The dismantling of our society is gathering pace. The BBC’s headline for the collection of this morning’s front pages is blunt, scary and rather ambiguous: “Newspaper headlines: ‘Army on standby’ after armed officers down guns” (link). This ‘revolt’ refers to armed Met police officers ‘putting down their guns’, as some papers write, and not to some revolt amongst the Armed Forces.
Since The Times was leading their print edition with this report – it has moved down on their online page – and since they published this report yesterday afternoon already, they get to be quoted first:
“Soldiers are on standby to protect Britain from terror attacks after firearms officers handed in their guns over a decision to charge a Metropolitan Police firearms officer with the murder of a young black man. The Ministry of Defence announced it was ready to send in troops to confront terrorists in the absence of sufficient police cover. “We have accepted a military aid to the civil authorities request from the Home Office to provide routine counterterrorism contingency support to the Metropolitan Police, should it be needed,” the ministry said. Soldiers will protect the public only from terrorism, rather than performing tasks such as policing criminal gangs.” (link, paywalled)
Meanwhile, the grauniad screeched on their print front page about the SAS being asked to help the Met Police. A quick glance at their online front page shows that this cannot be an issue for the valiant grauniad reporters any longer: that headline and the report have vanished. You’ll forgive me for not delving deeper into yon paper’s online offerings.
Looking at the relevant report in the DT it becomes clear however how this guardian headline came about: they just copied from the colleagues at the DT who must have been ‘informed’ by ‘sources’:
“More than 300 officers – 10 per cent of all firearms staff – have refused to carry a gun, forcing Scotland Yard to submit a formal request to the Ministry of Defence (MoD) for help with counter-terror policing. […] The Telegraph understands that special forces could be asked to step in to cover for Counter Terrorism Specialist Firearms Officers, who are among those currently refusing to carry guns. The unit is on duty round the clock to provide a response should there be a major terrorist incident.” (paywalled link)
And why did this walk-out, this ‘downing of guns’ happen? Because “an officer, identified as NX121, appeared in court accused of murdering Chris Kaba, 23, an unarmed black man who was shot dead during a police operation in south London last September.” (paywalled link)
This “murder” occurred a year ago. I cannot recall any “BLM” demos, rampages or anything similar. Still, ‘murder’ it now is and the Met’s Chief has had enough:
“The Met Commissioner has demanded an overhaul of the way police officers are treated by the justice system amid a growing row over the decision to charge a firearms specialist with murder. Sir Mark Rowley called for better legal protection for officers who used force while on duty and said there must be more clarity about their right to defend themselves. He also criticised the pace of the justice system, saying that even when officers followed their training and tactics they could still end up facing years of protracted legal proceedings.” (paywalled link)
This is how our society is being dismantled, with the help of vested interests promoting ‘issues’ in the Westminster MSM, trying to create scenes like those in US cities at the west Coast, from San Francisco to Portland and Seattle where ‘BL’ matter so much that police officers have left the service, where shops and supermarkets are closing because they can no longer sustain the constant ‘shoplifting’. Similar scenes are happening here in London and other cities.
Why not create similar scenes here in the UK where more “BL” are arriving by the day! It’s easy when the Westminster MSM are busy undermining the trust in law enforcement, be it by lawfare, be it by inattention to vital issues for the public such as burglary and robbery while the lefties’ pet issues are given priority. Then ‘get the Army’ to step in, ultimately giving permission for soldiers to replace the police, creating a civil war atmosphere. Not even the SAS would be able to help once this happens but the MSM will certainly get any SAS soldiers into court for ‘murder’ …
That’s all I have for today. We’ve come a long way from Sir Robert Peel’s Principles for a Police force. If that’s progress then I’d rather be a hidebound bigot … Have a good day.
The ‘Polisse’ were very happy to be government sponsored ‘Storm Troopers’ during the COVID terror and harass ordinary citizens who dared to step outside their front doors! They weren’t above attacking the protesting crowds with batons or threatening people for sitting out in the open-air miles from any other person! They are content to act like twerking members of the ‘Pride’ folly!
What they are not content to do is to actually protect the citizens of this land from harm. To investigate and see to the punishment, through (properly ordered and not ‘government complicit’) law courts!
Now, because they shot and killed a ‘man of colour’ who turned out to be unarmed and are being ‘told off’ for it, they are throwing down their weapons and saying they ‘wont play any more’! What would the situation be had the person they shot been a ‘person of no colour’?
Governments have allowed this land to become swamped with untold and undesirable numbers of un-identified persons from ‘who-knows-where’ lands and with unknown provenance in terms of possible criminality. The Police have played along with government and refused to protect the indigenous citizens for fear of invoking the anger of movements such as BLM!
Government response is to bring in the army! The soldiers who are pledged to obey orders but who still may be (and already have been) punished with the full force of ‘governmental law’ (note I do not say
‘Common Law’). The soldier does not have the option of throwing down his weapon because that act alone would earn him/her/they? a Court Marshal!
We can no longer claim to be either ‘civilised’ or a ‘society’! It will not end well I fear!
Well said Frederica! The whole British establishment is now rotten to its very core. A pox on them all. And as I keep saying, and will keep saying, anyone who votes for any establishment party in 2024, well, the pox on them as well.
