If the police aren't able to defend people and property, what exactly are they for?

In the Sunday Telegraph last weekend we learned that plans to improve London’s systematically useless police force the Metropolitan Police by appointing US supercop Bill Bratton to take it over and revamp it had been blocked by a woman called Theresa May.

By spooky coincidence, a woman also called Theresa May hit the headlines again more recently when she refused to give permission for young, unarmed, outnumbered policemen struggling – and mostly failing – to contain some of the worst riots in British history to use water cannon.

Is this Theresa May person really Home Secretary of one of the world’s leading economies? And if so, please can we have a new one, sharpish?

Sure, one can see why Theresa May was so keen to be seen ruling out the use of water cannon. Tripping around her pretty little head – as I’m sure it does in the pretty little heads of…

(to read more, click here)

2 thoughts on “If the police aren't able to defend people and property, what exactly are they for?”

  1. James,

    It is perfectly obvious to a long range observer that the riots are a direct result of the reduction in public funding for the Greater London Lesbian Coop and the various critical multicultural advisor employment activities . It is the fault of this facist Cameron government, no more or less.

  2. At the height of the riots on Tuesday, the British “expert” Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) was criticised by Douglas Murray, Associate Director at the Henry Jackson Society think-tank, in the Tuesday 9 August 2011 Daily Express, page 14:

    … the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) … founded in 2006, cost the taxpayer £70 million in its first year alone. Its head is paid £112,000 a year. … I see no reason whatsoever why the British taxpayer should pay him a prince’s salary to head an incompetently-run organization which has no apparent aims other than to find the British people guilty until proven guilty. …

    Remember the famous story about Margaret Thatcher who on one occasion instructed a Cabinet minister to deal with a problem. A week or so later he returned announcing that he had set up a department to address it [this is the infamous time-wasting procrastination tactic that the leading Civil Service “Permanent Secretaries” compel their Cabinet ministers to use, instead of quickly sorting out any problems before they get worse, analogous to the deference to “experts” in the Vietnam War, political “ridicule” by self-proclaimed “experts” against Ronald Reagan’s “ill-informed” Star Wars anti-commie propaganda in 1983, and so on]. Thatcher was not amused. “I told you to deal with the problem, not make it worse,” she shouted. “Once we have an entire government department that depends upon the existence of the problem, we’ll never get rid of it.” The point that Thatcher understood instinctively, as too few politicians do, is that once a publicly funded organization is set up to deal with a problem, it is no longer in the organization’s interests to deal with it.

    Far from it. Problem and “solution” need each other. People generally want to keep their jobs, especially if they are well paid …

    Last year the EHRC released a report entitled “How Fair is Britain?” Among its conclusions was: “Achievement is higher for those pupils whose first language is English when compared to pupils who have English as an additional language.” So the taxpayer paid for a report that revealed that pupils who speak English well do better in school … Surely it could have been better spent on almost anything else. Such as English lesson? … The aims of the EHRC are nowhere better demonstrated than in their highlighting of the differences in life expectancy between British-born women (80.5 years) and women of Pakistani origin (77.3 years). This was used by the EHRC last year to demonstrate “unfairness”. What it failed to draw attention to, and what Dr Davies’ report corrects, is that a far larger difference in life expectancy occurs between Pakistani women living in Britain (77.3 years) and women living in Pakistan (67.5 years). In other words, whatever your origin, Britain is good for you.

    But of course this isn’t the sort of conclusion the EHRC would wish to come to because that might suggest that Britain is not after all a terrible, racist, blighted country [compared to the countries its ethnic communities originated in]. … like all such organisations, it has to keep funding coming. So it keeps the problem alive, misrepresenting problems and exaggerating them to keep the cash flowing. [Emphasis added in bold.]

    If that is correct, then part of the blame for the riots would seem to be the taxpayer-funded lying reports which use falsified “statistical evidence” to allege that Britain is a racist hell-hole, just to keep some guy wasting taxpayers money while being paid £112,000 a year. I prefer not to believe it, it’s so depressing.

Comments are closed.