'"Just The Facts, Ma'am? "

Joe Friday wouldn't get far in the modern UK police farce, where the training leads to lying when it's politically expedient to try to cover up yet another disaster your policies have lead to:

The partner of a school caretaker who was stabbed to death by paranoid schizophrenic Valdo Calocane in Nottingham, has told an inquiry it felt like her partner had been "killed twice" - because she was first told he had died in a car crash.

Why? Because they didn't want their part in the unfolding disaster coming out, and they needed time for their PR team to get out ahead of the anguished relatives who might talk to the press. 

Mr Coates' partner, Elaine Newton, told the public inquiry into the Nottingham attacks that she was first told by police that Mr Coates had died in a road traffic accident. Ms Newton told the hearing of her initial denial that it could be Mr Coates, believing he was at work, and that it took more than four hours before she was told the truth about how her partner had actually died. She said: “They said he was in an RTA, a road accident. I said ‘He will be at work, it’s not Ian’. They said ‘No, it’s an RTA’. I said ‘Did he crash into anyone? What happened?’ “They said ‘We can’t tell you’. I said ‘Is anyone else hurt?’ and they said ‘We can’t tell you’. That’s all they were telling me for about five hours.”

Asked how it felt to be told how he had really died, Ms Newton said: “It felt like he’d been killed twice. It wasn’t right. “The first information, I accepted, but the second I couldn’t accept. You don’t know which one was true, or have they got the wrong person. It was not right, it was a mess.”

And yet another person loses what faith she had in the police.... 

Ms Newton also said she only became aware of previous incidents involving Calocane and the police during the inquiry process. She said: “I was never told any information about his past… The first time was this hearing, I didn’t know anything about any of this at all.”

Asked what she would have done had she had known this information, Ms Newton said: “I wouldn’t have thanked Kate Meynell (now-retired chief constable of Nottinghamshire Police) for all the information she gave me and for letting me come and visit her. I have lost faith in the police and I feel like I have not been given the information and have been lied to really.

Yes, you have. All the families have. So let's hope that this disgusting episode is remembered when the next atrocity happens, because there will be another one, since no lessons will have been learned. 

How do you know that, Ambush? Well, Reader, it's obvious. 

Must Be A Day With A ‘Y’ In It…

A Metropolitan Police officer failed to disclose he had been dismissed from another force 21 years ago and barred from joining a third in the latest vetting scandal.

Really, a day when the Met Police doesn’t disgrace itself must surely be coming, but that day is not yet here. 

PC Richard Fieldhouse served for around three years until his lies were uncovered in December 2022. Fieldhouse quit Hampshire Constabulary while under investigation in 2005 for breaches of “honesty and integrity” relating to his handling of a wanted suspect, a gross misconduct panel heard.

In April 2007, he applied to join Surrey Police. However, as part of its background checks Hampshire revealed Fieldhouse had once falsified a statement and been found guilty in his absence.His assessment day in Guildford, Surrey was cancelled and the force subsequently blocked him.

Gosh, what's a wanna-be crooked cop to do? Reader, you guessed it!  

Undeterred, Fieldhouse sought to join the Met in February 2019 after declaring a driving job. Although admitting to working for Hampshire and being rejected by Surrey, he simply answered “no” to a question on his application form that asked whether he had previously been admonished or subject to discipline matters by any previous employer, regulatory or professional body. 

He successfully became a constable in London four months later.

Jesus, Mary and Joseph and the wee donkey

Commander Stephen Clayman, who chaired the hearing, said: “Honesty is a fundamental requirement of any police officer."

How about competence? It seems that would be more useful, especially in your HR department. 

It is not known when he resigned from the Met, but on January 27 the ex-officer disengaged with the process and no longer wanted a Police Federation representative. Had Fieldhouse not quit, he would have been dismissed without notice for discreditable conduct. He will be placed on the College of Policing barred list.

So, are we to assume from that, that he wasn’t on it before. What does one have to do?

