You won't see me coming....
Insp Gadget wants all coppers to be armed, whether they can tell the difference between a blind person's white stick and a samurai sword or not.At one stage I convinced myself that he was acting, playing a role for the fun of winding up his readers. Sadly I think he is for real.
Oh, yes. That fictional Inspector Gadget paraphrasing another fictional character. We should just say "Thank you" and be on our way, quietly closing the door of the Institution behind us.
Gadget is a 'she', Blue Eyes.
Be fair this an entirely rational line of thinking - if the Inspector and his chums Taser everyone they see on the streets then (a) eventually the streets will be deserted, with everyone staying indoors for fear of being Tasered - Score 1 for Crime Prevention and (b) in the lead up to this happy and, as I am sure the Plod PR boys and girls will assure us all, much desired by all situation where if not "safe for everyone" the streets have become "unsafe for everyone" which is just the other equal side of the same coin, a number of people who do not deserve to have been tasered, having committed no offence that obviously means a number who do deserve it will have been, so some form of justice has been meted out to them, and the collateral damage is surely worth it. Besides, as any fule kno' the plod attitude to us all, which they sometimes let slip out, is basically "you are all guilty of something, you just haven't been convicted yet" which is why Plod can be relied upon to say that compulsory DNA taking of us all and compulsory ID cards are essential tools of the Crime Prevention Arsenal - like CCTV, another "Crime Prevention" measure which no one has been able to show has achieved one instance of crime prevention but a good many people can point to as a measure which displaces crime wonderfully well. And as PC Dixon used to say "it is all in the way we fiddle the stats, evenin' all" ..
How about this slightly modified film quote from Men in Black,"Gadgeteers, you are everything we expected of you."
Getting boring and predictable Julia.Also I didn't like your barb at me about only "obeying orders".If you can liken taking DNA legally to marching millions of Jews to their deaths then you are a very sad person.Jaded
'.... Also I didn't like your barb at me about only "obeying orders".If you can liken taking DNA legally to marching millions of Jews to their deaths then you are a very sad person...'Indeed 'Jaded' but why should she be any different to the kind of 'Diversity Facilitator' one endured in the early 2000's in Da Em Pee Ess?As for Gadget's comment - he (or she - depending which conspiracy nut-job one believes) makes a fair point. What lets him/her down is the unwillingness to accept any valid criticism + their bonkers regulars.There is no recovery from the dreadful situation that British Policing and therefore British Society is in. The Establishment, the left leaning liberal elite establishment that is must be very pleased. Crime does pay insofar as it is possible to get away with murder - even if caught. There is no real fear of authority. The CJ system is fucked. I could go on but I'll leave the regular nutjobs on here get a collective stiffy on replying to 'Jaded's' response - even MTG is moving his arm faster!
Jaded,Didn't you mean "liken taking DNA legally to marching millions of Jews to their deaths LEGALLY" ?
Jaded,It's not legal, you know it isn't, so stop the faux outrage at the comparison with other mindless, uniformed morons.You have repeatedly stated that you are only doing as you are told, that you must carry out your 'duties' regardless of your own thoughts on the matter, in fact you give the impression that you disagree with some of the things you do, but continue to do them anyway. The events of 42, 43 and onward had their roots in 30 and 31. Marching Jews off to their doom was not the starting point, it was the end result of ever increasing and insidious powers given to a paramilitary police force which was openly politicized, which existed solely to serve the will of the Gov and had no problem in violently, even murderously enforcing that will as, by definition, anyone who opposed the Gov was a criminal.If cannot see ANY comparisons, you must be blind. Let's hope you don't get tasered then, eh?
If it's not legal then challenge it you keyboard warrior.If you think we are on the slippery-slope in this country which will end in me marching Jews to Belsen then you are a bigger cock that I originally thought.Do you go on army blogs and encourage the soldiers to disobey orders? For example taking part in wars that have subsequent found to be illegal? No,didn't think so.If you work for a disciplined service then you do as you are told within certain parameters.Blog all you like,I won't change.Jaded.
A little decorum, please. We must be more supportive of WPC Jaded and cut her a little slack here. Working double-shifts, there are only so many citizens she can certify/smear in any given week. And she has been very busy; flitting from blog to blog with her bucket of tar and bag of feathers. I suggest we form two orderly queues. Those able to provide unswerving support for police should queue on the right...under the line marked 'Free doughnut and complimentary associate membership of St Norman's Lodge'. Others should shuffle into the second line marked 'Work Will Set You Free' and await certification, tattoo and a one-way rail ticket.
"you are all guilty of something, you just haven't been convicted yet"Ever had a car accident where you were at fault? Ever broken the speed limit?Ever downloaded something without paying?Ever made a tape copy of copyrighted material?Ever been so drunk a friend had to take you home?Most people have broken the law....no one has been able to show has achieved one instance of crime prevention"Logical fallacy you can`t prove a negative.
Cut your grass Melvin and put down your thesaurus.Jaded
"Most people have broken the law...."Most people are coherent prior to the 9pm watershed, Bill.
