Thursday, 8 January 2009

Hitchens gets a taste of Gordon's CRS

Peter Hitchens got caught up in the State Militia's attack lines on his way home and writes about it in this morning's Mail:
This horrible development, the transformation of our police into a state gendarmerie, has many causes. One of them is the way in which our politicians - and much of the public - have simply forgotten, or never even knew, the intricate arrangements made to ensure that we did not suffer this fate. Parliament at the beginning of the 19th century resisted the foundation of a Metropolitan force precisely because such bodies had invariably become engines of repression all over the continent. Sir Robert Peel only got the measure through by ensuring that our police force was subject to law, policed by consent, and was not allowed to become a militia.
One again, we call for a Royal Commission on policing. It's nearly too late to rescue the police forces we all want and value, policemen who are our allies, police who are citizens in uniform. Labour have corrupted this most precious asset as they have corrupted everything else with their malevolent Statism.

14 comments:

Blue Eyes said...

I am very angry, not only because I just wrote about how "free" we are to protest in this country. Thank you for doing your job, Parliament.

Anonymous said...

It is not just Labour's statism that has wrecked the police force. It is also pure partisan politicking.

The police are not just - and perhaps not even - the long arm of the state; they are also the long arm of the Labour Party. The force's senior ranks are stuffed with semi-competents who owe their advancement to the Party, individuals who have received promotions because their race, gender or sexuality gel with the Party's ideological theories. That godless shit-eating smegheaded prick Ian Bliar is the best example but he is far - far - from unique.

Imagine what would happen to the career of a rozzer who failed to go along with Labour's policy diktats. Imagine what would happen to a Chief Inspector who favoured competent thieftakers over homosexual Pakistanis. Imagine what would happen to a Superintendent who care more about putting neds, chavs and assorted scum behind bars than about meeting the Party's latest tractor production/ knife crime statistics.

I recently re-watched the amazing television show The Wire in its entirety and one of the recurring themes is the dysfunction that occurs in a police force when it becomes so politicised that it is an extension of the ruling party (in the show's case, it was the Maryland Democratic Party). Police stop caring about victims, stop caring about the law and, indeed, stop caring about being police; they only care about meeting the needs of their political masters, about targetting their masters' enemies and about rigging the statistics to make their masters look better.

As I watched it, I realised that the story of this fictional Baltimore Police Department is also the story of the police forces of this rather disappointing kingdom of ours, where serving the Party - and reaping the promotions and baubles tht reward loyal Party service - is more important than serving the citizens you swore to protect or the Crown you swore to serve.

The police force, I contend, are the militant - and, increasingly, the armed - wing of the Labour Party.

JuliaM said...

"The police force, I contend, are the militant - and, increasingly, the armed - wing of the Labour Party."

Do you have any evidence they wouldn't do the same for a Conservative goverment?

Or (and this is stretching to the realms of science fiction, admittedly) a Lib Dem government...?

Anonymous said...

@JuliaM

Congratulations. You've just demanded that I prove a negative. You've demanded negative "evidence" of a hypothetical.

This is called the argumentum ad ignorantiam or the negative proof fallacy. It is a logical impossibility and clear evidence that you are either an intellectually dishonest ideologue or a cretin lacking the logical capacity that I would expect of a twelve year old.

In either case, kudos to you.

JuliaM said...

"Congratulations. You've just demanded that I prove a negative."

Au contraire, anon. I've simply suggested you look at the political reality.

Back in the 70s, when the police were enthusiastically (and correctly, in my view) breaking up the striking miners, the lefties were screaming that the police were the enforcement arm of the Conservative Party.

They weren't right then any more than you are now.

Anonymous said...

@JuliaM
Au contraire, anon. I've simply suggested you look at the political reality.

Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire.
You said: "Do you have any evidence they wouldn't do the same for a Conservative goverment?".

You demanded that I prove a future hypothetical negative. You may find that lying about what you said is a wee bit easier if your reader can't just scroll up and read your previous comment.

Back in the 70s, when the police were enthusiastically (and correctly, in my view) breaking up the striking miners,

The police didn't do anything of the kind in the 70s. I'm not sure which is more astonishing: your ignorance or your arrogance. Either way, you quite obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

They weren't right then any more than you are now.

