Another bloody grumpy copper

More ruination

2008-08-15T13:57:00.004+01:00

The pussification of the UK's national life continues... gasps of surprise all round! And their legal excuse? Not on principle, morals, legality but on the tenuous link that it might offend Muslims, Catholics, Martians, gays, whoever.

Anti-Monarchists in Parliament have whined for years that they have to swear an oath to "Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors" in order to take up their positions, snouts-down in front of the abundant trough that is Westminster, but now they're apparently mounting a legal challenge too. The BBC reports that 22 MPs have signed a Commons motion by Norman Baker, MP for Lewes, calling for the scrapping of the oath of allegiance.

Not surprisingly, Baker is a Lib-Dem. His voting record can be discerned pretty much by my telling you that he's a "whining anti-", except for his record on gay rights, which is apparenly only mildly pro- (perhaps it had been a rough few months - again - for Lib-Dem cruising scandals?). His expenses record for 2006/2007 was only [hem hem] £142,504 which only puts him at 225th highest in the House of Commons. Hmmm...

And who is taking up their mantle in this fight? It would, of course, have to be Louise Christian. Perhaps embarassed by the apparent partisanship of her surname, she's devoted her career to giving unpleasant people big legal hugs: if there's a penny to be made from a Legal Aid challenge to any authorities who might have looked the wrong way at the Human Rights Act, there she is, writing the invoice.

Now Ms Christian is, by all accounts, an excellent solicitor so I would expect a decent challenge to the oath. So what learned opinion have we so far? Er, "that it discriminated against Catholics, Muslims, other religions and atheists by requiring them to swear allegiance to the head of the Church of England". Perhaps it also offends young people by swearing to an old lady, huh Louise, huh? Shall we trot that one out too whilst we're putting together lazy arguments?

So there we have it: the tired old yah-boo-sucks argument of the lazy modern mind. She could object on legal principle or precedent, on grounds of poor governmentality, on constitutional grounds, or a host of other aguably legitimate reasons. However, the one that she's on the radio plugging is that is might offend people.

This is what we've come to in the UK. We should apparently dismantle all our traditions, all our values, all our history, just in case somebody might be offended, as decided by some rich, white, straight liberals who seek to impose their hegemony on everyone, trampling blithely over the views of other white, straight UK citizens (and a good few non-white, non-straight UK citizens who recognise some of the good things about UK traditions) so as not to offend their chosen cause celebre minority group.

Has anyone actually asked the Catholics, Muslims, atheists, Martians etc if they are offended by the oath of allegience? You can bet not. Let's just dismantle now and ask questions later.

It makes me ashamed to be a non-Brit, left-wing, left-handed, ginger lesbian copper. It really does.

Base Details

2008-06-16T15:50:00.003+01:00

If I were fierce, and bald, and short of breath,
I'd live with scarlet Majors at the base,
And speed glum heroes up the line to death.
You'd see me with my puffy, petulent face,
Guzzling and gulping in the best hotel,
Reading the Roll of Honour, "Poor young chap",
I'd say --- "I used to know his father well;
Yes we've lost heavily in this last scrap."
And when the war is done and youth stone dead,
I'd toddle safely home and die --- in bed.

[Siegfried Sassoon, 1918]

The difference now is that the people sending our young men and women up the line to death are rather "wet" than "fierce"; I'd be very surprised if they bother to read any Rolls of Honour - it might discomfit them in making their initiative-led decisions; and they are unlikely to know the families of anyone who does make the ultimate sacrifice, on the home front or abroad - given how few MPs have ever served, in any sense, military, civil or voluntary.

Almost a hundred years have gone by since Sassoon wrote these words. But the words echo down the ages all the same.

Tool of the week...

2008-06-10T15:57:00.000+01:00

What a tool.

'Nuff said.

"They haven't gone away"

2008-05-10T13:52:00.004+01:00

With the courts still busy releasing suspected Islamist terrorists (and as a member of the public AND as a police officer, I say thanks very much for that - I'll sleep safer in my bed with these guys who'd like to kill me, my freedom, my lifestyle, my loved ones and my society out and about to continue their plotting) it's important to remember those that went before, the poor neglected terrorists in Northern Ireland / Occupied 6 Counties / Ulster / Thuaisceart Éireann.

Spare a thought for these guys and gals. No longer are they the terroristes du jour seeking and getting attention with their pesky pranks. The Ulster and Irish terrorists used to talk about "legitimate targets" and "collateral damage" but it seems they're now so miffed with the Islamists taking all the media attention that they've started targetting children's toy shops with their incendiary devices.

Yup, I said toy shops.

Now I know fine well that most of these 'incendiaries' are more to do with protection racketeering than politics, religion or belief. However, it still goes on, it's still terrorism, and modern spin post-peace process means that we just don't hear about it here on mainland UK any more.

But be under no illusions, they still haven't gone away.

Service, and gratitude

2008-01-29T23:30:00.000Z

The Government might not know what it means to serve, except that is, to self-serve, but apparently some of the good people of Great Britain do.

This picture is from the BBC web-site and shows a homecoming parade for soldiers just returned from sharp-end operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

We know that the treatment of our military here in the UK is an utter disgrace - but then it was always so. Not without good reason do I reference Kipling in my strap-line at the top of this page and it's worth reading what he had to say from the perspective of the soldier, "Tommy Atkins".

It's not so different for police in terms of the total absence of any gratitude from Parliament, and not only soldiers and police who are treated contemptuously by our so-called leaders (the average expenses and bonuses of each one of our politicians would fund 4 extra police officers per year, 6 paramedics or 10 private or equivalent ranked soldiers, not even including the MPs' fat-cat salaries, subsidised dining [don't see many skinny politicians, do you?] company directorships, TV appearances and feathered-nest retirement deals). So it's clear who they think are most important, and it certainly isn't the little guys and gals putting their lives on the line for their country! At least nobody's tried to shoot me recently, not for a good while anyway, and I have the greatest respect for what our military in all of the arms, do for us, because I really don't know how they do it.

The tree-hugging, woolly-jumpered, bed-wetting, hippy soap-dodgers might not like the war; some clean, principled people with actual jobs don't like it either. But we all live in a country whose freedoms were won by people like those marching through Winchester to the cheering crowds. I'm pretty uncomfortable with the war, as it's been subverted by business interests of the Bush tribe and their cronies, but the people out there are fighting on behalf of our country, doing what I lack the courage to do, by and large honourably.

I see youths out pissing around on the housing estates I patrol every day, in suspended childhood, jobless (unless you count running for the local dealers) and expecting everyone to owe them a living, giving nothing, hands outstretched for welfare and what everyone else can do for them, always expecting extrinsic solutions to their pathetic problems. Then I see youths of the same age, but who are men, and women, growing up probably quicker than they ought to, but with pride, courage and honour.

I love the film, A Few Good Men and watching the fall of the tragic (in the classical sense) hero of Colonel Jessep. However flawed a character he is, and however much he deserves his comeuppance at the end, this character says some things that unnerve me, and here is one:

"...we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinburg? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago, and you curse the marines. You have that luxury. [...] And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives.

You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honour, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it.

I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post"

So when you're thinking about slagging off our soldiers, air force and naval personnel and whining about how Saddam just needed a big hug, how the war was all about oil (then drive somewhere using that oil), do remember that talk is cheap, but putting yourself on the line for others actually takes something intrinsic and strong.

And then just say thank-you, and go on your way.

Cheers boys and girls, men and women - I'll buy you a beer any day.

So far beyond grumpy that grumpy is just a miniscule speck in the distance and seems quite cheery!

2008-01-10T22:54:00.001Z

Gas price rises for 2008: 21%
My rent rise for 2008: 9.4%
Interest rate (UK average): 5.5%
The retail price index: 4.3%
The consumer price index (ie inflation): 2.1%
Current account interest rate (Nationwide): 0.8 - 3.2%, dependent upon amount paid in monthly.
Overdraft rate (Nationwide, authorised): 9.9%
Overdraft rate (Nationwide, unauthorised): 24.9%
Interest rates for loans (Nationwide): 9.4 - 16.4%, dependent upon loan amount
Mortgage rate (Nationwide, averaged): 6.5%

Nurses' pay rise 2007: 1.9%
Police pay rise 2007: 1.9%
British Army soldier, new entrant rate annual salary: £12,572

Average of MPs' pay rises (2006-2007): 2%

Average of MPs' expenses claims additional to basic salary, not inclusive of declared 2nd and 3rd jobs (2006-2007): £134,000

Knowing what it means to serve.... priceless (apparently).
Happy New Year.

Night of the Long Batons

2007-11-25T19:09:00.000Z

"His position is unsustainable, I think he should resign," he said. "I was removed from my job when the 'kiss and tell' happened and the reason I was given was that I, rather than the policing of Lambeth, had become the story. Ian Blair has become the story. London would be safer with someone else in charge."

Reported in the Torygraph, this has come from the controversial former policeman Brian Paddick, now shamelessly courting the media in an attempt to become the first Liberal Democrat mayor of London in place of "Ken le-Rouge". I know he's not in harness any more, having now handed in his warrant card on retirement, but Mr Paddick has been showing unseemly haste to stick the knife into his former Governor, Sir Ian Blair, whatever their differences.

One would have thought that the very reason he himself was moved post, in rather a shoddy way, would have given him some empathy for Mr Blair - surely to resign or be moved purely on the basis that one has become the main story in the witless cacklings of the press and TV media is the very reason why it would be such a dangerous precedent? The media, who are - of course - just looking for headlines, sales and ratings rather than making editorial decisions on any moral or ethical basis, would be foaming themselves with joy if their recent bullying actually scored a scalp in the person of Mr Blair. Now Mr Paddick himself is encouraging such knee-jerk behaviour. Shame on him.

If gives me no pleasure to say this - I've never been much of a fan of Mr Paddick, being as he is a bit of an embarassment to many gay officers - he's set our equality back years - but I am no fan of Mr Blair either, and suffer a wonky warrant card on the basis that it's still got Mr Stevens' signature on it (mature, I know) and I don't want it changed.

However, for Mr Blair to resign on the basis of a witch-hunt, and the moronically skewed hind-blindness of a lot of civilians who know nothing about duty and life-and-death pressures, because of the tragedy of multiple unfortunate happenstances that ended in the shooting of J-C de Menezes, would be a (further) gross error for the police service.

The Metropolitan Police Authority's Libdems and Tories have - predictably - tried to exert pressure to give him the elbow, in a blatent blurring of the separation of justice and politics (inasmuch as we can say that separation ever really existed!). With his usual paucity of thought or originality, David "Dave" Cameron has stated he wants police "chiefs" to be elected as in the USA - great news for short-term, knee-jerk policing goals! Not such great news for justice! No surprises then that Mr Paddick, now leapt onto the political bandwagon himself, should embrace any views that increase the influence of populist politicians into this morass.

