Then You'll Have More Cases Like These Ones. Is That What You Want?

Effective policing depends upon inclusivity. If you are committed to policing by consent that stands or falls on the trust of all communities, you cannot do without it.

You'll have to, because you’ve lost it irrecoverably. 

London is the world’s greatest and most diverse and globally connected city. Nine million people live here. Hundreds of languages are spoken. The scale and complexity of policing London today is unlike anything Sir Robert Peel imagined when founding the Metropolitan police. Yet, in 1829, he recognised that policing success in a democracy relies on public approval, respect and cooperation as much as on “impartial service to the law”.

We cannot be effective if large sections of society do not trust us, do not work with us, or do not see policing as a service that understands their experiences.

Well, I think some of them understand it only too well. 

An inclusive workforce is not a public relations exercise.

Except when it is, and subesequntly goes badly wrong! As it did only too recently.

It makes us better at protecting victims, catching criminals and preventing crime.

We cannot police London effectively without the trust and confidence of the communities we serve.

Stop thinking of them as many disparate 'communities' then and start thinking of them - and treating them under the law - as Londoners.  

By listening to people’s lived experiences and working in partnership with communities, we can build stronger relationships and greater legitimacy. This is particularly important when using police powers, including stop and search, where fairness, empathy and accountability are essential to maintaining public confidence and keeping London safe.

But it never works as intended, does it, Rowley?  

Nice 'Work' If You Can Get It...

Wade through all the jargon and word salad in the new 12-page mission statement and you might think you'd stumbled across a Green Party manifesto or a blog by Greta Thunberg. It talks of 'proudly cross-cutting strategic ambitions of Equity, Diversity and Inclusion and Climate Action'. There is a lot about 'justice' – climate, racial, social and economic justice, that is.

🥱 

Yet this is a document issued by a 700-year-old City of London charity with a very specific role: to maintain all the Square Mile's non-rail bridges over the River Thames. These include one of Britain's most famous landmarks, Tower Bridge. And, because it has £1.5 billion in the bank, the charity does all this at zero cost to the taxpayer.

Well, great! Then why should we care how it wastes it’s money..? 

Whopping grants to outfits such as Spectra CIC (£1 million to help it 'build capacity in the trans and sex-worker sector') or Race On The Agenda (£1.5 million to 'combat racial injustice'), may assist a subset of London life. But is it too much to ask a charity set up to maintain bridges to, well, maintain a few more bridges?

Maybe safeguarding the infrastructure of our capital city shouldn’t be something we are reliant on a charity for? Maybe it should be brought back into government control like all the other bridges not covered by this shower?

This all raises broader questions. Whose money is it anyway? And who voted for this stuff? The cash belongs to the people of London, whose antecedents paid all those tolls to cross the river. And over centuries the fund has grown into a vast investment portfolio.

And the people who paid those tolls are long dead and so don't have a claim on the money.

No one is suggesting the City Bridge Foundation had any idea of a possible Hamas link. However, it all adds to the impression of an organisation with more money than it knows what to do with. As well as appointing its own poet in residence, for example, it pays each one of its 29 staff more than £60,000 a year.

I really don't care, not when government and local councils are squandering my taxes willy-nilly. I just wish I earned that much for not doing my job.

The Answer To Everything Is 'More Taxpayer Money'...

so why not try a different tack?

Back in late 2025, when Keir Starmer’s grip on the Labour party was loosening and Reform UK was still in its pomp, the then health secretary, Wes Streeting, commissioned what the government called its “Independent review into prevalence and support for mental health conditions, ADHD and autism”.

Probably the only useful thing he could have done if it really IS independent, of course…

Here, it seemed, was not just an inquiry into England’s ever-extending waiting lists for the diagnosis of mental illness and neurodevelopmental conditions, and the dire lack of support for people who experience one or both of them. The review would also dovetail with two other huge issues: mounting claims of “overdiagnosis”, which Streeting had appeared to partly endorse, and the government’s drive for the reform of so-called welfare.

And no doubt it had orders to  reject those claims, and it followed them.

Last Friday saw the publication of the 600-page final report Fonagy had co-authored with Gillian Baird – a specialist in paediatric neurodisability – and the psychiatrist Simon Wessely. And, as so often happens with such inquiries, its interpretation suggested the media’s equivalent of a Rorschach blot. One of the Guardian’s headlines was “No ‘snowflakes’: mental health review says today’s youth have it harder and harms are real”. The Mail, by contrast, yelled out a rather different message – “Rush to diagnose ADHD and autism can damage children” – while the Telegraph went for “ADHD surge fuelled by benefits, report warns”.

When he appeared on Radio 4’s Today programme, Fonagy said that Streeting had been “completely wrong” to agree with suggestions of the common overdiagnosis of mental health disorders. When it comes to autism and ADHD, he and his colleagues’ report says that “if present trends continue we are clearly entering a phase in which the balance of risks is changing, from previous merited concerns with under-recognition and underdiagnosis towards an increased risk of misdiagnosis and overdiagnosis”. But it also insists that right now, “we cannot conclude that overdiagnosis is occurring at scale”, and points out that any data that might settle this festering argument “largely do not exist”. This is not the kind of stuff that suits a world that craves simple binaries and polarised shouting, but it speaks an undeniable truth.

