that Mr Ebrahimi, an immigrant, was filming children for sexual reasons - but actually he was gathering evidence of alleged antisocial behaviour.

Despite viewing footage of James barging in Mr Ebrahimi's flat, the two officers arrested the victim in front of a 'vigilante crowd', it was said.

Mr Ebrahimi was released without charge on the morning of July 12 and driven home by PC Henrietta Staveley-Brown.

It seems 'paedophile type behaviour' trumps even 'immigrant' in the police playbook, no matter what the actual events. Because who does anything other than arrest and sort it out later (if the victim is still alive) any more?

Who inculcated that belief? It wasn't 'the right', was it?

And hardly surprising that Nick Gargan's police farce was riddled with incompetence. A fish rots from the head, after all...

Keeping You Safe, Citizen! You Don’t Need To Know The Details…

Police do not know the whereabouts of hundreds of convicted sex offenders in the UK, according to figures published on Tuesday.

A total of 396 registered sex offenders – who are supposed to be monitored by police and inform authorities if they change address – are missing across the UK, with some out of contact with police for more than a decade, according to freedom of information responses to the Press Association.

How terrible! Can the public help you, officers?

Police have refused to name 23 missing sex offenders in case they breach their 'human rights'.

Greater Manchester Police has confirmed that they are missing, including one who disappeared in September 2005, and three who have not been seen since 2006.

Umm…

The MEN asked for the names of all 23 and details of offences they had committed. But in a statement GMP said: "It is not the policy of GMP or the Police Service of England and Wales to routinely name sex offenders whether they are missing or not as this would be a breach of their human rights.

"This also may endanger their safety unnecessarily and may also lead to the identification of victims."

/facepalm

"A large proportion of the recorded missing/wanted sex offenders are either known or believed to be living abroad or have returned to their country of origin.

"Of the 23 registered sex offenders registered in GMP whose whereabouts are currently unknown, 11 are strongly believed to be abroad and checks are in place should they return to the UK.

"The remaining 12 are subject to periodic reviews and enquiries in order to trace them all are circulated as wanted."

Oh, OK, well, we can all sleep safe in our beds knowing the UKBF is on the ca…

Wait.

Pity About The Other 364 Days Of The Year...

It's that time of year again! The time of year when we copy the US, dress up, eat stuff we'd never dream of eating at any other time of the year (pumpkin soup? Err, no, thanks...) and have spooky fun, while...

But wait! Hold up there! Fun? Oh, no. No, no, no, no...

When there's something strange endearingly cute in your neighbourhood, who ya gonna call? The police, of course!

And it's not just them...

Not to be outdone...

Yes, even the turnip-munchers aren't left out...

Well, this spells trouble for Mary Berry and Paul Hollywood...

Do these scare you? Well MAN THE FUCK UP! They're only kids!

Yes, every police Twitterfeed has gone into overdrive, promising dire retribution and the flames of Hell* to anyone who upsets the gentlefolk of the parish on this one night.

Yeah, yeah. Try calling them tomorrow to report ASB. Let me know how it goes, won't you? But I hope you aren't the ones that get arrested...

*sod all, because the lines will be jammed with idiots like they always are...

But ‘Everyone’ Didn't Fail Him…You Did, Chief Con Gargan!

Nick Gargan, chief constable of Avon and Somerset Police, admitted the city had “failed” to protect Mr Ebrahimi, who was beaten and set alight in July.

‘The city’? What, all of it? Oh, spare me! ‘The city’ didn't fail him at all…

Mr Gargan echoed many local voices when he said he found it “hard to understand how such an event can happen in such a tolerant city” .

Well, clearly, because ‘a city’ isn't tolerant. A city is made up of people, and some of them are tolerant and some are not, and the latter are why we employ – at great expense – a system of uniformed guardians to keep the peace.

Sound familiar to you, Gargan? Sound a bit like it might be your job description?

Mr Ebrahimi rarely left his council house on Capgrave Crescent in the Brislington suburb of the city.