So you are denying that the police have been politicised by the Labour Party. That's awesome but how do you explain the career of Sir Ian Blair? Since you're saying that the police are still an apolitical force with no particular affiliation to Labour, perhaps you'd like to back it up - you know, with some PROOF.

And note that, unlike you, I'm not asking for proof of hypothetical future events which may or may not take place. I'm simply asking you to prove your statement.

JuliaM said...

"The police didn't do anything of the kind in the 70s."

What did they do (or rather, what do you think they did), then..?

"So you are denying that the police have been politicised by the Labour Party. "

Not at all. They demonstrably have. And by the Conservative Party (and probably will be again).

"..how do you explain the career of Sir Ian Blair?"

Once the Labour Party are overthrown, all will be sunshine and kittens, and there will be no more Ian Blairs..? Is that right?

"Since you're saying that the police are still an apolitical force with no particular affiliation to Labour..."

That's not, actually, what I was saying. Care to read it again?

Anonymous said...

@JuliaM

What did they do (or rather, what do you think they did), then..?

This is one of those delicious moments where you get to rub someone's face in their own ignorance.

When, dear, do you actually think the miners' strike took place? Hmmm? When? In what year of the 70s did the Tories set the police on the miners? Riddle me that.

Not at all. They demonstrably have. And by the Conservative Party (and probably will be again).

Give some examples of Conservative politicisation.

Once the Labour Party are overthrown, all will be sunshine and kittens, and there will be no more Ian Blairs..? Is that right?

Once again you return to childish screeds about unknowable future hypotheticals. I'm talking about reality, luv. You're responding with total fucking gibberish about how Labour is immune from criticism because you know that in the future, at some undetermined time, the Tories will be wicked and mean and horrible.

That's some neato reasoning you've got there, sweetheart.

That's not, actually, what I was saying. Care to read it again?

That is exactly what you were saying. In denying it, you are either lying or you're admitting that what you say and what you mean are two different things. If you're incapable of expressing your meaning clearly, it's your problem not mine.

JuliaM said...

"You're responding with total fucking gibberish about how Labour is immune from criticism..."

Heh. You've not read my blog, then. No critisism of Labour there, oh, dear me, no....

"...because you know that in the future, at some undetermined time, the Tories will be wicked and mean and horrible."

They won't be anything of the sort. They will simply be politicians. No worse, and no better, than the current lot.

God, Call-Me-Dave isn't a paper-thin hair's breadth away from Tony Blair at his most ingratiating. Power for power's sake, that's what he worships - not idealogy, or principle.

"That is exactly what you were saying. In denying it, you are either lying or you're admitting that what you say and what you mean are two different things."

No, I'm saying that the 'politicisation' of the police happens under every government that outstays its welcome...

Give Cameron his eight years, and you'll be whining that the police are the Tory Party's authoritarian handmaidens.

Anonymous said...

@JuliaM

I notice that you've dropped the comments on the miners' strike. Ha.

Heh. You've not read my blog, then.

You're right. I haven't. I've read your comments on various blogs and that's quite enough. If I want to read informed right of centre comment, I have DK and Raedwald and a few others; if I want to read a pale pastiche of DK and Raedwald by someone who clearly has very limited understanding of the subject, I will read your blog but don't hold your breath waiting on that day.

Your last response is as weak as all the rest. You have provided no support for your oracular pronouncements; you have merely continued to repeat, over and over, the same tired mantra about the future hypothetical politicisation of the police force by a future hypothetical Conservative government. There is no proof of this - because, of course, you can't prove something that hasn't happened yet! - but you keep banging the drum and acting like you've established a fact. My dear, you clearly do not recognise that there is a difference between fact and opinion. Just because you say a thing is so, it does make it so.

No, I'm saying that the 'politicisation' of the police happens under every government that outstays its welcome...

Then you're an imbecile and an historically illiterate imbecile at that. Britain has had centuries of governments that overstayed their welcome - I remember street parties when Major was voted out - but they've had nothing like the current Labour regime.

If you can provide proof to the contrary, please do so but unless you go back to Oliver fucking Cromwell, you're not going to have much luck. Not that it matters, because we both know that you'll simply ignore my request for supporting evidence, go off on some rant about the Pursuit of Power and then declare yourself the victor.

