Friday, November 25

90 days and Police trust

This posting is somewhat belated as interesting things have been happening in my private life and circumstances haven’t allowed me the time to post on the events that have occurred since the last post and which richly deserve comment.

Sir Ian Blair is vigorously pushing for a 90 minimum period for detention of terrorists suspects. If this somewhat controversial proposal isn’t granted, our civilisation as we know it is somehow hanging by rotting dental floss over the abyss of chaos, doom and extinction. And Saint Tone of Sedgefield, (may he truly get what he deserves) ably backed up by the press, is warning that there is no alternative. Anyone who disagrees is a traitor and working with the terrorists to destroy the very freedoms that this legislation is intended to preserve.

As usual, I’m not exactly in agreement with this.

If, for example, I were suspected of murdering someone, based on preliminary suspicions I would be arrested and charged with the offence and remanded in custody until the trial took place. Which might be in six months time. This should give the Police ample time to assemble further evidence and complete their investigations. So if we apply the same principle to any terrorist suspect the Police will have, within existing legislation and procedures, as much time as they want to complete any investigations.

“Sir” (and I use the word advisedly) Ian Blair has somewhat undermined his case by (reportedly) saying as an aside in a press conference to justify the suspension of Habeas Corpus “Perhaps we should have asked for 4 months ..”.

This leads me to believe it is an arbitrary figure plucked out of the air and set in concrete. Not a shred of justification has been offered to back up this “requirement”. If the hypothetical murder case mentioned above required a DNA sample and the average time to process a DNA sample was 10 to 12 days, then I would not object to the Police requesting a time limit of (say) 14 days to hold someone while this evidence was being processed. It is based on a reasoned and justifiable delay. But no such evidence, reasoning or explanation has been forthcoming from either the Police or politicians. Instead, a strident and hysterical “But it is essential” mantra has substituted for dialogue and debate.

Of course, Sir Ian has an impeccable record of behaviour that reassures us that any such draconian powers won’t be misused. For example when The Met shot the Brazilian man, the immediate statement to justify this bore no relationship to the facts. According to the Police, he was wearing a bulky jacket, he was running from the Police, he vaulted a ticket barrier and stated with conviction by Sir Ian Blair. The truth was that he was wearing a denim jacket, he was behaving in a banally normal manner, picking up a free newspaper, using his weekly or monthly pass to go through the barrier and standing on the escalator to travel to the platform. His only “crime” was hearing the approaching train and running from the bottom of the escalator to the platform. And of course, no one ever does that, do they? And if it truly IS a crime, the death penalty arbitrarily applied by trained police “marksmen” is wholly justified and appropriate.

Following the assassination (and it would be hard to describe it otherwise) Sir Ian unilaterally decided not to pass any information to the Police Complaints Commission (PCC) as it was a “Terrorist” matter and that the normal rules didn’t apply. WRONG!! The PCC was set up to investigate exactly such police malpractice and it is not up to the Police to decide which complaints will be handled by the PCC. The breathtaking arrogance of simply deciding what is the law and what isn’t is no real surprise to experienced observers of the Police. The exact fine detail of the law isn’t something that the Police tend to bother with and if you don’t like it, you can take them to Court where you will be at a severe disadvantage.

I would have thought under the intense scrutiny that was inevitable following the incident, he would have VERY CAREFULLY considered his actions, but not a bit of it. The usual “Dixon of Dock Green” attitude was wheeled out and justification for the actions trotted out. It could have happened to anyone, really. After all, how many times over the last month have you accidentally got several of your friends to hold someone down and accidentally shoot them seven times through the head. Could happen to anyone, really …

But the three months period won’t be misused. It will only be used against little brown men with a fanatical appearance.

Hmmmm … political correctness will not allow this (and Sir Ian is the Politically Correct PC ) and any hint that this legislation is targeted at Moslems will be howled down. So who WILL it be used against?