“He was terribly misunderstood by the community and something should have been done to put this right,” Mr Gargan said.

“Who can say why he was being picked on? He was different, disabled and Iranian.”

‘Who can say’..? Why, I can say, Gargan. He was picked on because there were absolutely no consequences for doing so, and that’s your failing.

Oh, sure, some of it is down to the courts and what they laughably consider punishment these days, but it’s hard to say that they wouldn't have stepped up to the plate this time because no-one from your command did anything other than arrest him.

Yes, him. The victim! Not the howling mob!

The block in which Mr Ebrahimi lived is made up of around 100 maisonettes and flats facing towards a central courtyard.

Unable to work, he spent his days tending to his flowers and looking after his cat. But there were no flower pots outside Mr Ebrahimi’s empty home and the few neighbours who agreed to talk to The Independent spoke of their sense of shock and disgust.

One local resident, who wished not to be named, said: “It was disgusting. The whole community is in shock, we just want the whole thing to go away.”

Yes, I expect you do. But it shouldn't. At the very least, you know the identities of the others in that mob, and you’d sleep easier at night if you publicised them. To Facebook and Twitter.

Don’t waste time with Gargan, or the other backpedalling authorities desperate to avoid the blame or to insist that they aren't the only ones to blame. These vigilantes want to live by the sword, time they had a taste of the flip side of that...

The crime would have been visible to the whole courtyard but another resident, who admitted “emotions were high”, thought that threats of violence were “all talk” after the Iranian’s arrest and said few residents saw anything.

*hollow laughter*

Speaking to BBC Radio Bristol, Mr Gargan said: “When all the dust has settled down on this case we need to sit back as a community and reflect on what went wrong and why wasn't that poor man better served.”

Here, have a mirror. Take a look.

More frightening than anything else you'll see this Hallowe'en...

That’s why. He wasn't ‘better served’ because you aren't fit for the position you hold, you weasel-faced excuse for a police man..

This call was echoed by the city’s Mayor George Ferguson, who told the Bristol Post he was “proud of Bristol” as a “tolerant place to live” but that “it is vitally important for everyone involved to sit down and look at what could have been done differently”.

Try sacking your chief constable. That might help!

In a statement released via solicitors, Mr Ebrahimi’s family said that he had been the victim of hate crimes for several years and it hoped all those who “failed” him would face justice.

So do I. And I know who should be at the top of that list. It’s the man whose resume reads like a bad joke about 'shiny arse graduate entrants who've never done a day's coppering in their lives' :

”Nick began his career in 1988 as a police constable with Leicestershire Constabulary under the Graduate Entry Scheme, after studying Politics and French at Leicester University.

Soon after joining, he attended the Accelerated Promotion Course.

In 1995 he was seconded to the National Criminal Intelligence Service, working at the London bureau of Interpol and then at the British Embassy in Paris where he was heavily involved in the investigation into the deaths of Diana, Princess of Wales, Mr Dodi Al Fayed and Mr Henri Paul.

He gave evidence at the eventual inquest in London. Nick returned to Leicester in 1998 and rose through the ranks to become chief-superintendent.”

It’s about time his rise was brought to a halt. Or we might see this man’s features presiding over yet more of these cases, maybe as head of the Metropolitan Police next time.

'Daily Mail' Commenters - Not Always Wrong...

"British police must be trying to do all they can to ensure they're the most hated in the world"

So sayeth commenter Orwell's Ghost about this story:

Police responded after motorists complained they were mistaking hobby riders, of which there are about 3million in Britain, for mounted police officers.

And by 'responded', of course, they don't mean 'laughed at the stupidity and illiteracy of drivers who mistake Prunella on Guzzle for a mounted police unit'...

Assistant chief constable Ron Hanson, the association’s head of mounted policing, wrote: ‘Anyone possessing these products is at risk of breaking the law, namely section 90 of the Police Act 1996.’

After the horse riders, no doubt they'll come for the cyclists...

”The animal which most frequently came before the criminal courts was the pig.”

