Monday, December 24, 2018

Gatwick Plot Twist: The Police Are The Drones

Aka "Alexa What Would A Mr Bean Movie Directed By M Night Shyamalan Look Like?"

As I understand it, a major airport was closed down by an unknown number of flying objects, that may or may not be drones, and may not exist at all.

So I'm glad we got that sorted, and got focused on the real job: giving innocent citizens the Cliff Richard treatment.

Julie hits the nail on the head - is this really where the bar is now for the Filth?

If only Jose Mourinho had been lucky enough be assessed on the 'not actually committing a crime' performance metric. But no, back in the real world, people with jobs are expected to perform to actual, objective standards.

Meanwhile, in the best case scenario, we're asked to believe that - yet again - a senior police officer has been bamboozled by a random loony.

How long will we as a society allow naive, middle-aged police officers to be taken advantage of by smooth-talking nutcases? 

A vote of thanks too for the Umanrites industry. Yes, it *is* true that it's perfectly legal for police officers to destroy the lives of innocent citizens without even  basic due diligence, and that just about sums it up how useful the Human Rights Act is for real people.

Come to think of it, this point applies to pretty much the whole left. Innocent citizens have been subject to a home invasion, abducted and had their property trashed, and the left claims this shows how we need to clamp down on the people *reporting* on this. To put it at its mildest: overpaid thugs in blue victimising the innocent is not a convincing case against a free press.

The prize for Best In Show though goes to all the Filth Fanboyz out there sermonising about how the police have to investigate leads, when it's blindingly obvious that if any actual investigating had been done, it would have shown that these people were innocent after about five seconds.

Ditto - with swords, oak leaves and gold cluster - the argument that the police had to use harsh measures considering the seriousness of this case. That's literally the whole point. They weren't dealing with this case, they were doing the exact opposite. Every man hour and every pound spent (not) investigating the innocent is time and money not spent tracking down the real offenders - if indeed offenders there be. Police officers who claim to be investigating serious crimes when they're actually smearing innocent people are the moral equivalent of a hospital consultant booking bogus appointments in his diary then going off to play golf instead.

All of which brings me back to the central point. We now know from this case that all it takes is a bitter ex-girlfriend, cynical co-worker or even just a passing loon to make a phone call and twenty-five thugs in blue will break down your door. Meanwhile, the thugs concerned just have to make sure they don't get convicted of any offenses and they can stay on the gravy train all the way to a gold-plated pension. At least when the Chinese government charges families for the bullet used to kill their relatives, they hold a trial beforehand and only want them to pay for the one bullet. These guys break down your door at the drop of a hat then demand you support them for thirty years in retirement.

If the Tories want to know the real reason why so many citizens seem relaxed about a Marxist kook like Corbyn moving into Number Ten, it's that it doesn't seem such a big change when even a nominally conservative government is apparently fine with thugs in blue appearing on TV to sneer about how 'cooperative' their victims were. They feel confident to do this because they know that our castrato conservative party has implicitly accepted the idea that Britain should be like the first frame of an old Charles Atlas ad with the public as the seven stone weakling trying desperately not to catch the eye of the Big Bully State. 


Just Trevor said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Just Trevor said...

Brilliant post, DJ.

At least when the Chinese government charges families for the bullet used to kill their relatives, they hold a trial beforehand and only want them to pay for the one bullet. These guys break down your door at the drop of a hat then demand you support them for thirty years in retirement.

This has been exercising me recently. In truth, I probably shouldn't say what sort of revenge I want but I might be temporarily mollified if malfeasance in public office attracted an appropriate response, such as imprisonment, dismissal, loss of pension rights, etc. I don't care if it adds hundreds of thousands to the dole queue - much better to pay them £80 per week and remove their ability to do harm than allow them to mischief-make on the public purse.

Penseivat said...

The couple would have been arrested "on suspicion of.......(whatever)". What has not been made clear is what the 'reasonable suspicion' of guilt actually was.
As a young (in service, not age) Police officer, I was told that depriving somebody of their liberty by arresting them was a very serious action and the evidence, or reasonable suspicion, must stand up to inspection. I understand the couple had no previous criminal background, could provide alibis (not checked till much later), and used to fly drones or model aircraft. If I had arrested someone on such grounds, I would have been invited for an interview without coffee with a very senior officer.
It would be interesting to learn what those grounds for arrest were. Perhaps we'll find out if they sue Sussex Police for unlawful arrest?

JuliaM said...

"...could provide alibis (not checked till much later)..."

And secured not by the police, but by the media!

Incidentally, on Twitter (which I'm currently banned from for 7 days, again) it appears the Sussex Police are doubling down on their idiocy: