Plodorian Guard

I’m fond of saying I don’t know whose side the British police are on, but I’m confident it’s not that of the general public. Yesterday the head of what looks like a police talking shop issued a helpful clarification:

Politicians and campaigners need to temper their language to avoid inciting disorder over Brexit, a senior police chief has warned, as it emerged more than 10,000 officers are on standby to tackle any unrest.

In what other country do policemen issue warnings to politicians over what language they may use? But yeah, our reputation is being damaged by Paras shooting at a poster.

Martin Hewitt, chair of the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC), said it was “incumbent” on anyone in a “position of responsibility” to express their views in a way that did not incite violent behaviour.

I wonder what he thinks he’s doing right now?

“I am thinking about disorder and people being responsible in the way they speak,” he said. “There’s a responsibility on those individuals that have a platform or voice to communicate in a way that is temperate and not in any way going to inflame people’s views.

In order that Plod’s life be made easier everyone should stop expressing strong feelings about Brexit. And that includes those charged with delivering it.

“All groups of people need to think carefully. We are in a febrile atmosphere. If people who are in a position that they are going to be listened to they need to think about the language they are using so they don’t end up with unintended consequences.”

Such as people filming policemen being battered by thugs instead of helping? Those sort of unintended consequences?

His comments came as the NPCC disclosed more than 10,000 officers from units in all 43 forces trained to combat riots, public disorder and looting, are on standby. Some 1,000 are ready to be deployed within an hour of any trouble.

It’s amazing how rapidly scarce resources can be mustered when the interests of the ruling class are threatened, isn’t it?

The numbers are larger than for the 2011 riots

Given the police stood around doing nothing during the 2011 riots, I hardly think numbers are the problem. But whereas it was just ordinary people having their lives destroyed by criminals back then, this time it’s important people who are being threatened. I expect their orders will be very different.

More than 1,000 officers are also available to be deployed from mainland Britain to Northern Ireland with armoured personnel carriers.

Allowing those who were too fat, lazy, and ill-disciplined to join the army to dress in full combat gear and play war for a weekend. Yet another nasty habit we’ve inherited from our American cousins.

He said: “We’ve been very clear that policing support should only really be called on if absolutely necessary in dealing with the wider civil contingencies.”

Mr Hall added: “Our push has been back to those sectors, those parts of government, the private sector, to say ‘it’s your responsibility to look at your individual supply chains and you should not be looking to police to come in to supplement and keep your supply chain running’.”

Translation: we are only interested in protecting our political masters, not you plebs, and not your property.

One thing is certain. When the cataclysmic realignment of British politics finally occurs and the incumbent parties and politicians are swept away, it is imperative the police are disbanded and reconstituted with wholly new personnel as part of the same movement. They are as much a part of the problem as those politicians who refuse to implement the results of the referendum.


48 thoughts on “Plodorian Guard

  1. Can any ancient mariners identify when the rot came in? New Labour? The Troubles?

  2. Why wasn’t this said shortly before 29th March, and why now?
    The fix is in.

  3. It doesn’t really look as if there is going to be a cataclysmic upheaval, more’s the pity. No civil disobedience yet, after “delays”, and the most blatant promise-breaking and the ignoring of the clearest mandate in constitutional history. All acted out daily with instantaneous coverage and the benefit of on-line commentary such as this blog and a thousand others.

    Look at the Newport West result. Labour hold, Tories (who should by rights have been utterly destroyed) in second place, and a “big name” failing to lift UKIP above 9% of votes cast. The only change was the very low turnout. That’s fine, of course, but sulking will merely allow the usual activist bastards to tighten their grip by default.

    So far, a whimper rather than a bang.

  4. Britain is an actual police state, and has been for a few decades at least. Britons have no freedom of speech, no freedom of assembly, no freedom of religion, no freedom of the press, no right to keep and bear arms, no right to not testify against oneself, no security in property and possessions against unwarranted seizure, no right to privacy…

    And as the brouhaha over Brexit has proved, they have no right to vote.

    The UK shares these deformities with Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. In New Zealand you can go to jail for 10 years for mere possession of Brenton Tarrant’s manifesto. A Canadian cabinet member sometime ago bragged that Canada did not have freedom of speech and was a better place for it.

    The sad result is that Russia is a more democratic state than Britain, or any other EU country for that matter.

  5. Mr Hewitt and or Mr Hall jointly and severally win this week’s David Lammy award for thickness.

    Politicians and campaigners need to temper their language to avoid inciting disorder


    to express their views in a way that did not incite violent behaviour.