Ah, those quaint medieval country bumpkins and their peculiar ways:

At Mesnil St. Denis, near Paris, there still exists a spot called Truye Pendue, after a sow which was once hanged there for killing an infant, and about twenty similar cases are recorded in France alone by the writers above mentioned.

Thank goodness we don’t go in for pointless, self-aggrandising public displays of this nature in this country now, eh?

What?

Oh:

A police officer who was cleared of killing Ian Tomlinson during the G20 protests in London will face force disciplinary proceedings on September 17.

Pc Simon Harwood was acquitted of manslaughter last month, but police watchdog the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) ordered that he should face the internal Metropolitan Police hearing in public.

For what possible reason?

Via Inspector Gadget’s comments, we see the official Met website touting seats at the spectacle. This is unprecedented, and unseemly.

And it most certainly won’t prevent anyone remembering the real scandal of the whole affair, either:

A series of allegations were made against him over a 12-year period, and he was allowed to retire from the Met on medical grounds in 2001 despite unresolved disciplinary proceedings.

He was accused of unlawful arrest, abuse of authority and discreditable conduct over an incident when he allegedly shouted at another driver and knocked him over his car door, before announcing he was a police officer and arresting the motorist on a common assault charge. But the proceedings were discontinued when he retired.

Later, Harwood rejoined the force as a civilian worker, before becoming a police officer for Surrey. He was then allowed to rejoin the Met in 2004 as part of its Territorial Support Group, specialising in public order.

Rather than have a show-trial of Harwood, why not name names and publicise the disasters in uniform who failed to heed the warnings about the man’s conduct?

Errr, Well, No. No, It Doesn't Explain It At All...

Alexander Taylor-Camara, defending, said martial arts fanatic White had become an isolated figure after a series of bad relationships, which he said 'explained but did not excuse' his behaviour.

Tut! Back to Mitigation 101 for you, Alexander...

And maybe ACPO will start to vet their advisers a little more closely in future?

Dog Attacks: I Don’t See Why We Should Worry About ‘Privatised’ Police…

…after all, it’s not like the supposedly-impartial service they offer couldn’t be done just as well by anyone else prone to jump to conclusions, is it?

“As I was walking past it looked at me and then jumped,” he said. “It wiggled me about and threw me on the road.”

… Norfolk police confirmed they were investigating the attack.

The owner apologised but Anita, 28, believes the dog should now be muzzled to stop any further attacks on children in the area.

The mother-of-four said: “The dog just went for him. When I told the police they said, ‘what did he do to provoke it?’ “My son was just walking back to his mate’s house. He has got three puncture wounds and a massive chunk of skin missing and massive bruising. It was completely unprovoked. He is in a lot of shock.”

What happened to ‘Just the facts, ma’am’..? Oh. Right. That was so long ago, and in another country…

I wonder if anyone's asked the five police officers serving that warrant on Thursday if they 'provoked' the beast? I bet they wouldn't be all that chuffed to be asked that, as they lay in their hospital beds.

I bet, as a result of that, they'll be a lot less prone to brush aside reports of dog attacks (like the one described in comments) on civilians in future, or to fail to act on reports of serious injuries, especially at addresses they may one day have to visit.

As the comments point out, they've been well and truly hoist on their own petard in this incident, and there's not a great deal of sympathy:

And there's more:

Now, while no-one should want to see anyone hurt, the dangerous dog phenomenon is the inverse of the serial killer phenomenon.

When a serial killer is discovered, the neighbours are all 'Oh, really? Gosh! Dave, you say? Well, he was such a nice, quiet guy! Grew lovely daffodils...'.

When one of these weapon dogs - because that's what they are, despite the 'Mirror' referring to it as a 'pet' yesterday, it's no more a 'pet' than its owner is a 'musician' (cellist? the triangle? place your bets..) - goes berserk, the paper is usually full of neighbours pointing out how it has attacked before, it was clearly dangerous, everyone was afraid of it and nothing was done.