You could look at Political Correctness Watch ( for 19th October 2005 and see that a woman walking down a cycle path was threatened with the Terrorist Act. How about the last Labour Party Conference where the Police warned off people wearing T shirts stating in essence “Tony Blair is a tosser”? The gentleman who was slung out of the same conference by big, bad bouncers (it must have given him a twinge of nostalgia and taken him back to his youth when Adolf Hitler was employing the self same tactics to suppress dissent) could also be scooped up under the same legislation. He COULD have been part of a group dedicated to killing Saint Tone of Sedgefield. Safety is paramount …

Once you warm to the subject, the possibilities are boundless. The visit of the Chinese Prime Minister and the objectors lining the Mall (who again COULD be part of a group committed to freeing Tibet by assassination of the Chinese premier) could be conveniently harassed into silence. The G8 summit? NOW you are talking! Even this blog could be considered to be inciting terrorism, and therefore the Police could arrest me and hold me for up to three months without charge while they have the leisure time to pull my house apart and find SOMETHING to charge me with.

In fact what we need in this country is not more laws but less.

First off, discard the Human Rights act which is used chiefly by people like Abu Hamsa et al to remain here spewing their hatred and vitriol and to avoid deportation. I can’t think of a single sensible case brought under this legislation. It has benefited only Cherie Blair and the people who hate this country and the British way of life. It seems to be a particularly perverse and unnecessary piece of legislation.

Secondly, the various laws and legislation that permit anyone who sets foot in Britain to have full and unlimited entitlement to every benefit (plus access to an Army of highly paid “advisors” who help them to claim those benefits), plus housing, medical care etc. should be revoked. Beef up the process and rules governing the so-called “Asylum” process that would concentrate only on those people who truly are being persecuted and reject all the economic migrants. The intention here is to make Britain as attractive to any foreigner as (say) Saudi Arabia is to non Moslems. Let them prove their usefulness and commitment to Britain before they are entitled to settle here and contribute towards the benefits before they are allowed to have access to those benefits. If you disagree with this approach, would you run your own personal life in this way? Could I break into your home and when you discover me, insist that I am fully entitled to eat your food, use your home as my own and use your heating, water etc? Naturally I would not contribute a penny towards the resources I consumed. And if you object, can I invoke the multitude of “prejudice” laws and accuse you of being racist? This is the last resort of the Nazis – to make a totally unsubstantiated and unfounded accusation and without offering a shred of evidence, destroying someone’s reputation and denying them any opinion or right to justify themselves.

Thirdly, there is the entitlement to being called British. Let me take a perverse example. I feel very Saudi Arabian. I have no intention of converting to Islam. I can’t speak Arabic and again have no intention of learning to doing so. I enjoy a whiskey and love my bacon butties and pork pies. I have no intention to give up extra marital sex (Who am I kidding? Extra nookie for me is as likely to happen as electing an honest politician) and don’t want to wear traditional Arab clothing. But I feel very Saudi Arabian …

Any sensible person would question my sanity after that. However we have people who have lived here since the 1960’s or earlier who cannot speak English, live a lifestyle exactly the same as they have left in their Country of origin and have no intention of integrating into the British way of life and subscribe to the values of this Country. Arranged marriages and chain immigration ensure no possibility of relinquishing this lifestyle. This is perfectly OK. It is multiculturism (an oxymoron).

I agree with the view of John Payne who had definite ideas about what it as to be British. He did not consider a child born in Britain to be necessarily British. A child could not understand the responsibilities, duties and obligations that accompany the privilege. Instead, it was up to the parents and society to teach the child these responsibilities and only when the child was adult enough to fully agree and accept them were they allowed to swear allegiance to the State and be acknowledged to be British.

Similarly I would make it mandatory that only those people who have lived here and adopted a British way of life and subscribe fully to the values of this country would be allowed to become British. The ludicrous “Test” undergone by those who want a British passport would be scrapped. Third generation people whose grandparents and parents had lived here would be allowed to be British if they could demonstrate commitment to the country. For example, by serving in the Armed forces or being a Police officer and only if their grandparents and parents had not been convicted of any crime.

Harsh? I think destroying the vast majority (i.e. 56 million out of 60 million) of peoples rights and freedoms to accommodate a militant and hostile number of people (regardless of the precise number) living in this country is far, far harsher.

But I always was unwilling to give up freedoms and rights for something which is trumpeted as “safety” when patently the promise cannot be fulfilled. For real safety such as promised by our Political “Masters” and the highly politicised police try emigrating to North Korea. They don’t have problems with terrorism there. They have no freedom either but they are safe, surely? Except from their own Government.


Post a Comment

<< Home