Let's not make any long-term policing plans at all any more - let's just massage the egos of whatever politicians have been elected to rule us, with no more sense of duty than they have integrity and transparency in their expenses returns, and enact their vanity projects instead of striving constantly to protect the people we're appointed to, and have sworn and avowed to, protect!

Listening to the views around my nick in the London BOCU of Happiness is an interesting experience nowadays. Never have I heard so much, grudging, unwilling, reluctantly enthusiastic support for our Commissioner.

I still wouldn't be upset if he retired tomorrow. He'd have been hoist on his own petard, having himself encouraged too much of politics into policing already - and look how that's bitten him on the nose. But not for this, and not because a disloyal former officer with a personal grudge and political ambitions has wished for it.

TJF

2007-11-02T12:30:00.000Z

Officers ran towards the bus that had just exploded in Tavistock Square, in full knowledge and fear of secondary devices or contamination by some "dirty" component of the bomb. When they got there they saved lives and comforted those who were dying and couldn't be saved in that situation. Some of them have been traumatised by what they saw, did, and had to do that day. I expect the HSE prosecution of those officers to commence immediately: ignoring protocol, putting themselves at risk, probably - if you delve deeper - disobeying standing orders on what we're supposed to do to save our own arses in these situations and the so-called "dynamic risk assessment" that is an attempted arse-cover against such moronic HSE prosecutions. Let's face it, the alternative is standing by a pond not attempting to save a drowned boy.

Red Ken - no traditional friend to police and with some history of being too welcoming to terrorists - said of the HSE court result,

"If an armed police officer believes they are in pursuit of a terrorist who might be a suicide bomber and they start making these sort of calculations based on, 'How's this going to be seen... am I going to be hauled off to court?

"At the end of the day, mistakes are always going to happen in wars or situations like this."

I'll just mis-quote the flawed, fictional Colonel Jessop, and say:
Well done Richard Clayton QC and the HSE - all you did was weaken a country today.

What shall we do with a drunken sailor?

2007-10-30T22:06:00.000Z

PNDs...splendid things....we could use them on rowdy revellers who were drunk and disorderly (£80) or merely drunk in a public place (£50), give them a ticket and continue policing the rowdy idiot-filled streets. Huzzah!

Oh wait, if they're drunk and we deal with them, we have a duty of care, and how are they supposed to understand that they've been given a ticket when they're drunk? They might not even find the ticket until weeks later when the dry cleaner tries to chip off the pop-rivetted vomit and blood off their soiled jackets. And what then if they die in a pool of their own vomit/slobber in the gutter and during the search of the body or at autopsy they find a PND? Surely the officer will have looked to protect the health of this poor innocent, not send them on their way with a non-judicial punishment and a friendly "lets be having you"?

So no PNDs should be issued for drunkenness in the street. So we arrest, take back to custody and stay off the streets for the next 6 hours booking the drunken tosser in, completing notes, avoiding the barbed comments and basilisk stares of the custody skipper for bringing a smelly, pissy drunk into his or her custody "suite". Er no. Even with half-hourly rousing, the custody skipper doesn't want somebody who really has a medical condition (poor little bunny) when they should be being checked by an ambulance crew or hospital at very least.

So you call an ambulance. Of course, the reason you wanted to give them the PND in the first place was because they were being rowdy and drunk or drunk and incapable. Particularly in the former case, the amby crew turn up and "refuse to take" because Mr or Ms Pissy-Drunk swears too much at them or imagines that one of them tried to spill their pint, or their fluorescent WKD (if they're classy!).

So we're left in the street with Mr/s Pissy-Drunk to whom we have a duty of care. The ambulance and hospital don't want them as they get enough vomit and assaults and don't need any more, the custody sergeant (or puffed-up civilian substitute depending on your force area) don't want them as they don't actually want the super-special attention that a DIC would give them, we can't mug them off with an "instant" fine in the street which is what the poxy tickets were designed for in the first place in case they die on us (because *I* don't want a DIC on my record either, thanks very much!).

In fact there are SO many restrictions on the issue of PNDs that they are largely now issued from custody, for those occasions when the CPS are too spineless to actually charge someone but we think they should get something at least (so then, most prisoners, as Mr/s Pissy-Drunk always seems to get dealt with by Mr/Ms Pissy-Pants the Prosecutor).

The licensing laws have also, of course, changed so that instead of this all taking place late at night, it can now also happen at Stupid O' Clock every morning, including Sundays.

So again I have to ask: what SHALL we do with the drunken sailor, earleye in the morning?

[Probably ignore them]

PND = Penalty Notice for Disorder

DIC = Death in Custody

CPS = Couldn't Prosecute Satan

To "B" or not to "B"?

2007-07-18T13:49:00.000+01:00

THAT is the question... that the government are considering: the reclassification of Cannabis from Class C controlled substance back to Class B again, thus making possession a more serious offence once more.

So is this a U-turn? Well I guess so, but opinion will still remain divided as to whether or not it was worth pursuing the down-grading in the first place. In our modern world pretty much everything that's ever tried has to work, whether it does or not. Every policy must be seen to have improved blahdeblah by suchandsuch a percentage (how they always like to quote percentages - it sounds more scientific and thus carries 'authority', however unscientific the actual measurements are!). It's spin, or the Emperor's New Clothes.

Given that so many people (an estimated 10%, if you believe percentages!), especially young people, try this drug it is important to consider the implications to society or strictly enforcing occasional, casual use: yes, it's wrong, as it's against the law, but strict enforcement would criminalise a sizeable proportion of society, and people who are either in or about to leave education. If a criminal record spoils their chances of getting a job, we all - as society - suffer, and end up paying for them.

The arguments for and against implications for future addiction are more complex: most people who smoke or have smoked cannabis do not end up with serious drug habits - in fact most grow out of it - and for most people it does not spell the first slide down the slippery slope to heroin and crack cocaine usage. Conversely, most hard drugs users do start on cannabis. If you like, it's necessary, but not sufficient for hard drugs addiction.

Another factor to consider is the difference in strains of cannabis now. Some decades ago people smoked and became mellow and it is often an argument advanced by such erstwhile practitioners that most fights start from alcohol, but none from cannabis. Sadly, that's old news: modern strains of cannabis do seem to alter behaviour and I have experienced the changes in bahaviour of young men I've known who have taken up a "skunk" habit - it really can be Jekyll and Hyde.

Again though, the alcohol analogy can be made with enforcement: being drunk in a public place is an offence, and 'public places' even include pubs. If we were to round up and prosecute every drunken person in a pub, we'd do nothing else. Clearly, discretion is a privilege we as police still need to have when dealing with either set of offences.

My main concerns are that the THC in cannabis is fat-soluble and thus stays in the system longer than most other drugs, probably still having a prolonged effect; that whilst driving whilst over the limit for alcohol requires only a chemical test, not evidence of impairment, drug-driving requires impairment - the very act of driving whilst in a fug of cannabis smoke should be enough to warrant a charge; that foolish, under-educated London children (and adults) still try to tell me that cannabis is not illegal these days; that all along the commercial chain of supply of this "harmless" drug, people are oppressed, beaten, murdered and that the supply chain is not, generally, run by little old ladies - it's hardened criminals, gangsters and terrorists; that, when speaking to psychiatric nurses and doctors about cannabis, they, with one voice, condemn it as a dangerous drug for the mental health of all and particularly young people.

So on balance, I am for the re-hardening of the drug classification, with residual concern for increasing criminal records and also I would see more formal mitigation considered for those who smoke or otherwise ingest for medical symptomatic relief, with more research into this area of medicine to be conducted urgently for people enduring chemotherapy, with Parkinson's disease, with MS etc.

However, hats off to whoever in government or our senior police commanders who will have the backbones to stand up and say, this was a social experiment, it was worth doing. We have waited to see the results and we are not sufficiently convinced that the advantages outweighed the disadvantages; therefore we are going back to the old classification.

And raspberries to the press and politicians who will no doubt sneer at this and shout, "Failure, failure!".

Not every new scheme or procedure has to work and not everything has to be danced around by officialdom, quoting spurious figures from daft data and saying, "Nice cloak, Your Majesty" to a fat, hairy, naked guy!

TTFN!

2007-07-11T22:22:00.000+01:00

So good-bye John "Gripper" Reid and hello Jacqui Somebodyorother.

John, two final thoughts: can you take that McNumpty with you when you go?

And don't let the door hit you on the arse on the way out.
Ta-ta!

Peace

2007-06-20T21:55:00.000+01:00

One thing that kind of surprised me in the aftermath of the 7th July 2005 bombing atrocities was the relative lack of coverage given by the media to the irony that the "bus" bomb in Tavistock Square exploded less than about 30 metres from a statue of Mahatma Ghandi. Ghandi, who probably had more to complain against Westerners about than many of the 1st- and 2nd-generation Westerners that actually murdered all the poor souls on 7/7, espoused the principles of non-violent direct action.

I went down to Tavistock Square recently to pay my respects at the memorial plaque outside the British Medical Association building where so many good people helped the first officers and paramedics on scene to look after the living, injured and dying in the charnel-house that the murderers created, and I then wandered over to the statue to ponder upon what Mr Ghandi would likely have made of that day.

I doubt he'd have been impressed. But then he too was murdered by extremists. It seems we really are doomed to repeat history.

Mythbusters: blues 'n' twos & teabreaks

2007-05-30T18:29:00.000+01:00

Popular misconceptions of policing: when a police car goes through a red traffic light on blue lights and 2-tone "audible warning signal" only to stop both immediately upon getting to the other side of the junction, the officers within that car are late for their dinners, and are just trying to make better progress towards the holy kebab.

Truth: when a call comes through on the radio, different units volunteer for that call if they are free, often several units per call, especially if it is an "I" call (I="immediate", ie get there quickly - someone is in danger or some offence is in progress and there is a realistic chance of doing some good by getting there asap). This is called "putting up" for a call. The radio controller assigns the several units and whoever gets there first assesses whether other units (officers OR cars are counted as "units") are still needed to attend. The radio communication might go, "Cancel any further to Letsbe Avenue", "Full cancellation" or, occasionally, the slightly less professional addition, "it's L.O.B."*

The marked police unit, now having no need or justification for speeding through junctions, treating red traffic lights as Give Way, proceed-with-caution signs any more, cancels the blue lights and 2-tones and reduces to the regular level of speed and driving proficiency of the rest of the driving public (ie probably too fast, on their mobiles, no seat-belts and up the car in front's bum-hole).

And if there happens to be a nice cup of tea and a kebab at the end of that journey, all's well and good, but the officers you've just slagged off were probably diverting from the highlight of the day - REFS! - in order to take the emergency call in the first place, so leave them alone! Grr...

* LOB = silliness, inconsequential trifle.

Integrity is non-negotiable!

2007-05-26T18:38:00.000+01:00

This is the mantra of the Met Police.

From the first day you step through the gates at Hendon, this is the message you get; your first few weeks of training are based around hammering in this message; and it's part of the gateway to every daily on-line briefing.