Perhaps now, something will be done. And not the usual blanket something, sweeping up family pets and weapon dogs alike, but targeted action focusing on just these sorts of areas, just these sorts of owners, and just these sorts of dogs.

The police know. They have the information, even if they haven't always shared it with their own people. Up till now, they've lacked the impetus.

I'm hoping they now have the impetus. But it seems it's only to protect themselves and other state employees:

The Association of Chief Police Officers has renewed a call to strengthen the terms of the Dangerous Dogs Act after an attack in east London hospitalised five officers.

Acpo's lead officer on the issue, North Wales assistant chief constable Gareth Pritchard, said he wanted dog owners to be prosecuted if their animal attacked police when they were making an arrest in a suspect's home. Currently owners can only be prosecuted if a dog attack occurs on public land as opposed to private property. Pritchard added that any new legislation should cover nurses, social workers and postal workers, who were lawfully entitled to be on private property.

Why not 'people'? Don't we count?

Bring It, ACPO!

Because nothing would make me happier than to see the government squash you like the annoying little parasite you’ve been allowed to become:

Police chiefs have labelled the Government’s plan to give the public more say over policing ‘perverse’ and dangerous, leaked papers revealed last night.

This seems to be ACPO firing a warning shot, via the media.

The document risks igniting a ferocious row between the Association of Chief Police Officers and ministers.

Good! Here’s hoping ACPO doesn’t chicken out or back down. Because they need to lose, and lose hard…

Police are not supposed to enter into contentious political areas, such as the debate over whether to introduce directly elected commissioners.

But Sir Hugh Orde, president of ACPO, is warning that it will make public its views over the alleged risk that the flagship Tory policy poses to the public.

Make them public by all means. If you think the public will take your side, you’ve finally – and I hope fatally – misjudged the situation.

ACPO fears that commissioners might focus only on the local priorities needed to get them re-elected - to the detriment of nationwide duties to fight terrorism and organised crime.

The leaked papers also include a claim by ACPO that criminals and even sex offenders could be elected by the public.

Which would be laughable if not for the fact that criminals and sex offenders are already making up the ranks.

Eh, Sir Hugh?

And also, this outpouring of concern for the public rings a little hollow, when it is immediately apparent that what has prompted this is concern for your own necks:

The key demand in the document, passed to the Mail, is for the Coalition to make it far harder for the elected commissioners to sack failing chief constables. Ministers consider the right for elected commissioners to hire and fire chief officers as crucial to making the service more accountable to the public.

But ACPO is insisting there must be a legal duty on the commissioner to seek clearance from Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary.

You snivelling little worm!

I hope Nick Herbert tells you ‘Publish and be damned!’:

The document has been sent to police minister Nick Herbert, with a covering letter. In this, Sir Hugh says he is prepared to go public with his warnings by sending the document to a committee of MPs. It then goes on to say that - before he does so - he ‘would welcome the opportunity’ to first discuss it with ministers.

The Home Office is likely to view this as a warning that - if a meeting tomorrow between Sir Hugh and Mr Herbert does not go well – the document will be published.

Is this the sound of ACPO finally shooting themselves in both feet? I do hope so…

Last night, ACPO insisted that it was not entering into political debate, but had a duty to take part in discussions over the future of the police service.

Officials said they had stressed repeatedly their commitment to making the government’s policing reforms work.

Work for whom..? Not, I suspect, for us. We are expected to just pay for you, and keep our mouths shut.

Not any more.

Don’t screw this one up, iDave.

‘…intellectual underpinning or historical understanding of the kind of national compact between the UK police and its public…’

‘Sir’ Ian Blair is not in favour of elected sheriffs. What a shocker, eh?

Even leader writers seem to have taken their cue from the coalition's approach to policing, which appears, in contrast to its approach to defence or health, to be determinedly not to look for the big picture.

The ‘Big Picture’ being whatever Blair believes, of course…

And then there is the announcement of the introduction of elected police commissioners, apparently drawn from the US model of elected sheriffs, without any intellectual underpinning or historical understanding of the kind of national compact between the UK police and its public.

