Fuck off David

May 28th, 2015 § 0 comments § permalink

fuck_off _david

NZ Police reveal how they harass people

September 26th, 2012 § 0 comments § permalink

New Zealand Police Association

A North Island police station received this question from a resident through the feedback section of a local Police website:

“I would like to know how it is possible for police officers to continually harass people and get away with it?”

In response, a sergeant posted this reply:

First of all, let me tell you this … it’s not easy. In the Palmerston North and rural area we average one cop for every 505 people. Only about 60 per cent of those cops are on general duty (or what you might refer to as “general patrols”) where we do most of our harassing.
The rest are in non-harassing units that do not allow them contact with the day to day innocents. At any given moment, only one-fifth of the 60 per cent of general patrols are on duty and available for harassing people while the rest are off duty. So, roughly, one cop is responsible for harassing about 6000 residents.
When you toss in the commercial business and tourist locations that attract people from other areas, sometimes you have a situation where a single cop is responsible for harassing 15,000 or more people a day.
Now, your average eight-hour shift runs 28,800 seconds long. This gives a cop two-thirds of a second to harass a person, and then only another third of a second to drink a Massey iced coffee AND then find a new person to harass. This is not an easy task. To be honest, most cops are not up to the challenge day in and day out. It is just too tiring. What we do is utilise some tools to help us narrow down those people we can realistically harass.

Read the rest.

via the excellent Scaryduck

The state needs to take arming people seriously

April 26th, 2012 § 0 comments § permalink

Why the buggery can’t the Independent Police Complaints Commission force officers who witness a fatal shooting by a colleague to be interviewed?

The in this country the state doesn’t officially kill people, not even after a trial. If the police, who are part of the state apparatus, kill someone there needs to be a proper investigation, to ensure that the death resulting from their actions was unavoidable to prevent even greater loss of life.

The police will, unfortunately inevitably, now and again kill people. It comes with the territory of dealing will the nasty, desperate and sometimes unhinged elements of our society.

Letting officers that witness a death caused by a colleague only having to submission a written statement is not good enough for a proper investigation.

An interview of a police witness is needed to clear up ambiguities, contradictions or even just to clarify a statement that is written particularly clearly.

This is needed to ensure the state, via the people it authorizes to use firearms on its behalf, uses its monopoly on force responsibility properly and at a minimum.

There is no excuse not to.

The Home Office has declined to comment on this issue because of the investigation into the death of Mark Duggan during the rioting last year.

This is a weak excuse as this issue isn’t just about the case of Mark Duggan. This investigation may have highlighted the problem and brought it some welcome publicity, but the problem is about officers not having to account for themselves in general, not in specific cases.

This needs to change to show the state takes its responsibility of arming people seriously and for accountability of the armed officers themselves.

Dale, the police and the BNP

August 12th, 2009 § 3 comments § permalink

Iain ‘Fail’ Dale fails to understand the problem…

Are we really saying that a BNP supporter is incapable of doing his job as a police officer? If an officer displays any degree of racial discrimination during the course of carrying out his duties, then I would be the first to say that disciplinary action should be taken, but a blanket ban is wrong, and in itself discriminatory. Should we also fire any police officer who supports any political party, or just those ones we don’t happen to approve of?

Is it wrong to discriminate against people that discriminate? Do Labour, the Conservatives or the Liberal Democrats want the removal of people from the country depending on their colour?

The BNP Constitution, Section 1, sub-section 2, part b

The British National Party stands for the preservation of the national and ethnic character of the British people and is wholly opposed to any form of racial integration between British and non-European peoples. It is therefore committed to stemming and reversing the tide of non-white immigrationand to restoring, by legal changes, negotiation and consent, the overwhelmingly white makeup of the British population that existed in Britain prior to 1948.

That statement in the BNPs’ constitution isn’t just about declaring their dislike for a certain section of society, it is a declaration to ethnically cleanse anyone that the BNP decides do not belong.

Membership of the BNP isn’t like the church where there are differing opinions on particular areas of thought. For example. Some members of the Church of England don’t give a monkeys’ about homosexuality and some think it’s abhorrent.
Every member of the BNP has read (or should’ve done) and agrees with it. Every member of the BNP thinks that non-white European people shouldn’t be here, have no right to be here, is taking something away from the white people.

What do you think ‘negotiation’ and ‘consent’ mean? BNP member have been arrested for ‘negotiating’ with non-white citizens.
At the moment the BNP are not able to get rid of people by legal changes, but if they did, what do you think that would involve? Forced deportations, removing civil liberties, there will be probably be organisations that are deniable to help ‘persuade’ people to leave.

The BNP aren’t fucking about.

Having said that, and much more could be said, if someone believes that much that someone, who’s family have lived in this country, 3 generations or so born here, no connections to anywhere else, works, pays taxes etc, does not belong just because of the colour of that persons skin, why would they help them? Any occasion that requires someone to call the police is a bad situation. A bad situation could help someone decide to leave. The BNP member is committed to getting non-white people to leave.

There are several arguements that go with this, mostly ‘whatabouteries’. The two most common appear in The Fail Dales post and comments. These are religion and the National Black Police Association.

Well, the religion one, as explained earlier using what could be said is a parallel situation, does not have a definative, stated viewpoint, policy, or objective with regards to homosexuality. Some strands of religion accept it, some don’t. Some are still deciding. It may be the case that religion and being a police officer are incompatible, but that is a different discussion. The two things, religion and being a copper, and BNP membership and being a police officer, are separate issues. One does not dictate the result of the other.