We're also increasingly accountable: our Safer Neighbourhood Teams are contactable by mobile 'phone by members of the public (usually known as MOPs), they meet with the public once a month to listen to their concerns, they spend their patrolling lives checking with people and talking in the street. Our pay is transparent, published, auditable and accountable*; the powers that be are now talking about conducting disciplinary proceedings in public (not their best idea, IMHO, but no doubt it'll keep some bloody civvie in the MPA or IPCC happy so no doubt at all it'll happen).

Politicians, however, for whom WE vote (or don't, as poor turnouts for elections and spoiled ballot papers attest), as well as voting in their own pay deals and expenses, have now decided that this is too much scrutiny on them. They have decided that this information is too much for the UK public to take in. We are not to be trusted with such things as how much our MPs earn, how much they fiddle their postage stamp and wives=secretaries expenses, and how they spend their days. You see we, the British public in public roles, are accountable to anyone who asks.

But politicians? EXEMPT!

If I were a person of rank, which I'm not, I might be tempted to suggest that a revolution is required to tell these grasping power-crazed, nest-feathering mysanthropic morons exactly who their bosses are (a la then-Commander, now DAC Brian Paddick). However, I am not a person of rank, so I shall not. I shall just think it VERY LOUD to myself.

[if anyone does want to have a revolution, can you please do it with less than 5 days' notice on a couple of my rest days? I have a wife and cats to support and the prospect of a 1% pay deal this year].

* By the way, "Gripper" Reid is already trying to deny us this autumn's pay deal, as predicted by PC Bitseach some months ago.

Call me - and pay up!

2007-04-23T14:36:00.000+01:00

Now being a foolish old wooden-top and not at the exalted heights of shiny-bummed TDC or anything (!), what do I know about the law?

But I DO watch television.

Not generally rubbish day-time quiz shows admittedly, but I do watch telly. So when I read, and keep reading about TV companies ripping off members of the public, by getting the fools to call in to competition 'phone lines which have already closed, wickle alarm bells start ringing. If the stories are true, these companies are deliberately misleading the public (that their silly competitions are still running and that a winner hasn't yet been picked) and whilst doing so, gaining money for themselves (/the company). Now I'm no great expert on company liabilities and overlaps with the Trades Description Act, Ofcom, ICSTIS or anything like that, but aren't they committing a Fraud?

Look - under the Fraud Act 2006, "(1) A person is guilty of fraud if he is in breach of any of the sections listed in subsection (2)....

(2) Fraud by False Representation:

1. A person is in breach of this section if he:

(a) dishonestly makes a false representation, and
(b) intends, by making the representation—

(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or
(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.
A representation is false if—
(a) it is untrue or misleading, and
(b) the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.

Now, as I say, I am but a mere woodentop, but doesn't it look like these guys in the TV companies are breaking the new law? I expect questions to be asked in the House.

Wee confession

2007-04-17T21:56:00.000+01:00

Okay, it's time I came out. I've been blagging it for months now, pretending I was something I'm not; pretending I knew things I clearly didn't. I've tried looking it up, researching in the background so that I wasn't embarrassed talking "professionally" about things about which I knew - exactly - nip.

So exactly what the hell are the "basket of 10" crimes from the British Crime Survey? I spent hours online the other day trying to find this out. I looked up the obvious - looked at the MPS's, Counties' and Home Office's web-sites and all to no avail. I've Googled the obvious links and am now. Totally. Frustrated.

Answers crayoned in a pocket-book please at the address below (Comments).
PC "Frustrated" Bitseach.

Boy, I thought WE were crap!

2007-04-11T01:07:00.000+01:00

Blimey, the Ministry of Defence and the Royal Navy are starting to make the Home Office and Mr Blair look GOOD!

Ooh, we won't let them publish what happened. No, we WILL. Maybe. I dunno. No, they can bugger orf, get their commissions, retire and THEN make money out of their stories like it's always been done (at least by the ruling classes!).

I got my old Latin mistress to translate a good Army expression that often springs into my mind, usually on some crap "Aid" (is there any other sort?). Unfortunately I then immediately forgot the second part and had to look it up, so apologies if the declension (or whatever) is wrong: "Festinate et exspectate!" (tr: "hurry up and wait!"). From the queue for "operational feeding" (/"poisoning") to deployment. Looks like the military is similarly inept, on recent evidence!

However, the better one for this publishing permission débacle would be "On the bus! Off the bus!". This must, of course, be translated into all languages, for fairness. So Latin - or even pig-Latin - translations welcome so that the Home Office and MOD can adopt their new motto - completely fair to everyone as nobody, from ethnic minority language speakers, to dyslexics, to even moderately well-educated English natives can read Latin these days.

[as I get older I find myself becoming less like Colonel Pickering and MUCH more like Henry Higgins - I used to treat flowergirls as ladies, but now I treat ladies as flowergirls!]

More lions led by donkeys? Now, where was that old Latin Grammar?

[Tee hee!]

Nest-featherers feather nests

2007-03-28T19:47:00.000+01:00

The large police service for which I slave away for (sorry, work hard for - how un-PC of me! Oops!) has said that we all have to wind our necks in when we are blog, if we REALLY feel we have to.

I've paraphrased this of course. And yes, I do really have to.

We also mustn't be nasty or political or reference any cases (well duh for that last point! Some of my best stories are awaiting a suitable time period to have elapsed so as further to sanitise them...). However, political is one of those deliciously fuzzily-defined words and I choose to adhere to the (lawful? really?) curtailment of my speech on political grounds by empirically slagging off all idiots, cross-party, with no political bias whatsowhatso. I hate 'em all. They are all equally inept.

Their latest fiddle (whilst Rome's housing estates, healthcare and criminal justice systems all burn) is to vote THEMSELVES a lovely big pay-rise. Not an overt payrisey sort of payrise, that they'd have to quote openly on the "Nest-feathering" section of their websites (of which more later), but a quieter, harder-to-find benefit.

Firstly, last December, some of them reportedly wrote to their Senior Salaries Review Board to request, cap-in-hand a meagre and humble 66% payrise. What? A WHAT? Yup, a SIXTY-SIX PER CENT PAY RISE. Even quality newspapers like the Torygraph (oops again, perhaps some political bias might be evident there...) I mean Telegraph, report that during 2006 MPs' renumeration in its various forms rose by £13m. Again, yes that's right THIRTEEN MILLION POUNDS - about $25m for any US readers - whipped from our taxes.

The year before that, they had their snouts in the trough looking for 22% for themselves. Now the poor underpaid lambs want a further £10,000 per year towards their websites??! The darlings are only on a measley £60k average. Oh yeah, there's the small matter of (averaged) £131k each and the numerous directorships, heavily subsidised cafés, heavily subsidised BARS, their spiffy pensions. In fact, ever wondered why so many UK politicians are so fat? If you've ever been to one of their canteens (as I have) you'll understand - you'd run out of intestinal volume long before you ran out of money. Some of the many benefits they receive are listed here; in case that's a subjective source, go to their own site, here (and references therein). If they are also a member of a devolved parliament they receive an EXTRA £11k - 18k on top of their £60k (just to pi55 off the English!).

Police had to fight and go to arbitration this year to get a mean 3% - bodes ill for next year when we'll have a real fight on.

Nurses have just received a sub-inflationary pay rise of 1.9% per year.

But then they can't vote for their own pay rises, can they?

Denial - it's not....

2007-03-26T18:34:00.000+01:00

... big and it's not clever (hands up who thought I was going for the "river in Egypt" line?) [oh, wait, I kinda just did]

Apparently another of our glorious Home Office leaders, Baroness Scotland, has decided that there is no such specific thing as "black-on-black" violence and that gun crime is no more a young-black-male thing than a young-white-male thing. The data, apparently, do not support this being disproportionate to one ethnic group over another.

So why then do we have a large, handsomely-budgeted operation running to combat such crime? Why do Baroness Amos (another senior black female peer) Trevor Phillips (erstwhile commissioner of the Commission for Racial Equality, now the chair of the Commission for Equality & Human Rights) and Lee Jasper (London Mayor's police advisor) as well as the combined tactical brains of the Met Police all think that it DOES exist? Even Diane Abbott agrees on this one!!

Somebody is being disingenuous, but who (or just plain old-fashioned "wrong")?

Does Ma'am Scotland think that young black men are neither disproportionately the victims of gun crime, or is it just the shooting and not the victimhood that we are expected to deny for the sake of the Newspeak endemic in our, increasingly Orwellian society?

The implication of all this was that it is racist to suggest that young black men are more involved in gun crime than other groups. But why stop there? After all, no-one's saying that young black women are going around shooting people [sexist]. And why not deny other things just in case there's some perceived racial or ethnic bias? Perhaps it wasn't actually mainly white people who enslaved Africans 200 years ago - after all, the majority of white people 200 years ago were not any part of the slave trade, and whilst they probably on the whole didn't have lives quite as crappy as black slaves did, they certainly weren't all living on a cloud eating ambrosia either. So why pick on white people, or British people for that one?

Perhaps, in the 70s and 80s, Irish terrorism wasn't really committed by or on behalf of Irish people either. Perhaps the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor (sic) wasn't really carried out by the Japanese [racist], just by some random people who happened to be living in the Japan area at that time.

I am NOT claiming any moral equivalence here, by the way, just pointing out that sometimes, however distasteful, we might have to recognise that if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, has big flappy feet, a large bill, says "quack" and swims rather well, it is - in all likelihood - a bloody duck.

If young black men are really disproportionately victims of gun crime, and it's okay to point that out (and probably, thinking about it, institutionally racist to ignore and not try to tackle) then can we acknowledge too that some of these young lads are also disproportionately doing this sort of crime without the bony finger of racism being pointed our way?

Or if, in fact, this is not the case at all, we should surely, morally, be disbanding Operation Trident and its like and using the money elsewhere?

Quack.

PC "Ducky" Bitseach.

World's cutest

2007-03-05T22:28:00.000Z

Sorry, I know this will ruin my reputation, as this post is neither very grumpy nor about coppering, but I saw this on the BBC news web-site last night and it is THE CUTEST picture I think I've ever seen (apart from those of my pets of course!)

Enjoy!

Aaawhhh.....

Lions led by donkeys

2007-02-05T17:12:00.000Z

Right, before we start, it's important to set the scene: everyone begin by humming that circus tune... come on now,

rrrrrrrRRRRRRR-RAT-tat titty tatty rat ta TA-da,

Tum tum tiddy tummy tum ta-RA-ra

Rip da banaaaa-na

Tummy-tummy-tummy-tummy-tummy-tummy TA-da...

Now keep that tune going as you read on:

Glorious leader, Home Office Minister Tony McNutty-as-a-Fruitcake has told Jeremy Vine, on a Panorama interview to be shown tonight that members of the public shouldn't intervene in an scenario posed by Vine:

Jeremy: You see a young man looking aggressive, shouting at an old woman, what do you do? You retreat and ring the police?
Tony McNulty: I think you should in the first instance. It may well be the simply shouting at them, blowing your horn or whatever else deters them and they go away.

Jeremy: He's now hitting her and the police haven't come, what do you do then?
Tony McNulty: The same the same, you must always ...
Jeremy: Still wait?
Tony McNulty: Get back to the police, try some distractive activities whatever else.
Jeremy: What jump up and down?
Tony McNulty: But I would say you know sometimes that that may well work

[Bitseach: er, what's that now? Say that one again?]

Tony McNulty: Get back to the police, try some distractive activities whatever else.

Jeremy: What jump up and down?

Tony McNulty: But I would say you know sometimes that that may well work

THIS is one of the leaders of the police services / forces / constabularies across Britain.

THIS is the man from whom we are given the f***ing hoops through which we must jump constantly.

THIS is the chap that is SO SPINELESS that he thinks that this a good thing to tell the good people of Britain to do if they see an old lady being beaten up by someone in the street.

THIS is the man who is so lacking in moral courage that he looks up to puddles as sources of strength. I have thrown limp lettuces out of my 'fridge that have had more character than this excuse for a man, and for which I've had more respect.

This is one of many reasons why the police should never be run by civilians elected or appointed into position by policians and bureaucrats.

At the risk of, for the first time in my life, agreeing with the Daily (Hate-)Mail, this man makes me sick to my stomach.

Why is it?

2007-02-01T20:04:00.000Z

...that laws always seem to change about 2 months after I've bought my Blackstones Police Manuals for the year?

So now I am working from an out-of-date version of the s172Road Traffic Act 1988 (requirement to give name and address of driver) whereby the old wording is no longer applicable as from 31st January 2007, and the old offences of Deception (obtaining property by, obtaining goods/services by etc) as given in the Theft Acts of 1968 and 1978 have given way to 3 main offences in the new Fraud Act 2006, as from 15th Jan 2007.

Grrr...

Diversity Matters 1

2007-01-29T20:50:00.000Z

Another day, another diversity matter. This time the tabloids round upon, for once, NOT a Muslim officer or PCSO, but a Jewish one! See? They can be fair and impartial too! Hurrah!

Reported in The Soaraway Current Bun (where else?) was an article describing how an Orthodox Jewish police recruit has been given Friday afternoons off as it's the Jewish Sabbath (if it's not deemed too damaging or demeaning to call them "recruits" these days - it's probably something soft and fluffy like "trainee officer", "student officer", "constable in training", "student", "person who happens to be learning policing and the law but no bloody discipline or anything that might be considered disciplined, uniform or militaristic" or something like that)(we are also not encouraged to call them "squibs", "bloody probationers" or "gobby probbies" either [Boo!]).

Some people have been disparaging about this but "Splendid!", say I!

The Anglican church is the official religion of the UK (like it or not) and observes many of the rites of the Roman Church. As such, these include Holy Days of Obligation and there are [excuse the pun] MASSES of them! Including most Sundays! Far be it for me to go against the precepts of the Vatican and the edifice of the Anglican Communion and NOT go to Church on Sundays now, even the Sundays I work, and of these there are many. I shall ensure I am shriven on Shrove Tuesday and receive the ashes on Ash Wednesday, all with a happy smile and jaunty step!

Of course nobody knows quite how orthodox this reportedly Orthodox Jew is - my Jewish friends, though at the time of writing this is unconfirmed, inform me that in Israel there is universal National Service for men and women, except the Orthodox community, and that this is due to issues such as the one above - there are too many rules of the Talmud and particularly around "Shabbat" that it would be impractical to have Hassidic and similar communities in the armed forces. They are therefore exempt. [here, I have to pause and consider my sources - word of mouth from people who are very "right-on" and as a result, have no support for anything they consider to be in any way fundamentalist - but these are my friends! I am open to correction and education on any points that are inaccurate or misleading]

There is not necessarily a parallel to the policing situation here, but there may be.

If one's faith - any faith - precludes one's ability to do a 24hours a day job like policing, is one in the right job? Can we be "of faith" and still police effectively and without being a burden to our colleagues?

Incidentally, looking up some references on-line to illustrate today's 'blog, I came upon some horrendously anti-Semitic sites, especially some US ones. This certainly highlights the need for diversity but surely, SURELY there is some common, central ground: not being fascists with minorities but not being unrealistically and impractically accommodating either? These questions and issues, I suspect, will run and run......

Shake 'n' Bake

2007-01-25T00:28:00.000Z

So, I haven't died, but been busy and was guesting on someone else's blog last week (Shilpa to win!) and raised my blogging head to YET ANOTHER story about Muslims, the police and an outraged tabloid press...

To shake or not to shake?

This has caused great mirth and merriment in the Bitseach Community Unit office; all of us have come with good reasons to justify not shaking the Commissioner's hand - Irish officers because he represents the fascist jackboot of oppression of the English government (Perfidious Albion, etc, etc) against the Irish peoples in the occupied 6 counties; gay women because he stands for the patriarchy of androcentric and heterocentric hegemony in the workplace; straight women because it might be seen as flirting and thus sexual harrassment in the workplace; straight white Englishmen because, er.... um, well, really they didn't actually come up with anything constructive actually, just bitched a lot about how they were now an oppressed minority in The Job these days and about how they'd have to pretend to be gay or bi- to get on in the MPS (Oppressed? MINORITY??? Let's just keep that particular can of worms firmly shut for now before I cry myself to dehydration and can't get to sleep tonight at their plight!!).

But I digress.

Setting aside the reasons FOR shaking his hand: she was in uniform and on duty at the time and therefore subject to lawful orders just like the rest of us; he is senior to her by about 30 years of service and for that alone deserves more respect; he is also senior to her by about 20 stages of career - passed Street Duties, confirmed as Constable, Sergeant, Inspector, Chief Inspector, Superintendent, Chief Superintendent, Commander, DAC, AC, Deputy Commissioner and he's Commissioner (okay I'll admit I had to look up the last few - I mean who knows the ranks above Chief Super anyway?) and therefore deserves more respect; because she's a bloody squib within the organisation and doesn't run it, as she seems to think she does (not only refusing to shake his hand but also refusing to be photographed with him as it was just be "propaganda") - note this is outrageous because she's a bloody probationer, and not to do with gender or religion ("Probationers! Know Your Place!").

No, here're the main reasons - because it is PHENOMENALLY disrespectful and GALACTICALLY rude in British culture(s) to refuse to shake hands with someone and cultural diversity and respect should not all be one-way.

But setting all that aside, she should not have shaken hands with Mr Blair - she should have bloody well saluted!

I have my opinions about Mr Blair, and not all of them complimentary, but he is still the Commissioner and I would not dream of being rude to him, and showing him this much disrespect.

I wonder what else her faith will preclude? How will she cope with being on foot patrol with one male officer (who is not her husband or family)? Or a gay officer? Can you really see her dealing, without issues, with a gay male or lesbian domestic dispute? A gay male rape victim? With strip-searching a prostitute*?

I really hope this new officer finds out a way of doing her job without prejudice, and without dumping anything even slightly unpleasant on her colleagues on the basis of her faith, or causing everyone, and especially her supervisors, to have to walk on eggshells around her. Unfortunately, I foresee vexatious tribunals ahead.... [sigh]...

* Let me just let you know now, prostitutes and female drug abusers, or at least the ones I have to search in custody, almost never wear pants and seem to be ALWAYS on their periods, haven't washed their jeans in weeks and are generally searched in a small airless room (best not to think about this too much) (more things they never include in the "Police. Could you?" poster campaigns!)

Sod 'im

2007-01-08T22:55:00.000Z

So bye-bye Saddam.

Bit of a shambolic ending, but I, despite being an opponent of state execution of anyone (even him), will not lose one femtosecond of sleep about his demise. As well as the grumbling about the method of his death, the allegations of it being a show-trial also abound.

Imagine though for one minute, if the prosecuting authority had been the CPS. Saddam was convicted on an exemplar charge relating to the murder of 148 Shias in Dujail, so I guess that's about 5,000 (conservative estimate) murders at Halabja lying on file, not counting the countless (I did say) other murders ordered by this brute. IMAGINE THE TICs! The detection rate would be fantastic! Okay the murder rate not so hot, but how the bean-counters love their TICs!!

Of course, if it really were the CPS doing Saddam's prosecution, it'd end up either being NFA'd or boshed down to an £80 PND for Section 5, Public Order Act [sigh].

Anyway, good riddance Saddam. It's been emotional.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
GLOSSARY:
CPS = Crown Prosecution Service a.k.a. Couldn't Prosecute Satan
TIC = [offences] Taken Into Consideration. Clear-up-tastic!
NFA = No Further Action - the CPS's favourite disposal option. Sometimes the "F" stands for something a bit fruitier.
PND = Penalty Notice for Disorder - the paperwork-saving fixed penalty notice for naughtiness, that isn't.

My christmas gift to you all

2006-12-27T14:37:00.000Z

Yes, I mean Christmas, not Winterval, Festivus or anything else. I am a traditionalist!

I am no lover of sprouts, in fact they are frequently referred to, in the Bitseach household, as Satan's Testicles and I normally eat exactly one per year, at Christmas, again because I am a traditionalist at heart.

However, this tried and tested recipe for Brussel Sprout Soup is FANTASTIC. It's so good, it's actually worth buying the little testes just to make this soup.

For 3 people:

1/2 lb chopped Brussels sprouts
1 onion (chopped)
1 pint of stock (chicken or ham is best), real or 1 cube per pint
1 flat teaspoon of nutmeg or cinnamon (sounds dodgy but go with it)
1 tablespoon oil

Saute onion in oil (for a nicer favour use a small knob of butter in the oil - the goodness of oil with the yummy flavour of butter) gently until soft but not brown. Add chopped brussel sprouts and mix on low heat for 5 minutes. Then add stock and nutmeg / cinnamon.

Simmer for 15 minutes then allow to cool. Once cool enough to do so safely (I can never wait this long and end up with scalding splashes of soup all over my face, hands and clothing but I don't recommend this course of action!), liquidise. I would imagine this stage is also easier if you have posh cooking-type equipment - I make do with an electric hand blender which does the job. This is a vital step though in producing the lovely thick creamy soup that tastes of loveliness and not of sprouts, so don't neglect the liquidising!

Either now re-heat to serve or chill (never tried it chilled but I guess it wouldn't kill you) to use as a starter.

1 pint of stock serves 3 people for a very filling and delicious soup. Increase quantities pro rata for larger volumes of soup. It would probably also be nice with a bit of bacon chopped and gently saute-ed in at the beginning too, but I normally just stick with the original version.

Enjoy, and think kindly of PC Bitseach and her colleagues as you eat this lovely soup.

Merry Christmas!

Ripper

2006-12-16T20:35:00.000Z

Another [somewhere] Ripper - the media must be wetting themselves with excitement.

Not since the 7/7 bombings have they enjoyed a news item as much as the recent serial murders in Suffolk.

One thing that they've badly let themselves down on is in constantly referring to the murdered women as prostitutes. Now I generally prefer to call a spade a spade, but to the families of these people, it must be especially hurtful and shameful to hear their loved ones constantly referred to as murdered prostitutes. Okay the prostitution angle is relevant up to a point as it appears to have been a targetted group; God knows they're a vulnerable enough group.

But does it have to be, "murdered prostitute Firstname Lastname" .... can't they just be murdered women?

It don't work?

2006-12-13T20:22:00.000Z

I have just watched a TV programme about some new technique being taught in some schools Sarf of the Thames which is supposed to help children with ADHD, behavioural disorders, dyslexia etc in their schooling. Being TV, they then followed around the lippiest teacher they could find and sought her opinion on the new technique.

Firstly, she likened it to someone coming into her house and telling her how to cook (what the?). We then saw her going towards a pupil, said something which ended with what sounded like, "'spect" and then touching her clenched fist to that of the little mite. Very "street". Indeed.

Her last comment though, pretty much epitomised everything about why the old system had to be changed in the first place. She looked to camera, blethered something about the new teaching method and then said, simply, "It don't work".

Perhaps if we selected our state sector teachers a little better than this, we would find that it do work. Then instead of it don't working, us could find that it all went a lot more betterer. Isn't it?

Right, everyone round to my house!!

2006-12-11T12:18:00.000Z

I have a few cases pending at the moment - nothing particularly scary or highbrow but I DO have witnesses.... security guards and shop managers for theft-shoplifting, fellow officers in various other matters. I am now of course hoping to find a safe-house for all of them as any form of witness intimidation or harm to them as a result of their being witnesses in my cases is MY fault. I will be disciplined personally and my force / service will be subject to the good old Human "£££" Right$ Ac£.

Hertfordshire Police is now appealing against a ruling that it breached the Human Rights of a witness in a trial for theft, who was murdered by the suspect days before the trial. Now I am obviously not in full appreciation of the facts and there is perhaps much background to this tragic case to which I am not party, but as it stands at the moment this was a case of theft by employee, not a gangland situation or a Trident case. I mean no disrespect to the murdered man or his family and loved ones, but they have just been awarded £50,000 - the standard amount won for a "breach" of the Human Rights Act, articles 2 (right to life) and 8 (respect for family and private life) - for the police's alleged failure in protecting him.

I supported the Human Rights Act when it came in - it surely can't be a bad thing for all of Europe to enshrine on paper some of the rights we've had by statute or Common Law in the UK for decades / centuries. I even wondered why so many police officers seemed to oppose it - surely it was a good thing for us all?

As with everything it's been hijacked by the legal profession who see a quick buck ensuing from their suing. Instead of protecting us all it's being used as a stick with which to beat the police, to create extra paperwork to try to prevent avaricious litigation by lawyers who are on the clock, earning, whether their appeals are withheld or denied, used to protect the criminal over the victim, used as an excuse not to take action against criminals who richly deserve it... the list could go on. The spirit of this Act has been flushed away in lawyers' greed and loopholers' absence of consciences as the letter of the law is perverted to help them instead of society. The only ones laughing are the criminals.

The relationship of the UK with Europe in the law has not all been bad - the police are more careful in planning jobs that they are according to PLAN, ie Proportionate, Legal, Accountable and Necessary; we've seen advances in legal protection for women, gay people in employment, gay people in the military etc because of people taking the government and employers into the European courts system. Maybe I just make the distinction because I fall into those two categories but there is a distinction because there are laws to protect the innocent and there are laws or articles that only seem to help the guilty, or the wallets of the legal "profession".

What happened to Giles Van Cole was a terrible act by a criminal who deserves to spend the rest of his life in misery. Were the police negligent in not protecting him? Well the courts seem to have decided so and they have access to all the information that I don't. Should the family and their lawyers get £50,000 from the public purse for police's failing to place in protective custody what appears on the surface to be a witness in a theft-employee case? Unless a lot more emerges about the background to this case, forget building more prisons, we'll need to build giant witness protection centres, everyone will be unable to do their jobs as they'll be in the protection centre, there will be no police patrolling at all as we'll all be standing around guarding them, and society will grind to a halt with all the witnesses and police off the streets.

In the meantime, I have a spare room and a bed-settee. So everyone round to my house until their court appearances. Bring tea-bags.

Damned if we do...

2006-11-29T23:19:00.000Z

So the left wing thinks we're all facists, the right wing thinks we're all now tree-huggers. In fact we are even blamed for the media's lack of reporting of a white terrorist cell (allegedly). Can we win? Altogether now with a chorus of, "A policeman's lot is not a happy one (happy one....)"

Quite frankly, I dislike both extremes, which is just as well really given that we aren't allowed to be political and all.

I watched a programme late last night on Channel 5 [no, it wasn't porn] where Donal MacIntyre did a documentary on Johnny "Mad Dog" Adair. At one point, they all visited the former East Germany where Adair met with far-right fascists who had little shrines to him and to his organisation - "C Company" of the UFF - Ulster Freedom Fighters, a loyalist paramilitary leader. Now "Combat 18" is on the rise, apparently, with contacts being forged between hate-groups in Eastern Europe, former East Germany and Poland. And the RUC and UK security services apparently colluded with loyalist terrorists in the 1970s.

So the tangled web of hatred does fascinate me on some horrid, morbid level. I'll try to sum it up:

Fascists hate Blacks, Jews, gays, Muslims, Lefties, Catholics, Asians.
The UFF are kind of fascists. They carry out "punishment shootings / beatings" to people who commit crime in their area. In fact, a few years ago in Belfast I saw painted in large white letters on a gable wall, "HOUSEBREAKERS WILL BE SHOT". Fairly unequivocal.
However the UFF fund terrorism through extortion, protection racketeering and drug running, and terrorism itself is, of course, a criminal offence.
The black community [hated by fascists] is alleged to be quite homophobic against gays [also hated by fascists]
Muslim community, not happy with the gays. Hated by fascists.
Catholics, hate the gays. Not best friends with fascists.
Jews, same. 'Nuff said re Fascism.
Catholics v Protestants - has run and run in the Auld Sod. Will nobody get tired of it?
Belfast Pride - opposed by both Protestants and Catholics
Jews versus Muslims - the world's most inane summary of the Middle Eastern "Troubles"
Sunni don't like Shia (I once misheard this on the radio as battles between Sonny and Cher groups. Oh, the mental picture! Ho hum)

In fact everyone seems to hate each other but in reality they are all united in one thing - EVERYBODY HATES THE GAYS!! It's almost like they're a uniting force in the world of politics and religion.

This brings me back to my favourite picture of Adair, and the one I'd have in a shrine, if I did such things [which I don't] would be this one. Hard man? Getting his face made up? He's just a big, bullet-headed (in more ways than one), no-necked, terrorist, drug-running, violent, extortionist pussy-cat.

Could he be the new gay icon that unites all the hate-groups? Watch this space . . .

They can kiss 2.2% of my ass!

2006-11-12T21:39:00.000Z

News recently in that in the dispute over police pay, the Police Arbitration Panel have supported the Staff Side's proposal that we would be paid the amount they bloody well promised over the Official Side's trying to renege on a 27-year deal. John Reid is reported to have "accepted the ruling of the Police Arbitration Panel".

Yes that's right - he didn't accept it because it was fair, or because it was the right thing to do, because we've worked bloody hard over the past few years, dealing with the ever-shifting sands of policy, legislation and attempts at political influence, or because we've tried to face up to a new breed of terrorist that has struck at and killed for no good reason, because of the bravery and heroism shown by brother and sister officers in running into smoky tunnels to try to save as many lives as possible, then to be on endless "aid" to reassure the travelling public by high-visibility patrolling for months afterwards, all the while trying to deal with the trauma of what we saw and dealt with that day. It was not even because of the bridges we've tried to build or rebuild with vulnerable communities who have felt themselves targetted after such atrocities, or even to communities who have always been targetted by colour, race, sexuality, gender etc, which goes on and which we try to fight. He ignores that we've done all this, or at least tried our best to do this, whilst dealing with ordinary crime; the drug dealers, thieves and rapists did not stop when terrorism hit London - they capitalised on it.

No. He did it because he was forced to.

Each year, MPs vote themselves a pay rise. Often it looks on the surface like it's 1% but this doesn't take into account the interim jumps of often 6 or 8% (26% in 1996 and they all wanted 22% in 2005!), the travel allowances, the staff allowances, the postage (postage, for heaven's sakes!) allowance and a host of other benefits, nest-featherings and back-scratches possibly amounting to £200K, all the while CUTTING the number of hours that they do!

They tell us they have a stressful job? Well pick up body parts from the street and then patrol that area every day afterwards, still seeing those ghost pieces there in the corners of your vision, and comfort the frantic relatives and friends arriving at the hospital unsure of whether or not their loved ones are still alive or are suffering life-threatening or life-changing injuries and then tell us you've got a hard job.

And then deny us our pay rise until you're forced to accede by an arbitration panel? Reid and his cronies should hang their heads in shame.

Home Secretary ratifies police pay deal
Police officers in England and Wales will receive their disputed 3% pay claim

Home Secretary, John Reid has said in a statement that he accepts the ruling of the Police Arbitration Tribunal which will award officers the 3% indexation deal and for it to be backdated to September. He also announced that he would carry out a review of the way police pay was determined in the future.

Chairman of the Police Federation, Jan Berry has welcomed the award but expressed frustration that the dispute had taken so long to resolve, "whilst I am relieved that this year's pay settlement has been resolved, I am disappointed we had to take it to Arbitration".

In his statement Mr Reid has made clear that the indexation formula will form part of the review when he announces the terms of reference, "the tribunal panel accepted that we not only had the right but a duty to consider and put forward different factors and approaches which could be applied in determining police pay, to this end I will be reviewing the way police pay is determined including indexation."

The case was referred to the tribunal after the Official Side of PNB refused to accept the claim under a 27-year-old indexation formula, which links police pay to private sector pay awards. The Police Federation of England and Wales has fiercely contested the decision arguing that the deal reflects not only the unique nature of policing but also the fact that police officers are prohibited from taking industrial action.

A ‘fair pay campaign’ was launched by the Federation which included posters, postcards and media articles together with national and local lobbying of MPs by Federation Reps and members. All of which contributed to a successful outcome for all police officers.

Pesky work!

2006-11-12T00:09:00.000Z

Well I haven't yet died of the 'lurgy, despite its best efforts but thank you all for your kind thoughts! As there's currently a Met-wide "initiative" against anti-social behaviour I've been pulling nasty long shifts for the past week or so, even at one stage - whisper it children! - arresting people. As a community officer this doesn't happen too often so I've had to lie down and have Mrs Bitseach bring me lots of tea to get over it.