“The Police” are not a single entity or homogeneous. The rank and file cannot defy orders nor is it reasonable to expect them to risk income and pension. Criticism is of use of the police not the officers themselves.
Stout- A good Barrister comment ‘certainly credible that unrealistic standards are being applied’. Sounds like you are looking for the defence at 500 pounds an hour plus several two day refreshers.
A murder charge will reduce the rampaging / removal of officers who are not suitable for the job. Done nothing wrong, then nothing to worry about, plus Justice shall be seen to have been done – exonerated of course. Three years with your life on hold, waiting for the trial. Think positive – its an opportunity to put your side of the incident. And no doubt the Police associations will fund the defence.
Other such events – Stephen Waldorf, and Menendez.
Waldorf pulled up at traffic lights in mini car, to be shot through the back window. ‘Mistaken identity’ (from behind!).
For Menendez, seven bullets through the head murder, no one was demoted, prosecuted are otherwise held to account.
Scarlet – MI-x promoted; that bloody homosexual woman now dame (****arter) made the head of metropolitan police; and other promotions, sending a clear message to us all – untouchable. 20 ft by 15 ft Posters around London at the time echoed the judge summing up, and every witness – a carriage full of people and not one heard any sort of ‘armed police warning’.
Had Menendez been a terrorist the media would have praised the decisive action. The officers genuinely thought, on advice from ‘Gold’ Dick, that he was the terrorist that he had been mistaken for. An officer following orders is not culpable. The root cause was a negligent, mistaken surveillance officer. It was a high alert, highly charged time. We should be grateful for officers willing to risk their own lives to protect us. No doubt, greater care is being taken over identity these days.
Police management have long called for a change in the law to enable sacking rogue or poorly performing officers.
Stout- Had Menendez been a terrorist . . .
BUT he wasn’t a terrorist anymore than Waldoff was a killer.
So that’s ‘all right’ in both cases – they might have been. Lessons have been learned, right?
If ifs and buts were pots . . .
Yes it is all right so far as the officers who shot Menendez were concerned. It is Gold Command who were at fault who told the officers he was a bomb carrying terrorist. I hope they continue to shoot people identified as bomb carrying terrorists before the suspects can set off a bomb. It is police managers found to be at fault for intelligence failures in misidentifying bombers should be held to account.
The issue with police is their increasingly political and partisan management and the increasing feeling that ‘rights’ leave officers exposed. A recent example was that viral video of violent woman manhandling a female officer to the ground. The male officer was useless probably fearing what would happen if he laid a finger on a woman. He should have pulled her off with a head lock, foot sweep, or just tasered her, but possibly feared the (edited) viral video and Guardian led outrage.
I have spoken to ex-police – as taxi drivers. They got out because they felt unsupported, hide bound and bogged down by paperwork to justify everything, and because the job relentlessly entailed dealing with violence and resisting arrest. In North London, gang wars between Turks and Armenians, and lately Romanians, and blacks in council estate ghettoes are daily fare. Join up and see how you get on.
Soon we will be taking a leaf out of the Scots playbook.
Note the surnames of the two major players.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/world/police-scotland-considers-unit-to-prepare-for-humza-yousafs-hate-crime-bill-5495942
Well said Viv. Very shortly it is the annual ‘rope a dope’ Tory conference which shouldn’t disappoint in its capacity to out lie Billy Liar. They no doubt will promise to protect armed police from unjustified investigations and prosecutions.
Good article in TCW about how the Tories, in full GE mode, are calling out Labour on its talks with the EU whilst they too, are surreptitiously engaged in talks with the EU. At least Labour are honest about their treachery which is more than appears to be the case with the vile Tories. https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/its-not-just-starmer-the-tories-are-wooing-the-eu-too/
The conditions are being deliberately created for a biosecurity state where all government functions are merged. This strikes a chord with stuff I read on UK column in past years.
https://www.ukcolumn.org/ukcolumn-news/uk-column-news-28th-march-2018-fusion-doctrine
Will be looking at this again later in the day to refresh my memory.
Flyer has written in the past about “Kigali Principle”
Just wait until UN “peacekeeping” forces are brought in and added to the military police
We live in a society where soldiers and police are accountable unlike in Iran and more than a few other societies where the state and its agents act with impunity. Good for us except we need to recognise that soldiers and police are put in situations that they should not have to face – from shadowy assassins in Northern Ireland making routine patrol dangerous day after day after day, to soldiers in Helmand discovering the dismembered body parts of a captured colleague hanging from a wire across their path, to the increased use of knives and violent resistance to arrest on the streets of our cities. The standards of judgement that might have applied in the ‘Dixon of Dock Green’ days no longer do. The kind of stressful situations police face have increased and repeated stress leads to misjudgements and ‘over-reaction’ that is not realistically appraised by fat, soft lawyers and politicians. An officer who acts with malice aforethought should indeed end up in the dock but one suspects some are sacrificed so that the establishment can pretend that the provoking factors do not exist.
During the Marseille riots in June a police officer possibly got a bit carried away (though not in my book!) and ended up in custody. The local police, unable to strike, protested by going off sick in large numbers. In London, police are handing back their guns. When a soldier, covering for the lack of armed police – soldiers are not trained as police so may be prone to overreaction – end up in the dock and the army becomes hesitant when action is required, what then?
We don’t know the facts of the latest case, of course, but it is certainly credible that unrealistic standards are being applied.