The police are not on your side

A few days ago I said in respect of the Chavshrine™ (copyright holder: JuliaM):

If the police had any sense, they’d be all over this before it gets out of hand.

It’s the job of a responsible government to not let these grievances fester, and to identify potential flashpoints and intervene to snuff them out before they turn into something serious. As with most things, Theresa May’s government and what passes for a police service are failing in their duty miserably, leaving the British public feeling increasingly ignored, insulted, and bullied while certain protected groups are free to do as they please. If they don’t get a handle on this situation developing in Hither Green quickly, the burglar might not be its only casualty.

Well, I needn’t have worried: within hours of posting, the authorities swung into action. So did they remove the tributes from the nearby property? Of course not! This being Plod, they came out in favour of the travellers, issuing this statement:

My officers have a responsibility to provide reassurance to local residents so they can go about their daily lives, while also respecting the wishes of family and friends to mark the loss of a loved one.

“They are not there to safeguard or facilitate the laying of floral tributes; we are liaising with the local authority who are considering appropriate management of the floral tributes.

“I do not want anyone to feel intimidated or that they are not being allowed to respond in a dignified way to a tragic death.

“We would urge members of the public to respect the wishes of those who choose to place flowers and other tributes in the area.

In case anyone is concerned this whole fiasco is an exercise in intimidation, don’t worry, Plod has that covered too:

People laying flowers in tribute to a suspected burglar who was fatally stabbed should not feel intimidated, a senior Met Police officer says.

Yes, clearly it’s the people laying the flowers who are feeling intimidated, not the pensioner who knows he can never return home and is now forced to sell his house. And don’t you love the BBC’s language here? “Suspected burglar”, eh? What was this career criminal doing in someone else’s house? Checking for damp?

With the authorities making it quite clear whose side they are on in this conflict, the travellers have decided tributes to their relative’s untimely demise are not enough; now they’re putting up balloons and flowers celebrating what would be his birthday:

Flowers and tributes for stabbed burglar Henry Vincent have been moved from the street where he died to a local community garden.

It comes after his family marked what would have been his 38th birthday on Sunday by leaving balloons and flowers at the scene in Hither Green, southeast London.

At the request of the police, they left their tributes approximately 100 metres away from the property where he was fatally stabbed by pensioner Richard Osborn-Brooks, 78.

How lovely for those in the actual community who perhaps wanted to use this garden for its intended purpose, which I presume isn’t to honour a dead burglar. A year ago I wrote this:

At the rate they’re going, the British police are going to be awfully surprised when one day in the near future they are called upon to restore law and order and find the population treating them very much as part of the problem.

Judging by the reaction on Twitter, both from the public and police, I’d say that was rather prescient.

I’ve said on many occasions that I don’t know whose side the British police are on, but I am confident it is not that of the general public. This incident only serves to cement that belief. I don’t think the police are on the side of the travellers per se, but this dead burglar situation has made unlikely allies of the travellers and the police in that both see ordinary, native Brits as their adversaries. The police are the enforcement arm of the ruling classes, and for now the interests of they and the travellers are aligned. Should the travellers start causing the ruling classes trouble – as opposed to heaping misery on the plebs – they’d be squashed like flies, but that rarely occurs.

There are some positives, though. I’ve said before the sooner the public understand the nature of the British police and abandon the romantic Dixon of Dock Green image, the better. This farce can only serve to accelerate that process.

Liked it? Take a second to support Tim Newman on Patreon!
Share

29 thoughts on “The police are not on your side

  1. This fits in with the decline of Britain as a high trust society.

    As far as I am concerned, the Filth is lumped in with all the other arms of the state that I consider cunts who can’t be trusted and who won’t get my cooperation.

    If I was 20 years younger I might feel the urge to change things but as it is I will look after me and mine, and try to ensure I have enough cash and options to protect me from said cunts.

  2. “The police are the enforcement arm of the ruling classes”

    I’m not sure that that’s quite it. Like the Church of England, the police have lost sight of what they are for and a simple underpinning philosophy.