Although I was at work today (as usual - I barely know what the inside of my flat looks like at the moment!) I was able to spend a few minutes in a private act of remembrance and bowed my head for the two minutes' silence in memory of the dead of our wars, and the living who still put their lives on the line for their Queen, their Country, their Regiments, mates and families. My own grandfathers both fought in the First World War, one lucky enough to survive the Somme and the other, Mesopotamia, as an infantryman and engineer respectively.

As was the case in those days (oh halcyon days before everything had to be "shared" ad nauseam), each one barely spoke of what they went through, but the quality of the medals they won, and the citations for those medals speaks for their efforts, sacrifice and bravery. Their time in their respective arenas, exhausted, gassed, injured, as prisoners of war, their respect for and pity for their captors (sharing cigarettes and chocolate from their Red Cross packages and the Christmas 1914 (or was it 1916?) gift from Queen Anne, with their German guards, who were harshly treated by their officers even in those harshest of times) gave small snippets of a heroism I can only imagine (being, as I am, an abject coward!) from what few scraps of information we coaxed out of them as children and to whom War and "killing Germans" was tremendously exciting:

how he learned to smoke from these same Red Cross packages; the fear and malnutrition of Granda Bitseach's young guards; the time that, when being marched from one place to another as prisoners, a German sniper from afar started picking off the POWs, so the German officer made his men mix among the POWs, which stopped that particular bit of slaughter; fighting at Ypres (or "Wipers" as the Ulstermen called it); his injuries when he took over as "runner" to deliver the message to advance on the area around Thiepval and after the previous two runners had died trying, and himself almost killed in his successful attempt (which probably saved his life in the long run); the time the gas-shell came in close to him and he took as big a lungful of air as he could before the shell exploded mustard gas, and ran and ran and ran along the trench until he had to collapse and breath - which he was lucky to be able to continue doing.

This is family lore, extracted over 80 years - all he ever told me as a child was about how they tried to make the trenches more comfortable, digging little alcoves in the trench wall to store the Government issue binoculars and how he stuck his pocket watch, which he carried with him all his days, into the muddy wall so that others who didn't have such luxuries could also see the time... he didn't want to tell me how many Germans he'd killed (which is what I really wanted to know) but just how he tried to make life a little more comfortable in Hell.

We will remember them.

Cough cough

2006-10-23T21:26:00.000+01:00

Greetings from my plague-infested bed.

Unfortunately the police have a bit of a reputation nationally for being time-wasting sciving sick-notes. This has led to a bit of a reversey policy whereby sickdays are now monitorred so scrupulously that people stagger into work, barely able to see through the curtain of sweat stinging their eyes from their fever.

Legal landmarks like the court that decided that an officer can be ineligible for promotion if sickness levels are too high as well as measures such as being back-classed at Hendon if you have more than a few days off in each course, have meant that your average copper and PCSO all just get wheeled to the door of the nick by the LAS instead of taking necessary time off.

Apparently this is really good, as it's meant reduced sickness levels, for which everyone roundly participates in a veritable circle-jerk of back-slaps, but the sequelae of this of course, are officers and "O"s barely able to do their jobs as they feel so thoroughly miserable when out on the beat - a particular joy when you mainly walk rather than sit in vehicles - and that once one "patient zero" comes into the nick, there is very rapidly an explosion of infection, a domino effect, until finally the whole nick comes to a standstill.

Except we don't come to a standstill, we go out and bravely infect the people that pay our wages (or so they keep telling me!). Perhaps that's where I'm going wrong; I shouldn't see it as a policy well-intentioned but ultimately to my personal detriment, but as an opportunity to wreak revenge on the moaning gitbags that I faithfully serve in the community by giving back to them a little of what they deserve [tee-hee!].

Of course it could be argued that this constituted at least an ABH assault, following the arguments contained in Regina versus Dica and the previous Clarence case (referred within). But maybe The Job should be held accountable for forcing me to work on through my acheing limbs, hot and cold sweats and blurred vision and thus passing my dread 'lurgy to the great and the good of the London Borough of Happiness? Anyway, I'm off to watch Spooks with a hot whiskey and a rug wrapped tightly around me and you can ponder that at your leisure, you healthy bastards! [Do you feel the sore throat starting yet...?]

"A nice cup of tea and a sit down"

2006-10-07T00:28:00.000+01:00

Some officers are being forced to break down their shift day into 15-minute intervals to account for their days so decided would do my day:

1000: start shift with nice cup of tea
1015: First cup slightly too milky - have another with more favourable milk concentration
1030: Foolishly answer office phone. Need more tea to recover
1045: Oops, too much tea. Would go out but keep having to visit loo instead to pee. Check briefings.
1100: Go out onto ground. Do community visit. Seems rude not to have tea when offered. Wouldn’t wish to offend community after all…
1115: Still talking - need biscuits now. Seriously.
1130: Mostly peeing again from tea.
1145: Leave on patrol. Talk to informant but still thinking all the time of pee-ing.
1200: Lunchtime. Break out and have coffee instead in local establishment.
1215: Still on refs - sod off Home Office!
1230: I said GO AWAY! If I must take Refs on the ground to please "the communidee" then the least you can do is bugger off and let me eat them without staring over my shoulder. Well, metaphorically anyway.
1245: Local wandering maniac comes over to tell me about a squirrel that keeps throwing nuts at her and what are the police going to do?
1300: Maniac finally shuts up and leaves. However, took up valuable refs time so have fresh lovely cup of tea to compensate. Get sympathetic looks from waiting staff. Not so bloody sympathetic as to come and rescue me from Mrs Nut-nut 15 minutes ago though, eh?
1315: Peeing again. Now like pedigree racehorse.
1330: Short patrol with local probationer / PCSO pointing out local tea-holes on ground. Emphasise value of stopping in such places for intelligence purposes. And tea.
1345: More peeing.
1400: Excess urination has created room for more tea. Don't fight it.
1415: Probationer / PCSO wishes to go to nearby nick for short period to book in property. I say will wait in canteen
1430 - 1445: Contemplate trying new flavour of tea. Decide on Assam. Mmm, delicious!
1500: Proby / PCSO joins me in canteen and looks thirsty. Again, don't fight it.
1515: Still swinging blue lantern with proby / PCSO.
1530: Sergeant phones. Sergeant is only person on earth to match my tea consumption but he smokes also so retain smug feeling of faux superiority over boss. Suggests all meet up at local café for tea and smoke. Politely decline latter but as for tea? Orders is orders. Make way to café.
1545: On way to café allow proby / PC to choose route. Route chosen passes mainline railway station. FOOL! DANGER!!
1545 - 1600: Spend 15 minutes advancing forward exactly two steps before fresh person steps up with fatuous directions question. Direct several past the "PleaseandThankyou Shop" then feel guilty for setting bad example to proby / PCSO.
1600: Stick on motorist for penance. Motorist protests innocence of traffic law forbidding mobile phone use whilst driving. Set straight at great length. Then stick on anyway. Model self on "Little Miss Jocelyn" character, "I am now going to write you a ticket. It will take a loooooonnnnngggggg time". Giggle inwardly.
1615: See 1600: Grumpy now from tannin withdrawal.
1630: Finally meet with skipper in café. He shaking with combined poisoning of nicotine, caffeine and tannin. But still chatting up waiting staff.
1645: Proby / PCSO finally takes hint and offers to buy tea. My work is done.
1700: Physically incapable of drinking more tea. Slosh back to nick to write up ticket evidence. Journey timed between emergency pees. Now seriously contemplating catheterisation or dialysis.
1715: Writing ticket. Need tea to complete task. Sergeant shows great leadership by putting kettle on. Pointed looks at proby / PCSO eventually produce hot and wet one. Yum.
1730: Adding finishing flourishes to ticket. Style is so important in these things. Besides, know that proby / PCSO will want to see how ticket written by Old Sweat(y) Blah-merchant like me and want to set good example of evidence-writing.
1745: Nearly home time. Quick one for the road. Bonus - find a biscuit in desk drawer! Huzzah!!
1800: Go home, smug in the knowledge that have achieved ultimate day in life of community police officer.

Some people say they see a certain pattern in my day. I dunno....

The Oath

2006-10-05T20:12:00.000+01:00

"I, .. [officer's name].. of .. [address].. do solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve the Queen in the office of Constable, with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality, upholding fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all people; and that I will, to the best of my power, cause the peace to be kept and preserved and prevent all offences against people and property; and that while I continue to hold the said office I will to the best of my skill and knowledge discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to law."

When I first heard this morning about the Muslim police officer, PC Basha, in the Diplomatic Protection Group (DPG) who was moved from guarding the Israeli embassy, I thought that there was going to be probably more to it than the initial knee-jerk reaction that some were offering. Rent-a-quotation types like former Flying Squad commander John "Captain Crimeshare" O'Connor were lining up to pass judgement.

(O'Connor's previous pedigree includes, "Forest Gate raids were very unprofessional", "the attack on Jill Dando was carried out by somebody who was clearly professionally trained ... in close quarter combat ...to use a converted weapon", "the taser was unreliable and unpractical", that Freemasonry is the reason the police is still racist, policing of Buck House is "an absolute disgrace", that Sir Ian would probably resign over de Menezes and a hundred other Pub Landlord/White Van Man style pronouncements; in fact there is practically nothing this man will not open his gums and yawn on about for money/fame/gin or whatever his motivation might be)

By lunchtime, the story had changed. Now it was "for safety reasons" as the officer had Lebanese relatives who might be put in danger if he were to guard the embassy (??). This other message from Deputy Commissioner Stephenson, as reported on the BBC:

"Our priority is making sure that any officer we deploy can have their mind on the job and make sure they discharge effectively and efficiently.
"That's what a risk assessment is about, it is not about political correctness and we do not allow officers to pick and choose their deployment on the basis of their personal views."

This brings up a few points: was this officer really so stupid and short-sighted to think that, as an officer in the DIPLOMATIC PROTECTION GROUP, he would not have to guard an embassy such as this one? I know of many, many Irish and Northern Irish officers who have stated they would not wish to join Special Branch precisely because they have relatives in the Auld Sod - could Basha really not have considered this a possibility in the DPG??

Or was it more of a case of "don't wanna", as some bloggers have - not unreasonably - suggested? It would not be the first time an officer had tried it on with a minority card - unfortunately this is usually pandered to, instead of receiving the correct answer, "no we are not telling you to do this standard, everyday, dull duty/posting because you are female / gay / black / Muslim / Catholic / other but because you are a bloody recruit / bloody probationer / bloody PC, now KNOW YOUR PLACE!!" [at this point I feel the need to remind that I am an officer who is in about 4 or 5 different minority groups and am not a white straight male who, as we know, are not allowed to comment on such matters at all these days!]

So is PC Basha
a) lazy?
b) paranoid?
c) in the wrong department?
d) contemptuous of his oath?
e) just being misunderstood / misquoted?

