Occupied England

Sometimes I suspect I confuse my American readers with references to England in the present day which have little relevance to them. I won’t say I’m sorry, because I’m not.

Britain, actually England if you’re one of the people that knows the difference, is the foundation stone of America. We built our country on English common law, traditions, and much else. Now it has the same problems we do, but more so, and without a leader like Trump to attempt to drain their swamp.

That’s unfortunate, but if we proved anything in the 20th century, it’s that America can’t make you free. You have to do that yourself. We can, maybe, prevent outside interference, but if you sell your sovereignty (for a mess of pottage) we can’t even do that, at least legally. And that is where the (not so) United Kingdom finds itself.

You know that I speak, everyday, with like-minded Britons. I do so at The Conservative Woman, which is the best conservative British blog that I’ve found. It’s actually one of the 5 best blogs I’ve seen.

We all remember how it felt here during the reign of error. That’s how it is now in Britain, only more so. Brexit gave them great hope, in many ways they saw it as their independence day, which is true. It is. But their swamp is dragging them back through false negotiations, and reluctance to take responsibility.

So, how are they coping? They’re angry frustrated, depressed, just as we were, only more so, not least because their government is infringing the rights that they (and we) won across the centuries. The important ones, like free speech, are under attack, not by a foreign occupier, but by the British government itself.

Nor do they any longer have the ultimate answer. Long ago they gave up their right to armed resistance. It’s understandable, Great Britain was a real-life peaceable kingdom, where for decades before that happened, no one carried a weapon, because there was no reason at all to. Sadly, now there is, but the right is gone. There is a lesson for America there. A right you give up is gone, forever.

In any case, here’s an article from ConWom as we refer to it. It shows very well the state of freedom in the original home of freedom. I won’t say enjoy, because you won’t. But do take warning, this is the path we will go if we don’t get control of Leviathan.

The only way I can make sense of England today is by understanding it as an occupied country. This, increasingly, is what it feels like – the public ruled over by a vast civil administration which, virtuous in its own rectitude, holds us in contempt. Governments come and go, but they all operate on a similar premise: the public are there to brass up and shut up, and that is that.

Metaphorically speaking, throw a stone in any direction and you will hit an institution run by the occupiers, be it public services, education, police, the legal profession, even the armed forces.

Newspapers publish official figures about crime, sentencing and prosecution rates, sexual abuse, drug abuse, official incompetence in the fields of health and social policy and so on which are shocking and embarrassing in a so-called advanced and prosperous country, but these are soon forgotten. Questions that should be asked are avoided and the army of occupation resumes its work of sedulously acting against the wishes and interests of the people who pay it.

Keep reading England today feels like it’s under an occupying force. It’s powerful, horrifying stuff. Sadly, it is also true.

Advertisements

Law and Disorder in Portland

Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler

There was a story in The Washington Times last Sunday on the Antifa riots in Portland. It was rather interesting.

Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler came under fire over a viral video showing Antifa protesters blocking traffic and harassing drivers, but he says he supports the decision by police to watch from a distance without getting involved.

“I was appalled by what I saw in the video, but I support the Portland Police Bureau’s decision not to intervene,” he said at a Friday press conference. “This whole incident will be investigated.”

The video posted by journalist Andy C. Ngo showed protesters, including members of Antifa and Black Lives Matter, blocking an intersection and attempting to direct traffic at while officers on motorcycle watched from a block away.

I expect that we have all seen it multiple times by now. What we have now is the Mayor’s (He’s also the Police Commissioner) announcing Portland’s surrender to Antifa/BLM. Nothing more, nothing less.

“I’m willing to take criticism all day long from Fox News,” he said. “But I’m not willing to accept criticism from Fox News of the men and women of the Portland Police Bureau.”

Well, I saw the report on Fox news several times. I did not see any criticism of the individual police officers, which would indeed be inappropriate. They are required to follow orders. I did hear, and myself have, severe criticisms of the Portland Police Bureau, the Police Commissioner, and the Mayor. They have failed both the police force and the citizens of Portland.

The mayor argued that law enforcement is in a no-win situation.

“This is the story of Goldilocks and the two bears. The porridge is either too hot or it’s too cold,” Mr. Wheeler told reporters. “At any given moment in this city, the police are criticized for being heavy-handed and intervening too quickly, or they’re being criticized for being standoffish and not intervening quickly enough.”

Poor little snowflake leadership, I wonder if police morale in Portland is below periscope depth like it is in Chicago. I bet it is, with leadership like this.

Tell me again why we have police forces?

Sir Robert Peel, the founder (during the time the Duke of Wellington was Prime Minister) of the London Metropolitan Police, the first modern police force, after which all police forces in the English speaking world were patterned, had nine principles of policing. They are:

  1. To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment.
  2. To recognize always that the power of the police to fulfill their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behavior, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.
  3. To recognize always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing cooperation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws.
  4. To recognize always that the extent to which the cooperation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.
  5. To seek and preserve public favor, not by pandering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humor, and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.
  6. To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public cooperation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.
  7. To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
  8. To recognize always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.
  9. To recognize always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.

I think Mayor/ Police Commissioner Wheeler would do well to review Principles 1, 5, and 9 for starters. At the rate he is going, the people are going to apply number 7 and take back the police power for themselves. Some call that vigilantism, but it is necessary when the police refuse to be the police.