"It's not legal,"Yes it is. Fact. Ethical is another matter, I personally have no issue with it but I can see the ethical argument for it being a post conviction condition. I would have no issue having my DNA taken and would personally go the other way and have DNA taken at birth/ entry to the country. If you wanted to opt out that's fine but you opt out of benefits/ the NHS etc at the same time.
Which part are you struggling with? I will try to simplify it.
Bill,It is illegal. Just rigidly stating 'Fact' after your ill informed opinions does not make it so. I've had all this before with Jaded, and provided links, he knows that both the High Court in this country and the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg have both unequivocally stated that the gathering of DNA from arrestees that are either not subsequently charged or go on to be acquitted at trial is ILLEGAL. Google it. While you're at it, Google 'useful idiot' too. As you are one of the 'nothing to hide, nothing to fear' brigade, you won't object to a telescreen in your house, will you? Or a personal tracker in your car, or your arm? You'd better not, else there will be no medical treatment for you, even though you've had your wages robbed to pay for it over the years. No pension, no bank account and therefore no job. This is a VERY slippery slope and the difference between this form of all encompassing state power and those seen previously in world history is that once this one is fully operational, it will be next to impossible to oppose it.The saddest thing about this situation is that this system is not so much being inflicted on the people, more like the unthinking masses are requesting it, so the Government can 'protect' them from all the nasty thought criminals.Jaded,What is the point in challenging it? It has been challenged, and found to be illegal, at least twice, as you well know, yet you continue to break the law because you 'won't change'.I agree, you won't be leading Jews away to re-education camps in a few years time. You'll be doing it to the people you consider 'cocks'. People like me.I doubt you've done much reading Jaded, but maybe you have read 1984. If you have you'll understand this quote is not about our host, but one of the main characters in the book:Winston, facing interrogation, enduring re-education in all it brutal glory, says the one thing that he thinks will save him, and it does, for a while at least."Do it to Julia."His lover. His friend. He was willing to betray his morals, his principles, his conscience, anything and everything, including his nearest and dearest, to save his neck. And at the end of it, his soul all shrivelled and wasted, he genuinely believed he had performed a service for the nation and that the Government was there to protect him.You're like that, Jaded. Slavishly obedient to illegal orders, in the name of duty, hoping that the shit happens to the Julias, the Noggins, the MOPs, anybody but you. And if you or your mates have to crack a few skulls to maintain the 'law', so be it.You try to justify your actions to salve your tattered conscience. You laughably compare your service with that of the military. You excuse violence and criminality, ineptitude, corruption and even murder, but only when your mob are doing it. To protect the rest of us, obviously.You cannot even bring yourself to condemn the moron who electrocuted a blind man, then further assaulted him and illegally arrested him, making disgraceful excuses for his atrocious behaviour that belittle you as a person and the Police as an institution.Because you've got to earn a living somehow, eh?PS Which wars have been found to be illegal? I'll save you the bother - none. You could just make stuff up, if you like.
Get a life Noggin.I have a different opinion than you on some issues.You have to accept it.I try and express mine without swearing vilely or making racist and sweeping comments.Jaded (speaking from a position of strength,from doing the job well for 23 years,from taking abuse constantly from know-it-alls like you).
Jaded,I heard you the first time. There is no abuse in my post. You called me a cock. Your'e not still bleating about me calling you a cunt, weeks ago, when you were being a cunt, are you?Hurt your wiccle feelings have I Jaded? Diddums.PS Have you read 1984?PPS I'm assuming you can actually read.
'Have you read 1984'?Ne ne nee ne neeeer! Fuck off twat.
Well I think in the light of today's exchanges we can assume that "protect and serve" rubric is more inward rather than outward looking ...
Jaded, you seem to mistaking the difference between the terms "Lawful" and "Legal". You see, forcing people to wear little yellow stars with the word "Juden" on them, was perfectly "legal". Taking businesses and property of people with little yellow stars and giving them to your friends was also perfectly "legal".Rounding people up in the middle of the night, cramming them onto cattle trucks to "Work camps was all perfectly "Legal". As was lining them up at the side of a bloody great hole in the ground and shooting them in the back of the head, all "Legal".Was it "Lawful" though? The Nuremberg trials (Right and wrongs of this notwithstanding) would say not. The taking of DNA on the unconvicted may well be "Legal", but is it morally right, let alone "Lawful"?Tyranny doesn't start out gassing Jews, it's a gradual thing, you know like sewing little yellow stars on people, and who'd have thought 10 years down the line it would end up where it did?Where's your line in the sand? Will you be happy to follow orders to round up my wife and kids because it's "Legal"?Thing is, it's a sight easier to stand up and say no to things that are patently "Unlawful" than saying no once people are being rounded up and thrown onto cattle trucks, because to say no then risks having yourself and family rouned up also.