    This has been going on for sufficiently long that both organisations have recruited into their ranks individuals who are clueless about the work of their forebears or the value of that work to society.

    The one lot find it embarassing to talk about God, the other lot have no instinct for the even-handed enforcement of law. This leaves both lots as hollowed-out ciphers of tokenism.

    In other words, the police are not explicitly against the common man but they are always wholly supportive of the ‘special case’ so the common man comes off worse by default.

  3. “The police are the enforcement arm of the ruling classes”

    What did you think they were? Police, law, judicial system, are there to preserve the status quo. The status quo is those who are in power. Was ever thus.

  4. To see whose side the police are on, you need to look at who is in control of them. And that’s the modern progressive sociology- degree-left. And they are not on the side of the common man. They’re on the side of the travellers. Not that they particularly like travellers (travellers aren’t exactly feminists) but if it’s a common man who’s taken the law into his own hands versus travellers, the latter wins. That’s why the floral tributes are being protected.

    If it was the other way around the tributes would have been removed quick smart and threats of disturbing the peace made to whoever put them up (as happened with the tributes to Lee Rigby, his tributes were removed by the council for being ‘unsightly’).

    So the police aren’t doing a bad job at all from this perspective. They’re doing a good job of reminding the general public of where they stand. Remember, since Lenin’s time the left has been keen on sending out messages to the public through the authorities they have taken over.

    >At the rate they’re going, the British police are going to be awfully surprised when one day in the near future they are called upon to restore law and order and find the population treating them very much as part of the problem.

    Or else the British public is going to be awfully surprised one day in the future when they’ve had enough of the police being like this and they finally try to do something about it, and find that it’s too late.

  5. Pingback: The progs are not on the same side as the common man. Ergo, the police aren’t either – Hector Drummond

  6. The key word is the use of the word “Appropriate”.

    Where would officialese be nowadays with out that sadly misused word, a jolly handy word too but one that I for one no longer feel able to use.

    Tim you’ve been right on the nail about this from the start.

    TMB – excellent insight.

  7. All these conspiracy theories about whose ‘side’ the police are on… is it not possible that they are just taking the route of least resistance? That is, if those leaving a tribute are unlikely to cause trouble, they’ll remove it; but if those leaving the tribute are likely to show up in force if it is removed, they leave it, for the same of a quiet life (or as they would probably put it ‘not inflaming community tensions’).

    That’s on a street-by-street level; on a wider level, this ‘path of least resistance’ means not doing anything which might expose them to any kind of media criticism. Which given the media is run by lefty progressive types, means not doing anything which could draw their fire.

    I mean, this explanation is almost equally damning about the police, because in general, the people least likely to cause a fuss are exactly the normal law-abiding types of people that the police are supposed to be there to stand up on behalf of, whereas those who are bolshy* are likely to be the kinds of thugs the police are meant to stand up to; but it doesn’t require theories of infiltration or secret orders coming down from the élites, so by Occams’ razor…

    * possibly literally

  8. “Or else the British public is going to be awfully surprised one day in the future when they’ve had enough of the police being like this and they finally try to do something about it, and find that it’s too late.”

    There’s 125k police officers (of which a good proportion will be useless in an actual scrap), and 40m adult non-OAPs in this country. That only works if the population are policed by consent, or by using Gestapo methods. Once the largely law abiding majority stop engaging or co-operating with the police, then the police are screwed.

    Lets say a police car is cruising down the High Street and a masked man runs out, chucks a brick through its windscreen and throws a petrol bomb into the car and disappears. All of the passers by ‘didn’t see anything’ and the perpetrator will know he won’t be dobbed in by the locals either. What can the police do? Call for backup? They are still only maybe ten or twenty humans among many hundreds of humans. If none of those hundreds are on their side they’re screwed.

    We can see what happens when a population withdraws consent to be policed – the case of the very pikeys that the police are protecting now. The police cannot police them, even though there’s rarely more than 50 or a 100 of them in one area, because if they attempt to all hell breaks loose, so they leave well alone. Once the police lose the consent of the public you’ll have areas and even towns like that.