Who knows?

But in the meantime I shall defer to the good Mr Stephenson, whose priority is making sure our minds are on the job. As Autumn's coming in now my hands and lips are starting to chap and let me tell you, it's jolly distracting. In fact, it's really keeping my mind from the job. I request, on safety and health grounds of course, that I either:

be provided with Job-issue hand cream and lip balm, or
not be posted anywhere outside my nick

...so that I can keep my mind fully on the job. I thank you.

An attack on decency.

2006-10-01T19:04:00.000+01:00

Just read via the blog trail that another police blogger, Inspector Gadget, is being threatened by his Complaints department for writing a police blog.

Now, having read a bit of this blog, it is not particularly controversial, is not offensive to anyone, does not keep anyone up at night through its anti-social nature and does not cause staining when spilt on the carpet. It's just one bloke saying, calmly and pleasantly, what he thinks and how the job affects him.

We know that we cannot be too controversial if it brings the force/service into disrepute, cannot really express political opinions (sometimes I'm surprised they actually allow us to vote!), apparently unless we're the Chief Constable/Commissioner and absolutely must not identify any person we work with, arrest, comfort etc. All fair enough. But are we not now allowed to say anything at all, even anonymously, about our job, how we're treated and some of the stupid hoops we've to jump through? We are not talking about issues of National Security here, just bits and bobs from our daily grind.

I would be an utter disgrace if Insp Gagdet were silenced or disciplined as a result of his blog by an overzealous idiot from Complaints who should be flushing out corruption, prejudice, intolerance and bad practice instead of hounding honest officers trying to do their jobs well but occasionally having the gall to talk about it!

I hope for everyone's sakes that Insp G is treated fairly and properly by whatever abject, vaulting careerist that ends up dealing with him.

Sir, if it'll help at all I hereby make you an honorary lesbian - that should give you a little protection at least - and I also banish the ginger eye-browed one from the ginger fraternity/sorority. He should consider himself, henceforth, shunned.
Good luck Sir.

Is this actually the stupidest idea EVER?

2006-09-30T17:29:00.000+01:00

Respect to the MPS leadership! Just when you thought that they'd had so many stupid ideas recently that they really couldn't outdo themselves.... TA-DAAAAAAaaaaa:

From the Sunday Times -
POLICE have agreed to consult a panel of Muslim leaders before mounting counter-terrorist raids or arrests. Members of the panel will offer their assessment of whether information police have on a suspect is too flimsy and will also consider the consequences on community relations of a raid.
Members will be security vetted and will have to promise not to reveal any intelligence they are shown. They will not have to sign the Official Secrets Act.

"So do you promise not to say anything before we go and do our raid which we have to do in the interests of public safety/national security/catching criminals? You do? Fantastic! Here's all the information we have - do you still think we oughta? Now remember - you did promise with cherries on top, so Mum's The Word, eh?"

So are we to have similar consultation panels for other species of terrorist? When I was a kitten there was an ickle bit of a problem with Irish Republican terrorism and, indeed, Ulster Loyalist terrorism. This might have settled down a bit lately with the old peace dividend and all that but, as the torrid Gerry Adams said in a moment when he forgot the cameras were still on him when asked at a Republican rally where the IRA had gone said, "They haven't gone away you know".

So let's also consult the Irish (and "Ulster") diaspora, trawl around Kilburn and Cricklewood in London and East and West Belfast, get together a "panel" [how the Met Police loves its panels!] - in fact let's gather anyone with an Irish setter, who's once drank a Guinness or once worn any item of green clothing and ask them to opine about raids and investigations on current and previous acts of horror. We can have the Met's Irish police association to be the bridge between police and community, and have consultations with the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Garda Siochana [apols for lack of fadas here - can't get the font on my computer].

Then we can have the senior command apologise ad nauseum if the raids don't turn up precisely what we were expecting. Not just one apology of course, because the first few won't take, but many, from many different people in disparate reaches of the service. We can have Lionel himself, Tarique "Gaffer" Ghaffur, Cressida "Annie Oakley" Dick, Brian "Puff the Magic" Paddick, Steven "Full" House and have the whole team line up like Father Jack in front of Bishop Brennan:

Father Jack Hackett: [after Bishop Brennan asks how he is] Arsebiscuits!
Father Niall Haverty: [shocked] How dare you say that to His Grace, you must apologize immediately!
Father Jack Hackett: [Father Ted squirms, as Father Jack sits up and puts his hands on his front like a dog, and in a dog-like voice] I'm... so... sooo... sorry.
Father Ted: [to Mrs. Doyle] Now that was sarcastic.

[From the IMDb database]

I despair.

Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?

2006-09-24T16:25:00.001+01:00

Well we've finally had PC Rain out and about on his/her patrols so the crime figures will finally look a bit better. However I for one will be glad to see it get a bit cooler at last.

Now bearing in mind to begin with that I am a ginger so any form of heat or sunlight is anathema to me anyway. Now add to that the "helpful" members of the public who smile at me and say "lovely weather!" when it's about 500 degrees Celcius out on foot patrol (yes, yes, I am one of those new (old) police who goes out more often than not on foot patrol rather than in a car) and I clearly look like a wrung-out dishrag desperately trying to stave off sunburn in my patrol area that seems to have no trees! and therefore a complete paucity of shade. But that's okay because they give you decent uniforms, right?

Well... let me tell you about the uniform almost entirely constructed of polyester:
The shirt - 65% polyester, the remainder, cotton. And forget man-made fibres that "wick away" sweat - the Job shirt is designed to retain as much moisture as it possibly can. It should really be used as a kitchen material to soak up spills.
The trousers - 60% polyester, the remainder wool. They select only the finest wool from the variety of sheep known as Super itchius legsius from the sheep equivalent of undernourished crack addicts. They then design the waist on the Simon Cowell model - if the waistline doesn't actually reach your boobs, they aren't the right size for you.
Pants - lovely - Marks and Spensive's best...mmm...
The cravat - fully 100% polyester
Footwear - again, fine because I buy my own - thanks very much, Job, I didn't really want a boot allowance anyway (you tight gits...)
The stab vest - phenomenally heavy to wear and designed for the ruination of good posture, these totally non-breathable items again are composed of a special heat- and moisture-retaining material that combines with the shirt [see above] to increase core temperature as much as possible in hot weather and yet be cold and clammy in cold weather. A miracle of crap engineering, the special misogynist design only accommodates women of AA cup size or below, despite purportedly being "bespoke" for safety purposes. For any women (or men) greater than an "A" cup, the front of the vest simply sticks out straight in front allowing maximum stomach/soft tissue exposure to whatever pointed/bladed object comes my way. The covert vest covers are naturally too small to fit the protective panels, leading to wrinkles that ruin the protective integrity of the structure; there is no such thing as a "high-vis" vest cover, so that in the height of summer if you want to stand out in a crowd/public order situation/busy road, you have to put on an extra thermal layer of high visibility over-jacket, again made of an insulating (but not waterproof - oh no!) material. This a particular joy for police cyclists, who only have a winter hi-vis, akin to a bright yellow duffel coat to wear, winter or summer, as they haven't sorted out a summer cycle uniform yet.
And finally, the lovely hat - again, chiefly made of plastic, but covered in a thick but water-loving felt that soaks the water up and then leaks it down the side of your head when it reaches saturation point, or collects it gutter-style only to tip it down your front as soon as your head leans forward. The hat is of a special 'sick-bowl' design, in black to soak up extra heat, with no ventilation holes anywhere for much-needed cool (or in fact any) air to circulate. And just in case that was too comfortable, there is no spongy layer or even leather band to soothe the fevered brow - the "designers" decided that a comfy or natural product might spoil us too much so they went instead for vinyl instead, which becomes scratchy in the heat. No part of the hat's inner can be removed for cleaning, so after a few days the smell is overpowering (and hair quite ruined!).

When asked to comment on the problems with uniform design, the Head of Uniform Services was heard to say, "So what? It's cheap, and I don't wear it so who gives a crap anyway??"*

So if you smile at a PC (or WPC - !!) in the street and say something like, "lovely weather!" when the sun is making scrambled eggs from their brains, do not be surprised if their heads explode, they scowl, or grimace at you, twitching dangerously; it's just that they're too bloody hot!

[*I made this up, but I imagine it's not so far from the truth]

Don't mess!

2006-09-21T00:53:00.000+01:00

Don't mess with PC Bitseach when she's pissed off!

Know the signs!

2006-09-21T00:03:00.000+01:00

Dr John "Taggart" Reid warned Muslim parents that they must look out for the signs of extremism in their offspring. Here are some of the things they need to look for:

sweating
glazed eyes
detachment
mumbling
disinterest in schoolwork/job
spots around the nose and mouth
smell of solvents

oh er, hang on.... I'm getting confused with glue-sniffers again aren't I?

[well that was the bogeyman when I was a kitten!]

Slough

2006-09-18T11:42:00.000+01:00

With sincere apologies to the late Sir John Betjeman and family, upon the news that he apparently regretted writing that Slough should be bombed.

Come come, you bombs, don't fall on Slough
I didn't really mean it now!
At least you don't have phoney cows
Like Milton Keynes

Come bombs and from your course allay
From smashing up the bright café
Fried egg, fried meat and all the way
To refried beans

Don't mess the streets of this new town
By throwing nasty litter down
A CSO will see you fined
For fifty quid

And see the child with double chin
For whom the ASBO's rolling in
And hoody's like a second skin
A darling kid

So flush the 'nabis down the loo
And shake the hands, so used to screw
The Vespa, Zip and Typhoon too
Then burn them out

But spare the kids on ABCs
They've only one GCSE
(tho' that was in an -ology,
Which carries clout)

It's not their fault they're bloody fools
As no-one told them, -Go to school,
Or learning's fun and learning's cool
They didn't know

And talk of drugs and stealing cars
And fighting outside crappy bars
And what the bloody hell are stars?
From TV shows??

In Council-paid-for homes, with care
Their teenage mothers bleach their hair
And teach their kids to smoke and swear
And scream and bawl

Come come, you bombs, don't fall on Slough
Just stay a while - I'll tell you how
The cabbages are running, now,
The City Hall

Copyright PC Bitseach.

SO offended...

2006-09-17T22:00:00.000+01:00

Wow, some people are touchy. It seems like everyone is too easily offended these days, both in The Job and in real life. We'd a tricky and unpleasant day at work recently and, as is common in such situations, somebody made a very quiet and inappropriate joke. Other people laughed at that joke, partly because it was funny, and - more - to release the tension. Typically a civvy tutted and harumphed [and why is it always a civvy or a vaulting careerist that is the first to "tut" and harumph, usually then to look around to see who had seen them challenge the inappropriate joke?].