    If there’s incitement, nick ’em if not stay quiet and in any event don’t indulge in pointless paramilitary braggadocio which will itself incite those people whose idea of fun is a ruck with a bunch of mostly corpulent or undersized flatties.

  6. British police is on the side of Humanity and stopping Nazism. How it feels to have “good war” against yourself ?

  7. @Tim N, You missed:

    “Such as people filming policemen being battered” and arrested

    They [police] are as much a part of the problem as those politicians who refuse to implement the results of the referendum.


  8. @Matthew McConnagay on April 5, 2019 at 11:12 am

    Festering for decades, Blair creature & Co turbo charged acceleration to make UK like EU (law & police). Voters/peoples wish – irrelevant.

  9. You get the rights you’re willing to kill for. They are never given. As western citizens are no longer willing to kill for their rights, they are all being taken away again

  10. While totally replacing all police personnel may sound good, the allies found after WWII that they had to use some of the people in place during the Third Reich because there weren’t enough trained people to fill those positions otherwise.

  11. So the Left using terms like “Fight the Tory Cuts” ” Destroy the Tory Government” isn’t inflammatory language but…

    An APC without well armed infantry protection is generally referred to as a “multi-occupant coffin” in military circles, isn’t it?

    This could get interesting…

  12. I think Sam Vara is right: things are not going to get ugly. People have too much invested in the status quo. If Brexit is thwarted, I expect there will be grumbling – quite a lot of grumbling, actually – but no more. Despite its reputation to the contrary, the right does not do violence, simply because its members tend to be the more affluent, with consequently more to lose.

    British politics seems to be predicated on three things: benefits for the underclass, rising house prices for the middle class and the NHS for everyone. As long all all three hold, the government can seemingly do whatever it likes – and the Remainers are counting on this. In the event of no Brexit, the Conservative government will simply carry on. Shortly before the next election, in 2022, it will promise another dollop of cash for the NHS, over and above anything that has already been promised, and – hey presto – they’re duly re-elected, with Theresa May still as Prime Minister. (Whatever else she may not be, she is absolutely a survivor.)

  13. I think Sam Vara is right: things are not going to get ugly.

    They will, but not in the form of violent protests or street protests. Instead, as I wrote about recently, you’ll get more people disengaging from civil society and less willing to do their part to keep things running smoothly. I expect we’ll see an increase in people ducking the TV license, more VAT fraud and tax evasion, fewer people calling in crimes, and a shift from being a north European high-trust society towards being a south European low-trust society. They’ll also be a lot of vindictive, vengeful voting and political sabotage, i.e. voting for incompatible groups in the same chamber, as the French like to do. Long term, this will be far more damaging than violent protests.

  14. Yes, Tim, but there’s a stage beyond that. Currently, you have rule by consent. Remove that & you’re left with rule by compulsion. You can get away with that in Southern Europe because the State really isn’t all that assiduous in enforcing the rules. You get a sort of armed truce. The authorities turn a blind eye to a lot of stuff because it wouldn’t be worth the problems they’d have in doing anything about it. It’s like smoking in bars. We’ve the same laws as you have. But the bars bend the hell out of them. Or, out in the boonies, they just ignore them. The police smoke in the bars.
    But the State, in the UK, is used to the populace consenting to do what it’s told. We talked about police, a while back. Our police, here, are a pretty easy going bunch. They’re drawn from & are part of the community. Get stopped in your car, in the early hours, they think you’ve had a few. They’re as likely as not to tell you to lock your car & call a cab. It’s happened to me. They don’t breathylise you because they don’t want to have to make it all official. Grief for you, grief for them. The minions of the State in the UK are not going to react like that, are they? They’ll still insist on enforcing every nitpicking detail. I saw where that can go, back in the 70’s when I was living out in the wilds of Essex. Local pub was never too observant of opening hours. Few of them were, then. New local copper made a nuisance of himself. Someone dragged an artic trailer over his nice shiny police minivan. You could’ve posted it through a letterbox. No-one saw a thing. Police wrote it off to experience. But they wouldn’t do that now, would they? They’d see it as flouting of their authority & probably be putting up roadblocks & DNA testing the village. People would push back. They’d clamp down harder & away you go.

