Peter Reynolds

The life and times of Peter Reynolds

Posts Tagged ‘myopic

Moat’s Last Moments. Are All Our Policemen Wonderful?

with 10 comments

Almost Over

On Friday night they had Raoul Moat cornered at last.  It was the culmination of something more akin to a military invasion than a reasonable response to just one deranged nutter.   Northumbria Police had already made fools of themselves but we were all biting our lips,  not yet protesting, hoping against hope that there would be no further casualties.

The first photographs from the stand-off were released and they clearly showed police pointing tasers.  On BBC News the ex-police firearms expert was interviewed and asked why a taser couldn’t be used to disable Moat.  He answered quite unequivocally that using a taser when a man has a gun pointed at his head was more than likely to result in him firing the weapon involuntarily.

First thing on Saturday morning and it was no surprise to learn that Moat was dead.  What was utterly shocking was to learn that two tasers had been fired and the recording broadcast by the BBC revealed the shouting before the sound of the shotgun blast.  The unavoidable conclusion is that exactly what the firearms expert had predicted was what happened.

I don’t have any sympathy for Moat.  As far as I’m concerned a good case could have been made for him being shot on sight but I am very, very unhappy with the way the police handled the affair.

All Over Now

It may be that the denouement itself was handled properly.  We will never know what really happened however many inquiries we have.  What I am certain of is that overall the police should have done much better.  Those far, far better qualified to judge than me have already said as much.  I speak only as a concerned citizen.

I really worry about our police service.  While I believe there are many brave, honourable coppers, some of whom are highly skilled,  there are too many worrying indications that our police service is not up to the job.

There’s thuggery and the rank-closing covering-up and justification of it.  There’s the appalling canteen culture which is at the root of all the institutionalised racism, thuggery and freemasonry.  There’s the amateurish approach of senior officers who seem barely competent at times.  There is inevitably some corruption but also a long-running deception that the decision to prosecute is at arms length.  The police decide who to investigate in the first place. The CPS and the police eat in the same canteen

Look at the brutality of the police, the TSG in particular, at the Gaza and G20 protests and how they’ve got away with it.  Look at the Inspector Gadget police website for an insight into the disgusting attitude of many officers.   Look at the management of situations like the Cumbrian shootings and the Raoul Moat affair and the use of ludicrous, self-evidently bad ideas like the “kettling” at the Gaza and G20 protests.  Look at the income generation from speed cameras promoted by some chief constables.  Look at the absurd, intrusive, wildly excessive use of CCTV.  Look at the ridiculous administration routines that many chief constables have imposed.  Look at the insistence on retaining the DNA of innocent people.

The police are now very well paid.  A starting police officer gets about twice as much as a starting soldier.   They have wonderful pension arrangements.  They’re also excused, let off and get away with behaviour that should never be allowed.  Look at the thug, Sergeant Delroy Smellie , who repeatedly beat Nicola Fisher at the G20 protest and got away with it, or the officer who assaulted Ian Tomlinson, who later died, and who has still not been charged over a year later.

All the brave, honourable coppers are let down by those bad apples which myopic “support” of the police allows to rot and infect the rest.

The British police service needs a shake up.  It is complacent and inefficient.  Excellent work is done in anti-terrorism and organised crime but the truth is not all our policemen are wonderful.  We need to face up to that truth and make some changes.  Perhaps locally elected police chiefs are a way forward.

Drug Crazed Politicians Promote Crime And Misery

with 13 comments

Sir Richard Nutt

Sir David Nutt

Gord stoned

"I'm so stoned...I don't know what I'm doing..."

Nothing more clearly demonstrates the complete absence of integrity in this inane, corrupt government than the sacking of Sir David Nutt.   I had always admired Alan Johnson.  Now he shows himself to be just as stupid and dumb as any of Gordon’s cronies.

Cannabis is a benign, natural herb that has been used as a medicine and recreational relaxant for over 4,000 years until politicians took a dislike to it just over 100 years ago.  Since then, despite dozens of “studies” across the world, each one of which has been specifically tasked to condemn it as dangerous, no harm has been proven.  Nevertheless, from Richard Nixon to Gordon Brown, myopic, paranoid, self-serving, tabloid-worshipping politicians have imposed more and more severe penalties for its use.

In the 50s the argument was that it made white women promiscuous with black men.  The standard of discussion has barely improved since.  The recent government sponsored hysteria over psychosis in adolescents is now revealed as utter nonsense in the face of the facts.

So why do politicians continue to persecute those who use cannabis?  What’s in it for them?  After all there is overwhelming evidence to show that a properly regulated cannabis supply could be a huge source of new taxation revenue for government and that regulation would drastically reduce all the harm that is caused by prohibition.

ajohn

Off His Head

It’s more difficult to accept this argument in respect of  heroin and cocaine because these are harmful substances but look at the evidence from Holland, Switzerland, Portugal and many other places.  There can be little doubt that if the supply and distribution of drugs was regulated rather than prohibited then the harm caused would be reduced enormously.  Furthermore, decriminalisation would drastically – and I mean DRASTICALLY – reduce crime at all levels.  Street crime is all about theft and robbery in order to fund the purchase of drugs.  International organised crime and terrorism is all about the drugs trade.  End prohibition, start regulation and you pull the rug from under criminals at all levels.  It would transform our society and save thousands of lives.

So I ask again – why?  What do politicians gain from such a fundamentally stupid policy?  At a stroke they could cut out the majority of both street and serious crime  and  massively reduce the funding of terrorism.

Cannabis was first demonised because hemp was an early rival to the oil industry.  Before diesel came biodiesel.  Rudolph Diesel designed his engine to run on peanut or hemp oil.  Henry Ford designed his Model T to run on bioethanol produced from hemp and planted hundreds of acres on his own farms for that purpose – then along came oil.  More importantly along came the early investors in the oil industry, specifically Randolph Hearst, owner and controller of the biggest propaganda and disinformation machine ever known to man.  He started the the “Reefer Madness” campaign and promoted the lie against cannabis.  Hemp was outlawed in favour of oil and we have since spent 100 years burning oil, becoming more and more reliant on its byproducts, destroying our planet and persecuting those who use cannabis.

cannabis plants

Politicans are cowards.  They were bribed and cajoled by big money to turn against cannabis in the first place.  They do not have the vision or the common sense to see past the mess they have got themselves in over drugs policy.  In a very real way they are more responsible than anyone else for the misery, death and chaos casued by the drugs trade which they actually support through their stupidity.

This government might as well have a committee of tabloid newspaper editors advising it on drugs rather than scientists.  All over the world politicans have let us all down over drugs policy.  Why?  Because they are cowardly, self-serving and only interested in short term political expediency.