Death and viscera are always nasty and usually leave the ghost images in your brain for ever, but what are we supposed to do? Cry and bawl when we have a job to do? Beat our brows and say how sad we are, dwell on things and suffer nightmares at night? Or release some of the tension and have a guilty giggle to shoo off the demons and let us get on with the job until we get to go home and think over what happened, or drink, or perhaps think kindly of, or say prayers for the person we laughed at that day?

But it's easy to get offended and look down on your colleagues from the moral high ground. In the end, it's generally the officers, and not the civvies and vaulting careerists that are still on the crime scene, getting their hands and trousers dirty and trying to keep breathing through their mouths and not their noses.

Likewise the reaction of much of the Muslim community worldwide to the Pope's recent speech. If any of the people complaining about the speech had actually read the full text, they might have seen that it referred to a discourse from centuries ago, that the Pope's debate hinges around faith and compulsion, and he quotes that the originator of the discourse passage that so offended so many who hadn't even read it, did so with "startling brusqueness". He talks about Greek philosophy, the age of reason, and in the end invites an intelligent dialogue between cultures.

Now some people with bigger egos than intellects have decided that in quoting the Byzantine Emperor Manuel Paleologus in a discussion, the Pope is endorsing the Mediaeval view, that he's saying that all Muslims are violent. Now this would not in itself be news, but what have so many undereducated and manipulated Muslims decided to do, presumably to attempt to disprove the violence that the Pope has (not actually) associated with a minority of morons who believe everything they're told about Islam without actually reading the words of their Prophet (or in fact any words that might challenge their closed minds)?

Burned effigies of the Pope in India and elsewhere
Burned and fired weapons at Christian churches in the Israeli occupied territories
Killed an elderly nun in Somalia (well done, you killed an old lady - like she wrote any of these speeches)
Attacked a church in Iraq
Tried to force apology after apology (rings a familiar bell?)

So let me get this straight, you've done all these things in order to prove that you're not violent? Well Gosh, I'm certainly persuaded - what could possibly be more pacifist??! QED mate, QED.

I'd like to suggest to everyone that they learn to shrug, laugh, think, reason, empathise, sympathise and try to understand.

Now Dummies back in prams please, everyone!

Bad boys, bad boys

2006-09-12T22:41:00.000+01:00

There's been a rash of people recently calling or referring to me as a "cop". Now I don't so much mind being called a "copper" (one who cops?) but can't abide being called a "cop".
- How many cops are there in your team?
- Er, I'm not sure, but when did we all become American?

I don't claim any consistency whatsoever; why else would I mind cop and not copper? If anything, copper should be a source of pain and anxiety to me as it was one of the many names I have been called for having strawberry-blonde, yes it's strawberry-bloody-blonde hair, not ginger over the years. But I don't mind that. It's not even that it's an Americanism; a common term of address both in the street and in court is officer, which is derived from US culture (however, that's possibly just because it beats the ever-hilarious mispronunciation of Constable [how we laughed and laughed!].

I suppose it's just because it sounds so darned cheesey, faux American, mid-Atlantic Essex cowboyish. I dunno.

Anyway, apropos nothing except gingerism a new batch of Street Duties officers are out soon so the new competition will shortly commence in the Happiness BOCU to be the first to induce a new officer (we're not allowed to call them Gobby Probbies any more - yeah like THAT'S the worst they'll get called in the street!) to describe their suspect over the radio as IC7, the universal IC code for gingerists.

Let battle commence - bwah ha ha ha haaaaaaa......

On a sad day

2006-09-11T23:02:00.000+01:00

On a sad day and a sad memorial it's easier to gloss over the serious for the trivial but really and truly, we must never forget.

Another day, another whinging git...

2006-09-11T22:04:00.000+01:00

Phone goes.
Against my better judgement I sprint over before the answering machine kicks in and pick it up. Now the name of my little team has changed recently to something that nobody knows the meaning of, so I just say "Happiness Borough Community Police. PC Bitseach speaking..." and wait to see if they recognise this, give me 5 beats of silence as they try to figure out what I've just said, ask for somebody who works in some other unit or try to order pizza or something. Instead we both wait while Mrs Stepford tells us both that she's very sorry that we can't take the call, Mr Whinging-Git shouting "Hello! HELLO!!" at increasing volume whilst I try stabbing every button that might MAKE HER STOP! The maximum number of rings you can set it to is FOUR (4) [aaahhhh statement-writing.....] which is about 10 (ten?) too few for me to get across the office and answer it before Mrs Bloody Stepford starts drawling in her soft modern way that just makes you want to punch someone.

This is the drill:

Ring-ring. Uh? Was that the 'phone?
Ring-ring. Ah it was. Hmmm, shall I answer it? Nah I'll let the machine get it. NO! It might be important and I MUST SHOW COMMUNITY FOCUS! If I really sprint I'll get it
Ring-ring. Aaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrghhhhhhh....! [thunderous clatter of feet on office flooring, dodging around desks, twisted joints]
Ring-ring. "Good morning [ puff, pant ] Community Unit [huff ] PC Bitseach speaking" Ha! got there in time.

"I'm sorry, your call" [Hello?] "cannot be taken" [ is this the police? ] "at the moment, but please leave a message after the [ hello!? HELLO?? ] tone.

BUGGER.

But I digress....
When I finally got the stupid answering machine off all I can hear is this shouty old git-bloke:

Git: I PHONED earlier and TOLD you what the problem was and you've done NOTHING about it AT ALL. NOTHING!
Me: Uh, good morning, uh what seems to be the trouble?
Git: YOU LOT! SOMEBODY was supposed to phone me BACK!
Me: Huh? [ huh? ]
Git: I TOLD you about this already. SO WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?
Me: [what the fu...?] Sir, we do get a lot of calls to this office. Can you tell me briefly what it's about?
Git: It's about THE CHILDREN, THE CHILDREN THAT ARE OUTSIDE 123 CRAPPOLA HOUSE AFTER SCHOOL EACH DAY. What are you doing about it?
Me: [sigh...should have followed my instincts] Right, I know what we're talking about now. Well we have officers in the area and....
Git: you're doing NOTHING there's NO POINT going around there NOW. THE CHILDREN ARE ALL AT SCHOOL. I AM GOING TO MAKE A COMPLAINT
Me: [in school? where's he been? Doesn't he realise the good burghers of the London Borough of Happiness don't send their children to school!!] Sir as I'm trying to explain, as well as having officers in the area, we've also arranged.....
Git: I'M MAKING A COMPLAINT - YOU'RE DOING ABSOLUTELY NOTHING
Me: [ silence ] Sir, if you continue to shout at me I will hang up the phone [ sir, you can poke your stupid complaint up your arse. If I could reach through the phone handset and throttle you with my hands right now, the next CAD message would be a suspicious sudden death at YOUR PLACE ] now if I can help in any way I shall.
Git: AAAARGHHHH I am shout blah blah nothing blah blah IPCC blah blah complaint fuh fuh. [ SLAM]

Twat. Ruined a good cup of tea. Last time I answer the bloody phone.

Sir Lionel in, "Keeps Opening His Blooming Mouth" horror!

2006-08-30T20:49:00.000+01:00

Glorious leader, Sir Lionel Blair, has yet again caused phenomenal embarrassment to his beleagured front-line troops as they try to patrol their areas preventing crime and the fear of crime, by suggesting [shudder at the very idea] that parts of Haringey were now safe enough for people to leave their doors open. Has he ANY idea how humiliating it is to be on the streets being mocked for every faux pas that he makes? I mean, you have to show some loyalty to your superiors, thin blue line and all that, but really, he does make it hard.

"Hello Officer, I am leaving my flat for a while now. Should I just leave the door unlocked as this area is now so safe?"
"No sir, I strongly advise you to double-lock and use your security gate, just like you normally do"
"Oh, so Your Boss is wrong then about how safe we are? Eh? EH??"

[thinking hard about who I would like to slap on the top of the head with a copy of Police Review more - My Boss or this sarcastic little muppet....]

"You may say that but I couldn't possibly comment". [ I then smile, as I suspect Mr Muppet won't get the rather clever cultural reference. He doesn't disappoint]

At least it makes a change from, "So, you going off to shoot some innocent Tube passengers then?"
[in my head I reply..."of course not, they won't even give me a gun, the buggers"] Some day I will just walk towards them, and, in the style of the old record, the Laughing Policeman, start a chorus of...
OH ho ho ho ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaa
WOOOOH HOO HOO ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaa
OH HO HO ho ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaa
WOOH HOO HOO. WOO HOO ho ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa......

...and then just walk away.

2006-08-29T16:32:00.000+01:00

Caprice Who Indeed?! (and who cares?)

Particularly unimpressed by Richard Madeley this week tearing into some poor plod for doing his job (doing it well actually) in securing a conviction against Caprice. For anyone else who isn't familiar with the name, she is, or was a model. She considers herself far too important to have a surname so, when asked to "step out of the car" having been stopped for a faulty fog-light and found to be reeking of booze, she gave her name only as Caprice only to have the copper reply - not unreasonably - Caprice Who? Wouldn't be the first time I've asked someone's name and had to eak it out of them, syllable by syllable, so this probably would have been my first reaction too.

[Personally, I've only heard of her because of Jonathan Ross's fast-food advert of a few years ago where he goes on at length about someone he calls "Capweece". He seemed to like her, at least in the advert but then I gather he was paid to say this!]

Madeley's article went on about how it was impossible for any police officer (as we're all white straight lusty males, presumably) not to have instantly recognised this stupid drink-driver, with a chorus of "phwoars", then slagged him off for describing her - slightly unflatteringly - in his evidence as "scrawny" and having a large acne spot on her cheek, amongst other things. Far from being churlish, this was probably just an accurate description. Even sticking someone on for a seat-belt offence I would always describe them and any prominent features; it closes down the bull-poo "it wasn't me Guv" defence before it even begins and doesn't take more than a line or two. The final thrust of this rapier-like wah-fest came as the officer's name was Flashman and that he is obviously therefore a cad as he shares his name with a caddish fictional character from literature. Hmm, must be true then. (I share a last name with a v good Premiership footballer so I look forward to acquiring my enhanced ball-skills any day now!)

Could Madeley's cynicism be related to his bitterness over his 1990 arrest for shoplifting? He was acquitted at court but still clearly harbours some bitterness about being treated like anyone else who's "accidentally" removed items from a shop without paying and wanted special treatment himself. Now he's apparently a champion of the Z-list, taking up the cause of people who'd like to get off with being naughty by being even peripherally famous. Well every 'celebrity' needs a cause. Pity he's chosen such an unattractive one. Still, a step up from his referring to "dykes" on his TV show. Classy bloke, our Madeley. Judy love, you could do so much better.

Funnily enough, Caprice's web-site doesn't have anything about her recent attempts to wriggle out of justice. Pour scorn at: I'm pathetic so love me if you really must.

Mail article on:
Fascist Rag

I don't normally read the Daily Hate, honest, it was open at this article in the nick and I happened to see it. [[blushing deeply]]