  15. But the State, in the UK, is used to the populace consenting to do what it’s told.

    Absolutely right, BiS. But the underclasses do what the hell they like and the police give them a wide berth, because it’s easier to pick off the compliant middle classes who have something to lose. But at the margins, those who are fed up will learn from the underclasses and adopt their tactics. Sure many won’t, but some will, and the direction of travel will be one-way only. For example, I expect calling the police to dob in something like smoking in a pub will have greater repercussions in some quarters now. Taking on the state directly is stupid: dissuading the unpaid volunteers who assist them is much more effective.

  16. Another example from where you live. I’ve a pal down in SW France inherited the family licence to distil prune. The local firewater. You don’t want to drink it, run your car on it. In the atelier by the house, he keeps the still, distils the licensed quantity of prune. Enough to keep a fair sized family pissed for year. This is the one gets inspected. Gendarmerie do it, I think. The stills that produce the prune keep the town & surroundings supplied for the year are in the hanger up the hill. No-one wants to know about them. They don’t exist. Nor does the prune.
    Can you see that happening in England?

  17. Can you see that happening in England?

    Nope, because some little goody-two-shoes would go running to the police. What will change is there will be slightly fewer goody-two-shoes and those that remain will find themselves less comfortable than before. Of course, this won’t be a wholesale change, it will happen at the margins, and it won’t be uniform throughout the country. But I think the relationship between citizens and state will change, and that’s really what we’re describing here. The French police don’t leave things alone because they necessarily want to, they do so because of the aggregate attitude of the population, particularly towards them.

  18. Well yes Tim. The administrative middle-classes in the UK are a gutless bunch of wankers with far too much staked in the status quo to overturn it. They voted Remain in self-defence. But they are very much a minority. There’s that whole other middle-class that get labelled middle-class on income & what they spend it on. But they’re totally different people. They’re the entrepreneurs & risk takers & the people make a country function. Pay taxes rather than live off other people’s taxes. They’re pretty well indistinguishable from the working-class ( as opposed to the shirking class) who work for them. How far can you push them? They’ll only remain passive whilst they’ve a stake in the system that pays off. What if it doesn’t?

  19. There’s much in what both of you (Tim & BiS) are saying and I should hesitate to make any predictions.

    However, I think it’s almost certain that a proportion of the population are outraged at the hijacking of the ‘leave’ vote and this outrage is likely to find expression somehow or other and is unlikely to dissipate until it has.

  20. Hi, found this blog through an FB link and it sounds like my kind of place. Me: red-pilled British leaver.

    I agree with Tim and the other commenters that there will not be any riots of violent insurrections. For a start, the British state has the experience and the means to crush it completely so not only would be futile, it would also be counterproductive because the state will just become even more repressive in response.

    But I do agree that we are at the end of an era; an era where the British complied with their masters wishes because (a) they believed their masters were fundamentally decent people who had the best interests of the country at heart and (b) we were a relatively high-trust and civil society. That’s all gone. Demographic changes have chipped away at the social trust and the Brexit betrayal has shown everyone that we are, in fact, ruled over by monsters who hate us.

    Britain is an occupied country and the British will respond, in due course, like an occupied people.

  21. ” For a start, the British state has the experience and the means to crush it completely …”
    Have you ever seen the CRS in Paris? I’ve seen quite a lot of them & they scare the shit out me. But, apparently, not the gilets jaunes. They’re armed to the teeth & seriously heavy guys. In comparison, the Brit police are Boy Scouts playing at soldiers. Which is a deadly combination. They’ll get in out of their depth & over-react & then have nowhere to go. Need the proper military to rescue them. If the military join in on their side. And that’s not a given.

  22. Bloke in Spain, fair comment and you may be right but I think that we have to assume that state security apparatus has been gearing up for some time in anticipation of a “gilets jaunes” style street ruckus of the kind we have seen in France. I think it imprudent to assume that they will respond like boy scouts. They may at first instance but that can and will change quickly.

    That said, the French have always been more domestically combative than us Brits. But, who knows, maybe even that will change now.

  23. No, Guy, they’ll behave as what they are. Stroppy thugs in uniform. And that’s not a good combination. As Tim’s said, several times, they’ve largely lost the confidence of the public because they don’t do what they’re supposed to & prefer just harassing the easy targets. Put them in helmets behind riot shields & you lose their last remaining link with the people they’re facing. That they’re people like them, just happen to be facing in a different direction. They become anonymous weapons of the State & fair game.

  24. Tim Newman said “Nope, because some little goody-two-shoes would go running to the police.”

    True indeed and that’s actually a bigger problem than the plod themselves. Britain is overrun with those types and I suspect that they are disproportionately present among the remoaner classes. They will grass you up not just out of a sense of civic duty but with malicious glee.