And you do? ACPO do?

I Think We'll Live With 'Unsustainability' If It Leads To Less Of This...

Current police numbers are not "sustainable" in the face of budget cuts, a senior officer will warn later.

President of the Association of Chief Police Officers Sir Hugh Orde will tell a conference it is "misleading in the extreme" to claim otherwise.

Oh, 'misleading', is it, Sir Hugh Ordure?

Well, your officers know a thing or two about being misleading, don't they?

Two police officers stopped a teenage photographer from taking pictures of an Armed Forces Day parade - and then claimed they did not need a law to detain him.

Jules Mattsson, a 16-year-old freelancer from Hackney, east London, was photographing police cadets on Saturday when he was ordered to stop and give his personal details by an adult cadet officer who claimed he needed parental permission to capture images of the cadets.

Sadly for the uniformed bullies, this was one photographer who knew his rights and wasn't about to be cowed into giving them.

The student, who works as a freelance photojournalist in his spare time, decided to record his confrontation on his mobile phone, providing an insight into the legal arguments that the officers were using to justify stopping him from taking photographs.

And surprise surprise! Just as in this infamous video, the officers concerned prioved to be talking out of...well, not their mouths, that's for sure...

After arguing his rights in a series of protracted legal debates with officers, the sixth former says he was pushed down a set of stairs and detained for breaching the peace until the parade passed.

He's now said to be thinking of taking action. I hope he does, because police who behave like this should be drummed out of the force:

The audio recording begins minutes later with an officer initially arguing that it is illegal to take photographs of children. He then claims that it is illegal to take images of army members and police officers.

Under laws that guarantee the freedom of press in Britain, there is no restriction on photography of children, police or armed forces in a public space.

Indeed, the dim, lying little bullies will be in hot water with a bit of luck, because they've been told time and time again that this is not to be done - it's already cost them money:

The incident in Romford came just 24 hours after the force was forced to pay compensation to two photojournalists for a similar incident. Marc Vallee and Jason Parkinson took civil action against the Met after they had their camera equipment grabbed by officers in December 2008 while reporting on a protest outside the Greek Embassy.

In a public apology the Met admitted that its officers had “failed to respect press freedom” of the two journalists and agreed to pay them each £3,500 plus legal costs.

So let's hope this chap presses his case and gets treble that.

Maybe then, they'll get the message...

State Sanctioned Vigilantism – Coming Soon To A Nightclub Near You

Ranting Rab points out this egregious money grap by ACPO:

Tens of thousands of nightclub bouncers and private security guards could be given sweeping police-style powers.

Senior police officers have ordered a dramatic expansion of a controversial scheme that allows authorised civilians to issue fines for littering and other minor offences.

They may also stop members of the public in the street, take their photograph and ask for their name and address.

Oh, great! Licensing and empowering the sort of people usually employed in these functions? I can’t see a problem with this.

Can anyone else?

Critics have called for a halt to the Community Safety Accreditation Scheme, saying it amounts to 'state-sanctioned vigilantism'.

Ah. Right. Apart from that one.

So where does the money come into it?

The move is particularly controversial because Acpo is directly involved in approving private firms which want to join the CSAS.

Security companies pay between £450 and £600 for an assessment by a private company owned by Acpo, and between £32 and £132 for each accredited employee.

Councils and other public sector organisations pay between £300 and £315 to be accredited, and £35 to £90 per employee.

So, ACPO are on a nice little earner, aren’t they?

And the article fails to mention that ACPO themselves are another of those private companies…

Naturally, the Opposition (Tory and Lib Dem) protested, but this fell on deaf ears:

Assistant Chief Constable Peter Davies, speaking for Acpo, defended the scheme.

He said: 'Accredited persons play a part in building safe and secure neighbourhoods.

'However, their role must remain distinct from that of police officers whose task is to uphold and enforce the law, tackling all forms of harm to the public and communities.'

All forms of harm?

Like shouty pensioners, for instance?