With NBPA, it states on the front page of their website…

Membership of the NBPA is open to all in policing on application.

There is no bar to membership based on colour.

The NBPA is also not trying to deny anybody anything. They are not calling for the removal of white police officers or the denial of employment rights from a certain section of the force.

The BNP want to solve the problem of ‘British workers for British people’, racial discrimination, and social housing problems by removing sections of British citizenry. Not just recent immigrants or asylum seekers but also people that know nothing else. People that don’t just feel British but are British.

Ooh, I nearly forgot. Another arguement is that the BNP is a legal political party so why not? Well, the BNP is a racist organisation pushing racist idea and policies. This means that the question shouldn’t be ‘should police officers be allowed to join the BNP’ but ‘should the BNP be legal’?

One of Dales’ commentors has hit the nail on the head

The truth is that supporting the BNP is itself a racist act: it makes a person guilty of contributing to a climate of racism and prejudice in this country, which is harmful to racial and ethnic minorities. That is true whether or not the person considers him/herself to be a racist. We ought to be upfront about this fact, and more willing to openly condemn supporters of the BNP. Saying that supporting the BNP is a mere ‘protest’ gives the party, and its supporters, a veneer of legitimacy that they just doesn’t deserve. If someone supports the BNP, in any capacity, they are complicit in racism. They have contributed to making life that little bit harder for racial and ethnic groups in Britain, and that is something of which they should be ashamed.

Too harsh, maybe…?

May 26th, 2009 § 0 comments § permalink

I reckon if Britain was still exporting it’s criminals to Australia, Thomas Payne would’ve been on the next boat out of here.

A 19 year old lad was taken to court and found guilty. His punishment? £50 costs, a 36-hour community order, which he has to do for three hours at a time for the next 12 Saturdays. Oh and he has to wear an electronic tag with a curfew from 8pm to 6am for the next four months.

What’s his crime? Is it Burgulary? Assault, maybe? Did he breach an ASBO, perhaps?

Not quite

A police charge notice said he had ‘intentionally and without authority or reasonable cause, caused sweets to be on a road, namely Lancaster Circus, in such circumstances that it would have been obvious to a reasonable person that to do so would be dangerous’ contrary to the Road Traffic Act.

The lad forgot to zip up his pocket when he dusted off down the road on his Yamaha DT175 and some mint imperials fell out.

They were just falling out of my pocket. Because of the time they followed me for they said I should have known.

Yes, he should’ve known, but he didn’t. Dropping some sweets isn’t worth community service and a curfew. It’s not just the big stories that erode confidence in and respect for the police. The punishment may be harsh, and the judge needs a word in his ear, but it should never have got that far.

And another…

April 18th, 2009 § 0 comments § permalink

The man with the camera at 1:51, …

Via OblonskysGhost

Yet another video

April 18th, 2009 § 0 comments § permalink


The video of the latest incident to emerge was released by Climate Camp protesters. In it, 24-year-old IT worker Alex Cinnane is shown being forcibly hit in the left temple with a round shield by a policeman wearing a balaclava and a visor.

Well, that’s torn to shit any excuses that may (or have already come up) about Ian Tomlinson death being an isolated incident.

Ian Tomlinson – 2nd Post Mortem

April 18th, 2009 § 0 comments § permalink

A second post mortem has been performed on Ian Tomlinson

Now a fresh post-mortem examination has found he died of abdominal bleeding, not a heart attack, as first thought.

Now, I’m not a doctor or anything like that, my medical expertise ranges from a couple of ibuprofen for a headache to ‘hair of the dog’ for, ahem, more serious illness, so I could be a little out here.

A heart attack doesn’t neccersarily result in internal bleeding, but a heart attack can result from loss of blood as the heart works harder to keep blood pressure without enough blood.

So, the first post mortem wasn’t exactly wrong, more incomplete because yes Ian died of a heart attack, but is was brought about from abdominal heamorraging, which in turn was brought about from, say, being knocked about.

Incompetence or a cover up, I wonder…

Justin has more

Keeping up appearances

April 15th, 2009 § 7 comments § permalink

The BBC has got the vid of the copper showing how, according to some, a woman should be treated. But once again there is a little bit of caution thrown in. Y’know, just in case…

The footage shows the woman swearing at a police officer who then appears to hit her in the face before apparently striking her on the leg with his baton.

The woman is swearing at the copper, but he only appears to slap her with the back of his hand, whilst wearing leather gloves that wouldn’t look out of place on a biker, and then he strikes her on the leg, apparently.

If we’re going down that sort of path, then surely, the woman only looks like she is swearing at the Filth.

But then, the girl probably hasn’t got institutions the size of the Met and the IPCC to defend her honour, has she?

The officer, a sergeant, it would appear, has been suspended.
David Howarth (LbDem justice spokesman)…

“The fact that this video shows another example of an officer with his number obscured assaulting a member of the public indicates that there is a systematic problem here, not just a series of individual acts of misconduct.

“The question is on my mind whether the police are using a some kind of ‘designated hitter’ system.”

Link via Rwendland in the comments on Bloggerheads.

“Turn around, nothing to see, is there.”

April 14th, 2009 § 0 comments § permalink

Excuse me PC fucking Bastard, but we’ll be the judge of that.

Via loads of people on twitter

Where Am I?

You are currently browsing entries tagged with police at Sim-O.