    Time for a code of “omerta”?

  25. My feeling is that Tim is right, there will be no large scale disruption in law and order. But there will be (and should be) a response. I think that response needs to be individual and non confrontational, but when aggregated into the millions becomes a real thorn in the side of the authorities.
    Firstly, to the extent one can one should reduce the amount of taxes one pays to the State to a minimum. And one should try and extract as much State expenditure on oneself as possible. Starve the beast of food, and work it hard at the same time. It might drop dead.

    Secondly Have nothing to do with anyone who works for the State, particularly in any senior roles, and make it very clear why you are dropping them. Social ostracism.

    Thirdly, if you are of the bent to cause trouble in non-legal ways, there are undoubtedly a myriad of things one could do to cause low level disruption and inconvenience not only for State bodies but also the people who work for them, particularly the people at the top.

    Fourthly (I’ve only just thought of this one) at every general election stand in your constituency under the banner of ‘None of the Above’. Its £500 to stand, if you can’t afford it, get a few like minded acquaintances to chip in, or even crowd source it. And keep doing it. Make it a thing that gets noticed. Imagine the power that a countrywide ‘None of the Above’ vote in the millions would have, regardless of whether anyone ever got close to winning. We will never be given a none of the above box to tick, but they can’t stop us providing our own. And the beauty of it is that it appeals to everyone, regardless for their reason for disliking the usual suspects.You might get some of the Hard Left vote and the Hard Right, and everyone else in between, it wouldn’t matter, as (like Brexit) they are all united in hatred of the alternative.

    I’m sure there are other ways one could approach this, lets hear them!

  26. If things go as many think, there will first be a raft of goody-two-shoes, aka informers, then a raft of informers being beaten, knee capped or killed. The police will never be able to keep all of their identities secret.

    Then there won’t be so many informers.

    Things will be unpleasant for a while, by which I mean centuries.

  27. No doubt the Brexit imbroglio has ripped the mask off of the British Political Class and exposed a lot of different fault lines running through UK society. There will be consequences.

    But let’s not forget that all of this is happening against the background of three major changes.

    First, there is the looming debt crisis — most governments run budget deficits year after year, including the UK. And many governments have made pension & health care promises they will not be able to fulfill, including the UK. Not sustainable. Eventually, there will be a day of reckoning.

    Second, there is the staggering growth of China, and the transfer of much of the Western manufacturing capacity to China and its economic satellites. It is said that the US cannot put a war plane into the air without using Chinese computer chips. Someday, there will be consequences.

    Third, there is the population explosion in Africa. What happens in Africa does not appear to be staying in Africa. This will likely have growing consequences for all of Europe, including the UK.

    The Brexit debacle is leaving the UK much less prepared to deal with these predictable coming challenges.

  28. @Jim on April 6, 2019 at 4:56 pm

    Fourthly (I’ve only just thought of this one) at every general election stand in your constituency under the banner of ‘None of the Above’. Its £500 to stand, if you can’t afford it, get a few like minded acquaintances to chip in, or even crowd source it.

    +1 Excellent idea. Kicking myself for not thought of it.

    Mr Ecks, Jim & NFU – your new job in 650 constituencies.

  29. @Guy Montag on April 6, 2019 at 4:05 pm

    Welcome aboard

    You may also like Tim Worstall, Longrider, ARRSE and Orphans of Liberty

    No links as only one per post allowed, google them 🙂

  30. A few good things may emerge from this Augean cesspit and they are as follows:

    1. The end of the Tory Party
    2. The end of the Tory Party
    3. The end of the Tory Party

    So, every cloud….

  31. Hi, found this blog through an FB link and it sounds like my kind of place. Me: red-pilled British leaver.

    Welcome! I hope you like it and stick around. I’m not sure I can please all my readers all the time but I try to please some of them occasionally. 🙂

  32. @Guy Montag

    Lots of paper needing burning in that big old junkpile in Westminster! Hopefully, no one will set about memorising the content.

  33. It occurs:
    “Fourthly (I’ve only just thought of this one) at every general election stand in your constituency under the banner of ‘None of the Above’. Its £500 to stand, if you can’t afford it, get a few like minded acquaintances to chip in, or even crowd source it.”