And what suggestions did it make? 

For the most part, in fact, it is hard to disagree with what the review points out. But among its conclusions lies one troubling proposal – that provision for both mental illness and so-called neurodivergence can and should often be led by observations of need rather than formal diagnosis

Whose need? 

The review, by contrast, is altogether more calm and evidence-based: for a bundle of reasons, it says that overdiagnosis and misdiagnosis may well be a future risk, but we can guard against those dangers by more closely regulating private diagnostic clinics (which are often partly NHS-funded) and stop them advertising their services. These are proposals that many autism and ADHD insiders agree with.

Of course it would be private clinics at fault, and not the sainted NHS… 

By way of lessening an increasingly frightening crisis that is partly centred on pitifully long waits for formal diagnoses that can easily be ignored, it suggests moving towards a more “needs-based” approach, which echoes the government’s plans for special needs education.

But without sufficient money, “needs-based” help is likely to amount to very little at all.

There will never be ‘sufficient money’, its an impossibility.

Meanwhile, the Department for Work and Pensions still has a culture built around crackdowns and pushing people into work. Councils repeatedly fail to meet their responsibilities for the care and education of neurodivergent people. And, in the absence of properly funded change, both they and people suffering mental illness only stand even a faint chance of pushing their way through an almost impossible mess of bureaucracy and obstruction if they have pieces of paper confirming that their condition – or conditions – are real and true.

Because if you have a piece of paper issued by the government or its agents, that cures all, right? Shall we ask the men in frocks?

Yeah, Yeah, Tell Us Another...

A man who was killed on the M56 after being chased by police on a motorbike had been "turning his life around" after finally finding "a purpose" through his daughter, his family said. Cody Lowndes, 27, was stopped by officers after being spotted driving in a "dangerous manner" on the M60, around Stockport Pyramid, at about 19:30 BST on Saturday, Greater Manchester Police said. The force said he left the bike and ran off across the motorway and was struck by another vehicle and died at the scene.

At least no innocent people were harmed in the making of this karmic incident. 

His family said they were "heartbroken" that their "best friend" had died, and his daughter would never know the "real Cody" that they "all knew and loved".

Peobably the best thing that could happen to her… 

The tribute added: "We will always love Cody, and he will live on in our hearts and memories. Please let us mourn Cody in peace, as a family.  

"As a family we are heartbroken that our best friend Cody has passed away."

He did ‘pass away’ , he FA and FO! 

Greater Manchester Police said it had referred the case to the Independent Office for Police Conduct, which decided an independent investigation was required.

Why? Its hardly their fault he had a room temperature IQ, is it? 

The Horror Of Gentrification..

Gail's has confirmed the opening date of its new Brixton branch, which is taking over a former takeaway unit next to the Tube station.

'Hurrah!', said most people? No? No, Reader, you're forgetting....  

Earlier this summer, a petition opposing the plans was launched on Change.org and amassed 1,312 signatures. The petition set out several key demands, including recognising the potential impact that Gail's could have on small independent traders and businesses, which are already facing financial issues.

The petition stated: "The proposed development of a Gail's Bakery branch in Brixton is causing genuine concern among residents and local business owners.

Why? Brixton is full of millennials and hipsters now, surely they aren’t fickle folk who love to get in on the latest trend and so will abandon their local artisan bakeries for a taste of the new one? 😏

The chain has been accused by some of being "insanely overpriced" and has become synonymous in London with gentrification though others point out it's a successful business people are clearly using.

Fast forward and the protests became violent, because of course they did:

Cash4Commons – the activists who were behind a series of posters highlighting the growing commodification of public green space in Lambeth – have struck again, attacking Brixton’s new Gail’s Bakery which is scheduled to open today. A few days ago they put up anti-Gail’s billboards outside Brixton Market, as well as a series of posters on the soon to be opened Gail’s premises.

They told Brixton Buzz: We want to draw attention to the damage being caused by Gail’s bakeries across London through a capital-driven ownership which prioritises aggressive corporate expansion into our local communities, whilst also maintaining significant ties to the genocidal State of Israel through investments into Israeli cybersecurity & defence firms. We’re aware that the displacement of local communities across London is nothing new, but we believe Gail’s embodies the current wave of what can only be described as late-stage gentrification in Brixton. Continuing on from our last project ‘Cash4Commons’, our broader focus is on the relentless prioritisation of capital over people, and how Lambeth council continues to allow corporate developers to eat up what little space we have left in the name of ‘development’.

So you’ll smash it up to prevent it being eaten up? Surely both result in no progress at all for the ‘local people’ you claim to care about? 

Oh God, Just Give Us All A Break!

'Woke' scientists claim that female animals, monsters, robots and magical creatures are 'underrepresented' in children's cartoons. From Frozen's Olaf to Mike Wazowski in Monsters, Inc, many of the most loveable characters in children's cartoons are non-human. But experts from UC Berkeley point out that the majority of these characters are portrayed as male.