Give Cameron his eight years, and you'll be whining that the police are the Tory Party's authoritarian handmaidens.

I didn't whine about Major or Thatcher. Whatever my complaints about Labour in the 1970s (y'know, back when you say that Maggie was busting up the miners' strike), I never ever thought that they were merging the police with the Labour Party.

But never mind. You've said it and that automatically makes it true.

I'm afraid that I don't see much point in continuing to argue the toss with you. You do not understand the subject you're talking about and I mean that in the most literal way. When asked a difficult question or when your ignorance is exposed, you simply excise that part of the conversation and go on as before, as if nothing had happened.

What little you do say is so nebulous as to be devoid of any objective meaning and is mostly just a slightly rephrased repetition of stuff you've already said. Nothing you say is concrete (pretty much a variation on "All politicians suck") and I feel like I'm arguing with a fifteen year old American.

Time and again, you make clairvoyant predictions about what David Cameron will and won't do (mostly paraphrasing stuff that Devil's Kitchen has said and so coming over as a pretty weak pastiche of a far superior act) and yet you provide no supporting evidence - hell, you barely even provide an argument; you just say things baldly and assume that the mere acting of uttering something makes it a concrete fact.

I am frankly embarrassed to see the level of argumentation you present and am becoming increasingly irritated at fencing with someone who thinks that ignoring inconvenient facts and repeating the same nonsense over and over are the peak of forensic debating technique.

I will not engage with you any more because you're a waste of my time. I strongly advise you to hush before you make an even bigger fool of yourself than you already have.

JuliaM said...

"I notice that you've dropped the comments on the miners' strike. Ha."

Whaty does that even mean? You don't make yourself very clear, for all your bluster.

"You have provided no support for your oracular pronouncements; you have merely continued to repeat, over and over, the same tired mantra about the future hypothetical politicisation of the police force by a future hypothetical Conservative government."

Good Lord, there's nothing hypothetical about it! What do you think is going to happen when Cameron gets in? The senior police hierarchy won't immediately tack their sails according to the new political wind? We won't see Conservative policy advanced via the police?

I'll stick with reality, thanks.

"..a pale pastiche of DK and Raedwald..."

oh, the irony! I'm being critcised for blogging technique by one of the hordes of anonymongs too dim or too scared to make up a fake name for the idenity box. So you can at least figure out if this is the same idiot you've seen elsewhere.

Alhough that air of supercilious condescension that you exude does make it a bit easier, I've got to admit...

"When asked a difficult question..."

You haven't, though. You do realise that? Maybe not...

"Nothing you say is concrete (pretty much a variation on "All politicians suck") and I feel like I'm arguing with a fifteen year old American."

Why 'American'? Are our fifteen year olds master debaters in your mind? Or is this just another group you like to sneer at and assume yourself superior to?

You reveal yourself with every keystroke, you know.

"I am frankly embarrassed to see the level of argumentation you present..."

'argumentation'..? *guffaw* Well, I guess I'm not conversing with Carol Vorderman here, at any rate.

"I strongly advise you to hush before you make an even bigger fool of yourself than you already have."

Nah, I'll let my words stand up to scrutiny, with my online identity firmly attached to them. I'm that confident. After all, it's more than you've done, isn't it, 'anon'...?

Nick von Mises said...

I too wait with baited breath for the answer to the miner's strike question. If it turns out it was the 70s I'm going to have to retrospectively adjust all my memories, including the year of my birth.

JuliaM said...

Oh, he means I got the decade wrong...?

Sure, I'll hold my hands up in mea culpa to that, now I've read back up-thread, it should obviously have been the 80s.

Not sure how it invalidates any of the points I made about how it's not just Labour that are uniquely bad on the politicisation on the police though.

DBC Reed said...

Don't know that the police were any better when they were left to their own devices: if Peter Hitchens had been around in an early 60's demo somebody like Detective Sergeant Challenor would have punched him in the face and planted a brick on him. 400 odd officers were later dismissed in Operation Countryman when they finally realised that Challenor was not a one-off in the Met.Now that politicians are paying some attention to what is going on in the Police and the Police in turn acknowledge that there is a legitimate public interest in them,things strike me as a lot better.