"At one stage I convinced myself that he was acting, playing a role for the fun of winding up his readers. " Oh, it would be comforting to think so, eh?"...and the collateral damage is surely worth it." I fear that is indeed the judgement call that's been made, in some circles."Getting boring and predictable Julia.Also I didn't like your barb at me about only "obeying orders"..." Didn't you? Oh dear. Well, I hope the follow up comments from Budvar and noggin have shown you why it's (sadly) all too appropriate..."There is no recovery from the dreadful situation that British Policing and therefore British Society is in." I used to think there was a glimmer of hope the rot could be reversed. I'm not so sure any longer.
"Do you go on army blogs and encourage the soldiers to disobey orders? For example taking part in wars that have subsequent found to be illegal?"I think it's a bit much to expect soldiers to be psychic, and see which wars will later be deemed illegal, eh?Whereas the police have lost cases in the ECHR regarding DNA, and yet STILL continue to take it and retain it, unlawfully.
"I would have no issue having my DNA taken..."Like 'I think people should pay higher taxes and I'd be delighted to do so!', I don't see anything stopping you from volunteering it. Just don't expect to have mine, eh?
@ BudvarThat she differentiates between Legal and Lawful may be too much to ask of Jaded. Yet even she could perceive the ocean separating Legal from Moral.
"I understand and accept the odd person might get a shock when they don't deserve it"Why thank you Inspector, that's mighty white of you.I don't understand and don't accept, and I hope this bloke sues the copper till his bollocks drop off.
It is a brilliant argument against the arming of all police - as Blue Eyes points out, a Gadget obsession.Frankly, I'd be happier about a member of my family being tasered by accident than getting several 9mm doses of death due to negligence in the public service.
Had a quick flick through Mein Kampf last night.There's a clear connection between Hitler taking DNA from householders who have shot burglars and gassing the Jews.Jaded
The blind man in question has launched a claim against the police, this will run and run.
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/police/powers/dna-and-fingerprints/Legal changes come through the home office until they instruct the police otherwise they will continue. to take DNA.
The reason I wouldn't mind my DNA being taken is it wouldn't effect me or intrude on my privacy.
"I understand and accept the odd person might get a shock when they don't deserve it""I hope this bloke sues the copper till his bollocks drop off."I don't believe these thoughts are mutually. exclusive you can accept that friendly fire happens but that doesnt mean that people cant be held responsible when it does
Sophie Khan has taken his case.A professional hater.I wonder who contacted whom?If Lancs police are in the wrong they will settle to save a court case.Jaded
"A professional hater.I wonder who contacted whom?"You are a nasty piece of work, Jaded. In any event this is none of your business.
Jaded,How can they possibly be 'in the right'?Bill,The Home Office is also acting illegally. The problems with this DNA lark are manifold. As it is viewed as incontrovertible evidence by juries, plod gets lazy with other evidence. Plod has been known to plant evidence, and suppress contradicting evidence. Even when the evidence itself may be sound, storage and handling can lead to cross-contamination. Criminals know these things and deliberately plant other people's DNA at crime scenes.The above are ifs and buts, but the thing that concerns me most is the way the law is increasingly being used as a weapon against those who fall foul of the Gov's latest social engineering policies. An example would be the fact that English law had, for centuries, considered homosexuality to be a crime. 60 years ago, people went to prison for it. Now people go to prison for saying that they think it is disgusting. If a crime can become a virtue in the eyes of the law, in just 60 years, what else wil become criminal that is legal today?If the law is based on the whims and fancies of the criminals who write it, namely Parliamentarians, and not on things like the consensus of the people being governed by it, immutable morals, absolute truth, common sense, traditional notions of right and wrong, etc, how can I trust it not to classify me as criminal at some point in the future, simply for continuing to do or think or say something that today is perfectly legal?When scum like Blair, Brown Cameron, et al, get to decide what is right and wrong and who will be imprisoned for disagreeing, I want to do all in my power to make it as difficult as possible for them to succeed. So should you. As Julia has said, if you feel that strongly about it, volunteer your DNA to plod. And your children's, and their children's, safe in the knowledge that neither this Government nor any in the future would ever think of abusing such enormous power.
Noggin,Strangely I agree with a lot of your post above.My point was laws have nothing to do with , "immutable morals, absolute truth, common sense, traditional notions of right and wrong", they are just a set of rules written by parliament. The rules at the moment say they can take DNA ,as you say the rules could be different tomorrow.I understand why you are worried about government power over an individual and I have my concerns as well its just DNA isnt one of them.
Bill,Fair enough. The rules laid down by the patliament which rules our parliament says they cannot take DNA willy nilly.The things that I pointed out that I think law should be based on are not 'just rules written by parliament'. They are the rules that are written in decent people's hearts, and no amount of state hectoring will ever completely remove them. The state knows this, and that is why I fear for the future.
Parliament's law machine is profit-driven and shares nothing with 'the rules that are written in decent people's hearts'.
Let me check Melvin-am I bothered in the slightest about your opinion of me? No-not bothered.Jaded.
I admire self control and professional detachment, Jaded. Your expertise has been pivotal in establishing a new level for police PR and I can pay you no greater compliment than confess my support for your promotion to Public Relations Director.
Post a comment