And Why, I Wonder, Would Anyone Have Cause To ‘Hate The BBC,’, Nihal?

Former BBC radio presenter Nihal Arthanayake, who was at Radio 1 for more than 10 years at the same time as Mills, told ITV's Good Morning Britain on Tuesday: "My first thoughts were obviously with the alleged victim here, without question.

Shouldn't the first thought have been 'Is there even a 'victim' here?; apart from Mills, that is, who appears to have suffered from the BBCs desire not to repeat past mistakes? Full disclosure here - I listen to Radio Two every day, and Mills is a presenter I liked. 

But even if he had not been, his abrupt sacking is looking like an overreaction driven by an over-cautious management, that could backfire if he decides to sue. 

"But also, Scott Mills is a human, he's a person who got his dream job that has now been taken away from him, and his validation, largely, in life, probably was defined by that job. 

Good point, shame it then descended into self pity on behalf of Auntie Beeb.... 

"Therefore, we have to be very careful. There's a current feeding frenzy going on. 

Infamy, infamy, they've all got it in for me!  

"A lot of that is driven by people who just hate the BBC, so they'll use that as a stick to beat the BBC with.

Whu eould that be, I wonder Nihal. Is it it's frequent peddling of obvious propaganda on behalf of those it has decieded are 'vulnerable minorities' instead of groups who want to change British society as it is, or who want to overthow basic principles in favour of insanity?  Is it its strangely partisan approach to what it considers to be news?

"But there is a human being - well, there's two human beings - at the centre of this."

And a lot of humans out there who are no longer willing to fund a national broadcaster that appears to hate them. 

This Isn't Good News Polly!

The news is very good (mostly). The cost of full-time childcare in England for children under the age of two has dropped by a phenomenal 39% since last year, thanks to government funding. This stat, from the 25th annual survey of nurseries by the children’s charity Coram, provides a good opportunity to stop and consider how far the country has come in that quarter-century.

As ever, Polly is, I suspect, on the wrong side of history here.  

In 1995, there were nursery vouchers for a few, but only 4% of children under five in England were in nursery: the right argued young children were the responsibility of families, not the state, and that mothers should stay at home.

And have we blossomed into a paradise as a result of scrapping that policy, Polly? Are children better behaved, women gainfully employed in vital roles? Or has it resulted in the opposite situation? 

Labour’s strong cohort of women arriving in the Commons in 1997, led by the veteran Harriet Harman with her childcare strategy, fought hard to finally add the missing cradle to the “cradle to grave” welfare state.

 When she wasn’t supporting those who wanted to have sex with them, you mean?

In 2003, the Treasury introduced child care tax credits, although more as a way to get women into work.

And now every HR department in every large organisation is chock full of women, and are we better for it?

Then, in 2004, the government extended free part-time nursery places to all three- and four-year-olds in England. That was a giant step – but every step of the way was a fight, and still is.

Free? I don’t think so. 

Since last September, parents have been able to claim 30 hours a week of state-funded childcare for children from nine months old until they start school. This could save working parents an average of £8,000 a year per child. Take note of what campaigners always said would happen: just in the past year, these extra free nursery hours have enabled nearly a third of parents to up their working hours.

Families can also save up to £450 from free breakfast clubs and £500 more in September, when half a million more children will get free school meals.

Free school meals paid for out of taxation aren’t really ‘free’ at all. As they have no choice but to admit:

Early years childcare is neither totally free nor universal. That precious 30 free hours is only during the 38 weeks of term time, so parents have to pay the holiday gap: one week for a child under the age of two can cost about £189. Funding is too low at a time of rising energy and staff costs: many nurseries also charge extra for meals, trips, nappies, sun cream, anything they can think of. Private nurseries, often run by large private equity chains, are in wealthier areas, shunning families who can’t pay for extra hours.