  9. I don’t agree that it’s just that the police are a bit useless and lazy. Consider the West Yorkshire police’s treatment of Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull for her criticism of gender reassignment operations after they’d been to a training course run by a transgender group. Was that just because they’re a bit useless and lazy? Or was it an aggressive, politically motivated arrest done at the behest of the progs?

  10. Was that just because they’re a bit useless and lazy? Or was it an aggressive, politically motivated arrest done at the behest of the progs?

    Or was it because they know that the people wanting them to harass the poor woman were motivated enough to make a fuss and were sure to get a sympathetic hearing from the media (which as discussed is broadly liberal and progressive), which would demand to know why the police weren’t doing anything; so they took the route of least resistance and arrested the person who was unlikely to cause a fuss and who, even if she did object, was sure to be portrayed by the media as the baddie in the story?

  11. But this sort of laziness is the same as being controlled by the progs. It’s not the same as saying they’re doing what they do because they’re a bit clueless and have no sense of history and they’re just dithering around. It’s basically what Tim was talking about in his latest post ‘Too Much To Lose’. They want to stay in post, so they do what their superiors, and the groups approved by their superiors, tell them. And their superiors are mostly progs these days. Who aren’t ditherers at all. They have very specific agenda which they are successfully pursuing. Which is what I said at the start.

  12. But this sort of laziness is the same as being controlled by the progs

    Not quite. Specifically, if I’m right and the police are not doing these things for ideological reasons but simply because they are the route of least resistance, then if the route of least resistance changes — if the media landscape changes so that it’s no longer controlled by the progressive world-view, for example — then the police will change with it.

    On the other hand, if the police are actually ideologically committed to the furthering of progressivism, as seems to be your view, then they will actively resist such a change, rather than going along with it.

    This is why I think it makes a difference if the reason why the police harass people like that woman is because they are scared of what the press will say if they don’t, or because they actually are doing it for ideological reasons. If the former, then they will stop doing it if the press landscape changes. If the latter, they won’t.

  13. I think most of the police higher-ups are ideological, or indoctrinated, as are those who control them. I don’t think that’s so true of the rank-and-file. (That’s why I initially said we need to look at who *controls* the police.)

    I don’t think the majority of the police higher-ups are that concerned with what the right-wing press says. If there’s enough pressure from the Sun on any particular topic they may reluctantly give in a bit, but generally they resist. They care more about what the BBC and The Guardian says.

  14. S – I think the media is well behind the state when it comes to the progressive world view.

    Certainly the filth will take the path of least resistance, but at the senior level they are every bit as progressive as any Guardian columnist or quangocrat.

    It’s also important to remember that ‘progressive’ in this sense means lefty authoritarianism.

  15. Perhaps the non-scrotes should take photographs of those supporting the dead burglar, while they are in a public place, entirely legally, and widely publicise the mugshots on social media as an ‘avoid’ list.

    That the scrote supporters are now wearing hoods and dark glasses suggests they have caught on first….

    If the people who refuse to obey they law openly campaign, as they are, lets also be open about it, and publicise them.

    How could the Police object to FB posts of street scenes?…

  16. Bootleggers and Baptists.

    Its in the interests of both the travellers and [those who control] the police to have a quiescent population.

    I’ll leave the reader to decide which is which.

    But on the point of the police, for years the general population has asked for more “bobbies on the beat”, only to be told by senior police officers that its the most inefficient for of policing and they won’t do it. Now that the streets of London are erupting with gangs knifing and shooting each other they’rs claiming that the cuts made them take bobbies off the beat and so they lost intelligence.

    Senior police officers are part of the progressive elite problem and they became that way because Blair made it clear that’s the way they would get promoted. The average Brit would like to nothing more than to see a couple of PCs built like brick shit-houses patrolling the streets and would have been more than willing to pay for them. It could never happen now.

  17. Perhaps the non-scrotes should take photographs of those supporting the dead burglar, while they are in a public place, entirely legally

    Yes, but the problem with that is that those who have no respect for the law will then start attacking anyone with a camera.