    In the UK it’s actually relatively simple to change your name. The simplest method is just adopt a new name. If you wake up one morning desiring to be Micky Mouse, tell those it concerns that’s what you want & henceforth you’re Micky Mouse (Whether Minnie comes in the package’s another matter). I doubt if the electoral authorities would accept such slim evidence but Deed Poll is relatively cheap & simple & reversible.
    So there you go. Candidates change their names to None, Of The Above. “Of” to their friends.* And now each ballot paper features your message loud & clear.

    *Of course Of The Above None might wake up some mornings preferring to be Mr Ecks & sign a few cheques. As mentioned above, what your name is, as long as you don’t intend committing a crime by way of it, is entirely at your own discretion.

  34. Just change your name to Zebedee Zzyzx of the ‘None of the Above’ party, and you’re on the bottom of the ballot paper. What colour rosette? Can’t use blue, red, yellow, green or purple. It would be good to coordinate for a consistent image in different constituencies.

  35. “Tim Newman on April 7, 2019 at 9:10 am said:
    Welcome! I hope you like it and stick around. I’m not sure I can please all my readers all the time but I try to please some of them occasionally.”

    Thank you and I will. Blogs like this are havens for people like me. Further, I don’t expect to be pleased all the time, far from it. It’s enough that you have created a space for ideas.

  36. Problem with that, gent on the tractor, is the “None of the Above Party” would have to be a registered party. The Referendum showed that if you’re standing for something the Electoral Commission don’t approve of they’ll be all over you like flies on dog-shit.

  37. BiS: Um, yes. However, looking at the weird stuff that you see on some candidates’ party titles, it doesn’t seem too hard to create a new one. I guess ‘None of the Above’ would raise their hackles, but what is illegal, offensive or misleading about it? Creating and maintaining a political party to meet Electoral Commission requirements looks a bit of a faff but with no policies, except ‘None of the Above’ and a minimal organisation then it’s not much more than a local cricket club. The problem would be having a sufficient war chest to challenge the Electoral Commission legally if they decided to play hard ball.

  38. @bloke in spain on April 7, 2019 at 12:26 pm

    As mentioned above, what your name is, as long as you don’t intend committing a crime by way of it, is entirely at your own discretion.

    +1 Any name may be legally used as long as it’s not with fraudulent intent

    iirc deed poll is to make name change official new name, not a pseudonym; in Scotland a classified notice in eg The Scotsman suffices.

    – ianl

  39. @Matthew McConnagay on April 5, 2019 – getting back to your original question of when the rot set in, then it dates back at least 100 years, and quite a bit beforehand. THIS PhD dissertation by Colin Greenwood describes the situation regarding Firearms Controls in Britain from the late 19th Century onwards. The nanny state attitude was to the fore way back then and the legislation to restrict pistols “to save the children” (sound familiar?) was based on what I can only describe as paranoia and lies/vindictiveness. Note that Greenwood states that the civil service and the Police were quite willing to go along with this and overturn many centuries of freedoms of the British (except Scotland which maintained its own legal system which was similar to but different from the English system).

    The dissertation is flawed in that it was researched and written in 1970 to 1971 and could not take into account the hidden agenda behind the 1920 Firearms Act. Essentially, following the revolution in Russia in 1917 and the murder of Queen Victoria’s grand daughter the establishment panicked. The thought of around four million men, trained and experienced in war and armed to the teeth was too strong meat for the powers that be and to prevent armed revolution in the UK, they banned machine guns and restricted militarily useful firearms such as rifles and pistols as well as air rifles and air pistols (useful for training). Shotguns were not restricted as they were not considered to be weapons of war. Note that all types of firearm produced today were in existence back then including semi automatic rifles, self loading pistols, submachine guns and were not, until 1920, restricted in any way other than needing a pistol permit which was obtained from the Post office in the same way that you would buy a dog license. This fact was placed under a 60 year disclosure rule and it was not until 1981 when the records were made available to researchers. I attended a lecture by Colin Greenwood in 1981 where he described and explained this. The act was sold as a crime prevention matter although nowadays there are more armed incidents in London alone in one day than in the whole of the country in one year back in 1920. In other words, the politicians have lied persistently and consistently since at least then.

    One of the first things to happen was that the Chief Constable of London wanted to seize all firearms, store them in police stations and dish them out to Tory supporters in the event of a revolution. The principle that a persons property could not be arbitrarily seized by the state unless condemned in a court of law was ignored. It would be ignored too following Hungerford and Dunblane. Appeals against refusal of a grant or revoking of a firearms certificate was dealt with by the Magistrates court and as the magistrates could not see why law abiding people should arbitrarily be refused a firearms certificate and more often than not over ruled the police in such cases. This dis not please the police so the 1936 Firearms act was introduced which along with an amnesty which resulted in over a million .303 service rifles being handed in and destroyed (that must have pleased Hitler enormously) transferred appeals against revocation or grant of firearms certificates to the Crown Court with the power to award costs to the police if they were successful and requiring legal representation. This considerably upped the stakes in favour of the police who simply raised the price of a firearms certificate to cover their costs.