Ah, Berzerkley, no wonder! 

In fact, in some popular movies, such as Disney's Moana, female non-human characters have no screen time at all.

Well, why should that matter when the movie’s main character is a YOUNG GIRL!? 

Dr David Bamman, who led the study, said: 'I think our research is so important because it exposes the gender disparity that exists not only within movies broadly, but even within animation. 

'It shapes the ways children get acclimated to what's considered the norm.'

I wonder if the young David Bamman ever dreamed of being the first person to invent a world-changing device, or cure cancer, instead of wasting his career whinging about ‘representation’.

I'm No Longer Capable Of Surprise...

 

…or so I thought! 

Sunday Funnies...

 Hmmm, not convinced myself, but 'tis the season.... and the whole world can take part! Don't have nightmares :)

The New Luddites

When Dan had had enough of his television, he threw a rock straight through the screen. The offence? His smart TV was downloading its third update in three days. “It drove me crazy with what seemed like daily software updates that never fixed anything and ‘features’ that never seemed to work,” says the 71-year-old from Illinois.

Is Dan a Luddite? Why, no Reader, or rather, he shouldn't be, by rights. 

Some may accuse Dan of being a luddite, but his master’s degree in computer science and decades of experience in telecommunications would suggest otherwise.

So what's his issue then?  

The first smart TVs entered the market in the late 2000s, when companies introduced operating systems, media players and apps to screens that were becoming wider and thinner. In recent years, the luxury status of smart TVs has waned and increasingly affordable options are widely available.

Tom Parsons, TV and audiovisual editor at the electronics magazine What Hi-Fi?, explains that these cheaper models can struggle under more advanced features. “They’re not necessarily super-fast and responsive out of the box,” he says. “And then two, three, four years down the line, they can end up slowing down quite a lot under the weight of all that processing.”

Something they share with all modern tech, I think you'd agree.  So what does Dan do, I wonder, when he has issues with his laptop? Hopefully not tip a cup of tea all over it, as I’ve just done with mine while writing this post!

Dan is just one of a growing number of tech-savvy watchers wishing their TVs weren’t so smart. Erin McQuiston and Matthew Schroyer, a couple from Connecticut, share his smart-screen scepticism.

“I don’t think we’ve ever used [our TV] as anything other than just a giant display,” says McQuiston. “There was a period where we were running it through an Xbox. And that was a constant battle because that was constantly being updated and patched and then you’d have to redownload all the apps for it.” Meanwhile, Schroyer says his job as a software engineer has influenced his decision to “intentionally keep it very dumb” by keeping their TV disconnected from the internet.

That certainly seems dumb to me- now you wont get security updates! 

Instead, the 41-year-old connects his screen to an Apple TV box as a streaming workaround, and cites privacy as well as “highly invasive” advertisements for doing so. “Our living room is not a billboard for sale,” he says.

I don’t get peoples aversion to adverts - yes, some are irritating (more so in the modern era), but not so much that I’d willingly forgo convenience to avoid them. 

For Helen Northmore, a 51-year-old from Wales who works in AI delivery for the UK Health Security Agency, privacy is also a worry. Her grudge against smart screens began four years ago, when her faithful dumb TV broke without warning and she had to quickly find a replacement. “We had already decided that we didn’t want the smart functionality, but it became really clear that it was very hard to find one that didn’t have any,” she says.

Did she try alternatives to Currys? Vinted eBay and the like? I have an old non-smart tv thats going unused, and I bet others are the same. 

More consumers are becoming worried about how their information is being used by manufacturers. “There are increasing privacy concerns around to what degree TVs are essentially scraping your data,” says Parsons. “TVs these days are full of sensors, including microphones, and that can make people nervous.”

In September, the YouTube channel Gamers Nexus released a two-hour investigation into LG Electronics’ smart televisions, saying that the devices record audio – even when they are offline or powered down.

Disclaimer; I have an LG smart TV, and who cares if it's listening in, all it's going to hear is me swearing as I once again hit the wrong button on its absurdly small and cramped remote! 

It Doesn't Require 'Peace And Safety' Any More...

“We have cordoned off the area to leave this creature in peace and safe from the attention of people,” Randwick Council mayor, Dr Clare Willington, told reporters.

... beacuse it is a dead whale!

Willington said there were no plans to remove the whale and that staff were working with Gamay Rangers about a culturally and environmentally sensitive approach to take.

Well, I wouldn't suggest blowing it up, that usually doesn't go well…

But why the emphasis on cultural aspects, and why prioritise them over health and safety or hygiene concerns.

The Gamay Rangers are an Indigenous ranger team who undertake natural and cultural resource management activities like protection work, conservation, and threatened species management in the La Perouse Local Aboriginal Land Council area.The whale is an important totem animal to the local Bidjigal people, and Gamay Rangers manager Robert Cooley said previous instances where beached animal carcasses were taken to landfill had distressed his community.

Ridiculous pandering to the ‘culture’ of primitive folk who never invented the wheel!