But here is the great perversity that undermines the key social purpose of the nursery movement: early years education does the most good for the most deprived, yet those children are ineligible for the full hours until they reach the age of three. What makes them “ineligible”? The very things that make them deprived; if their parents don’t work or work too little to earn £10,158 a year, the child gets nothing until aged two, and then only half as many hours as the rest.

This year’s report from the charity Kindred Squared found that about a third of children in England who started reception in 2025 were not ready for school. Some of them were still in nappies, not using knives and forks, not able to sit still, barely speaking and unsocialised. Some teachers felt that less time in early years education contributed to these issues.

And so, I ask a question I've already had to ask over at 'Orphans',  why aren't people raising their own children any more? 

Why Did You Stop?

The Metropolitan police has said it will resume arresting people who show support for Palestine Action just weeks after it said it would no longer do so following a high court ruling that the ban on the direct action group was unlawful.

High court rulings? Since when did you pay attention to those? You seen happy to ignore the Supreme Court, after all.... 

After last month’s judgment, the Met police said it would immediately stop arresting people for such offences under the Terrorism Act but would gather evidence for potential future prosecutions. But on Wednesday it said it had “revised” its enforcement approach, describing the statement made immediately after the high court’s decision as an “interim position”.

Something changed, and it wasn't the threat such demonstrations posed, so it must have been pressure on the police to DO THE FUCKING JOB THEY ARE PAID FOR. 

Deputy assistant commissioner James Harman said: “While the high court has found the proscription of Palestine Action to be unlawful, it has confirmed the impact of that judgment will not take effect until the government’s appeal has been considered which could take many months. 

“That means it is still a criminal offence to support Palestine Action. 

How do you get to be a deputy assistant comissioner without understanding the law? 

“We must enforce the law as it is at the time, not as it might be at a future date. We must do that consistently and without fear or favour.”

Yes, you must. So isn't it long overdue for you to actually give it a go?  

Tweet Of The Month

 

And this is a worr of pure genius:

Post Title Of The Month

 Longrider once again knocks it out of the park with this one:

Quote Of The Month

 Bucko on the most bizarre take on a subject by the Guardian, one which also puzzled Tim:

"Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the whole purpose of Britains version of ICE was to single out non-white, foreign born workers? Ok, fair enough, I'm sure there are many white illegals in this country, but if you're looking for illegals in an Indian restaurant, you're not there for the Albanians"

Post Of The Month

 Nick Drew at Capitalists@Work on the subject everyone wants to avoid considering....

The Men Of No Appearance (Except Technical Nationality) Strike Again!

Two men who were arrested over the arson attack on Jewish charity-owned ambulances in north London have been released on bail, the Metropolitan Police has said.

And are they as we suspected? 

The men, British nationals aged 47 and 45, were arrested on Wednesday on suspicion of arson with intent to endanger life and have now been bailed until April.

Well, that hides a multitude of possibilities these days, doesn’t it? 

Cdr Helen Flanagan, head of Counter Terrorism Policing London, said there were "strict bail conditions in place while we continue to investigate their suspected involvement in this incident". 

"We continue to work to try and identify all of those involved in this appalling attack and the investigation team is working around the clock to do this," she said.

Oh, so it’s being investigated as terrorism? 

Although the case is not being classed as a terror incident, the Met said the investigation is currently being led by counter-terror officers. The Met previously said the investigation was looking at an Islamist group with potential links to Iran, following unsubstantiated claims of responsibility by Harakat Ashab al-Yamin al-Islamiya - The Islamic Movement of the People of the Right Hand.

Oh. 

Well no doubt all sorts will claim responsibility. Some of them might even be truly foreign.

The BBC has also seen CCTV footage which shows three men approaching the synagogue in February. Members of the Jewish community now believe this could have been a surveillance attempt before the attack this week. The footage, which has since been handed to police, shows a man trying to pull a locked door handle. When challenged, they said they were looking for a local mosque.

Oh,BBC! Bag open, cat frolicking in plain sight!