    Then the police will be faced with two options to restore the peace: they can tell those with cameras to stop taking pictures, or they can protect the picture-takers form the thugs.

    If they take option (a) then the picture-takers, who ex hypothesi are law-abiding types, may grumble, but they will so as they are told.

    If they take option (b), the police will find themselves being bottled and generally assaulted.

    Which option do you think they will take?

  18. S:”Which option do you think they will take?”
    Indeed that’s the point. Who is a reporter, who is a resident, cameras have long lens etc. When the Police start forbidding reporters and TV crews from filming & reporting, even the Chief Super Oberfuhrer may think he has overstepped the mark when the tabloids publish the next day. Stop them fence sitting. Force them to publicly declare. Defend us or else.

    Well, it’s that or roll over and play dead. I don’t live in Hither Green, so I said nothing. etc.

  19. “Too much to lose” Quite so.

    It will start with people who suddenly find they have nothing left to lose.
    Say someone who has never had so much as a parking ticket, who finds themselves broken financially, with a criminal record, and having served some time, because they didn’t want a floral tribute to a dead burglar in their yard (or somesuch).

    Their life’s work seized by the state, home & yard they sank their life into, gone. Criminal record, so job & status gone.

    So they pop around to the station & kill the Inspector or Chief Constable who enabled such circumstance.

    Something like this will start happening. Very isolated at first.

  20. Something like this will start happening. Very isolated at first.

    I think so too.

  21. I’m with S on this one. If the coppers were ordered to tool up and move the pikeys on they would do so with gusto. I don’t believe they have any sympathy for them.
    However, the police have strategies for dealing with a couple of scrotes in a council flat. They have no effective procedure for dealing with people who:
    Can disappear at a moment’s notice
    Who are hard to identify
    Who have a tribe of relatives who will insist they were reading their bible at the time.
    So yes, the police avoid confronting pikeys because it’s hard work and doesn’t go anywhere.

  22. Didn’t the rationale behind people leaving flowers after a tragedy used to be that the people weren’t personally connected, and therefore had nowhere else to leave flowers? (cf. flowers at Kensington Palace after Princess Diana died.)

    So why are these people putting their flowers in a street where they don’t live, instead of at the deceased’s grave?

    I’ve often wondered about this. When – and why – did memorial tributes move out of graveyards and onto the streets? Did it start with sad roundabouts?

  23. They have no effective procedure for dealing with people who:
    Can disappear at a moment’s notice
    Who are hard to identify
    Who have a tribe of relatives who will insist they were reading their bible at the time.

    In the novel 1974, the evil 70’s West Yorkshire police had an effective procedure: they went into the pikey camp in great numbers and beat the shit out of everyone, before burning down all the caravans.

    Just sayin’.

  24. @S: “Yes, but the problem with that is that those who have no respect for the law will then start attacking anyone with a camera.

    Then the police will be faced with two options to restore the peace: they can tell those with cameras to stop taking pictures, or they can protect the picture-takers form the thugs.

    If they take option (a)…”

    What do you mean, ‘if’…?

    https://altnewsmedia.net/opinion/police-scotland-tackle-the-dirtiest-of-criminals/

  25. “Should the travellers start causing the ruling classes trouble – as opposed to heaping misery on the plebs – they’d be squashed like flies”

    Whilst the Gypos may be flavour of the month with those interested in dividing and ruling our society, they can just as easily become persona non-grata if their interest suddenly didn’t align with those calling the shots for the state.

  26. Bardon – one suspects the Gyppos know that, which is why they aren’t squatting round Cressida Dick’s way

  27. But when the bone is pointed at them and the Cheka are ordered to round them up and exterminate them with extreme prejudice, there will be nothing that they can do to stop them.

  28. “Perhaps the non-scrotes should take photographs of those supporting the dead burglar, while they are in a public place, entirely legally, and widely publicise the mugshots on social media as an ‘avoid’ list.”

    You’ll notice that the male pikeys send their women to do the public business of installing the Chavshrine, partly because they’re less likely to be arrested for anything, and partly to keep themselves out of the limelight.

Comments are closed.