    Now, as a historical aside, just before WW1, the British army was testing a new rifle and ammunition to replace the Lee Enfield and the .303. This was JUST adopted in 1914 as the P14 rifle but WW1 kicked off in August of that year. The British authorities stuck with the tried and tested Lee Enfield and the .303 but in case the factories in the UK could not keep up with the demand for rifles, they placed contracts in the United States for the P14 to be built but in .303 with Winchester, Remington and Eddystone (a subsidiary of Remington). Britain received 1.25 Million P14’s and as the factories in the UK managed to produce enough Lee Enfields, they were put into storage and very few were used in training and some were converted for sniping. When the threat of invasion was imminent in 1940, those rifles remained in storage and the Home Guard drilled with whatever equipment they had including broomsticks and shotguns. The civil service dreaded an armed population but if the Germans invaded, they would still need a civil service to run the country. It was only in 1941 when the threat of invasion no longer existed that the rifles were issued to the Home Guard.

    Nothing much happened until 1965 when Roy Jenkins, the Labour Home Secretary finally got capital punishment abolished. The anomaly between the power of a shotgun and the puny power of air weapons (12 pounds-foot for a rifle, 6 pounds-foot for a pistol) was noted and the civil service produced a recommendation that shotguns be placed under restrictions too. At the time, there were about 100 incidents a year involving shotguns – most of them “Armed Trespass” which is the technical term for poaching – and Jenkins said in effect the game wasn’t worth the candle.

    However, in 1966 Harry Roberts killed two police officers in Shepherds Bush and an accomplice killed a third police officer. He had used a revolver he had brought back from Malaya while serving in the Army as part of National Service. “Something had to be done” so licensing of shotguns was introduced in the 1968 Firearms act. Since about the mid 1950’s (as far as I am aware or can find out) the Home Office mandarins decided that self defence was no longer good reason to own firearms and I will leave you to ponder how that has developed and worked out for peace and lawlessness on the streets.

    My point is this – the Police long ago went from enforcing the law to formulating and shaping the law and they and the civil service work in a coordinated way towards their ends. The Police have stated repeatedly that they want the minimum number of firearms in civilian hands – and if you believe that that number is higher than zero, then I have bridge in Brooklyn …

    It is likely that the vast majority reading this will think “well, that is all well and good but guns are evil/can be misused/only certified mentally deranged people want to own guns” BUT … this is symptomatic of the way that the Police have become not enforcers of the laws but politically motivated oppressors. It was not helped when Chief Constables who were usually recruited from Army Officers were gradually replaced by Chief Constables who had studied Criminality Courses in Universities and were fully indoctrinated in Marxist theory and Political Correctness. This was given a major boost under Tony Blairs government who introduced a mass of laws (over one a day during his tenure) allowing the Police to become SJW’s. Who recalls the election campaign when the Metropolitan Police vehicles sported “Vote Labour” posters?

    The Police are the uniformed branch of the Left and anyone who believes otherwise, that bridge in Brooklyn is still for sale. Used, small denomination notes only.

  40. Phil B… interesting.. as it happens, I put a whetted finger in the air and came up with the Treaty of Versailles and all that came of it.

  41. Tim and BiS… I think this exchange you’re having would make a fascinating podcast…

    Ooh, that’s not a bad idea. Maybe I’ll take a trip down to Spain in the summer. 🙂

  42. Excellent comment Phil B, thanks.

    My point is this – the Police long ago went from enforcing the law to formulating and shaping the law and they and the civil service work in a coordinated way towards their ends.

    This, in spades. One of the things I detest about the policemen on Twitter is the way they pompously claim they don’t make the laws they simply enforce them, as if the public doesn’t see their 24/7 lobbying of governments to pass laws which make their jobs easier.

  43. ” One of the things I detest about the policemen on Twitter is the way they pompously claim they don’t make the laws they simply enforce them”

    Apart from when they don’t enforce them because they just don’t want to, or to enforce them would be difficult and dangerous to them……….see their attitude to pikeys at every turn.

Comments are closed.