And likely at that point, you will see the military take over because it has reached the point that only Napoleon’s cure will work. His command was to “Give them a whiff of grapeshot.” That’s the progression that the stupid Progressives Regressives have us on.

Anti Leadership

Then there comes this to our attention from Mr Ed at  Samizdata.

Recent testimony from a former Acting Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Sir Craig Mackey indicates that he was present as one of his officers was stabbed to death during the Westminster Bridge attack, and sat in his car and locked the doors, and took advice from his subordinates as to what, if anything, to do. Holding, in an acting capacity, the most important policing role in the UK, he did not get out of the car, in which he was a passenger, to intervene, nor, AFAIK, did he suggest that the car be used as a weapon. Of course, it is much easier for any one of us to sit as armchair strategists as to what we might have done, but would we continue in office and look forward to collecting pensions had we been in Sir Craig’s unscuffed shoes?

Sir Craig told jurors it was his ‘instinct’ to get out of the car, but was in a short-sleeved shirt with no equipment following (a) ministerial meeting. ‘I was conscious my two colleagues were not police officers. If anyone had got out, the way this Masood was looking, anyone who got in his way would have been a target,’ he said. ‘I think anyone who came up against that individual would have faced serious, serious injury, if not death.’

He is right, PC Keith Palmer, an unarmed police officer, was murdered in front of the eyes of his then ultimate commander. An armed officer who was co-incidentally nearby was then able to shoot and kill the terrorist Khalid Masood. Presumably Sir Craig did not see it, on balance, as his responsibility to intervene.

The inquest… …heard that Sir Craig, then acting Scotland Yard chief, and his colleagues locked the car doors because they had ‘no protective equipment and no radio’.

Some have criticised Sir Craig, alleging cowardice. The Daily Mail highlights the contrast with a junior Transport Police officer who fought the London Bridge attackers.

So it’s not impossible these days to find brave people in public service, but what rises to the top? Is the process like flatulence in a bath?

In the last summer of George VI’s reign, a relatively junior RAF officer, Flt-Lt John Quinton DFC gave away the only parachute he had to save a young Air Cadet he was training at the cost of his life: The ultimate zenith of courage and leadership. I am reminded of a quote I read about being a Lieutenant in the (IIRC Imperial) German Army.

To live your life as a Lieutenant is to life your life as an example to your men. Dying as an example is thus part of it‘.

I’m more of the Patton school of leadership than the German, although it is valid enough. I believe in making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country. But neither Imperial Germany nor the United States has much tolerance for cowardice. Apparently, HMG now does. Well, one acts as one sees one’s leaders act. Maybe that is the trouble.

None of us were there, so in a way, it is perhaps unfair to criticize Sir Craig, who bears an honorific once reserved for brave soldiers and sailors, but we have a right to expect better. In my short ROTC career, one of the lessons pounded into me was this about priorities.

  • The Mission. The mission overrides all other conditions. Sir Craig’s mission was the safety of English citizens. He failed grotesquely.
  • Your People. Sometime your people will die in carrying out the mission, they know that, in America, we call it part of the job. It’s suboptimal, but it happens. To have the highest police commander in the country sit immobile in his locked car, not commanding, just spectating, as one of his people is murdered, is so far beyond the pale of acceptable conduct, that I am left almost speechless.
  • Yourself. Well, Sir Craig surely understands about looking out for number one. Personally, I think the proper precedent for honoring Sir Craig is Admiral Byng. And don’t forget the blindfold, otherwise, you’ll be chasing him about the quarterdeck.

Well, such is the leadership of the largest police force in the UK, and people wonder why New York has less violent crime.

Soon we may well once again speak of the gallantry of English s[eaking soldiers on the anniversary of three great battles. But for now, I’m reminded of the USS Hoel (DD-533) which in company with a few other destroyers and destroyer escorts attacked with torpedoes and 5 and 3 inch gunfire Kurita’s main battleship force off Samar, including Yamato with her 18.1 in guns, and saved Taffy Three’s carriers at the cost of all but 85 of the Hoel’s complement.

There are plenty of similar of similar example on both sides of the pond. Such conduct as that of Sir Craig is simply intolerable, and reduces the Metropolitan Police to a joke, but not a funny one.

But there is this, I suppose, he’d be the perfect copresenter for a presentation on cowardice with the Sheriff of Broward County, Florida.

Thoughtcrime in England

Well, we haven’t talked too much about Britain lately. Partly because we have an election coming up, and I agree it may be the most important midterm in our lifetimes, and so we are thinking a good bit about it. But Britain offers us a glimpse of what’s in store for us if we lose, and it ain’t pretty. Jonathan Turley, who is no one’s idea of a conservative, wrote a few days ago:

We have previously discussed the alarming rollback on free speech rights in the West, particularly in France (here and here and here and here and here and here) and England (here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here). Much of this trend is tied to the expansion of hate speech. Now the South Yorkshire police department is making it clear that it does not just want citizens to report crimes but “incidents” involving offensive or insulting comments. This follows an effort to make wolf whistles a crime in England.

His words are true, and they are important, but what struck me on reading this is the sheer number of links on the loss of free speech in Britain. I count it as eleven that he considered important enough to write about. That is shocking and shameful, especially in a country that once led the world in freedom.

Professor Turley wrote this time about the South Yorkshire Police, the very same bunch that covered up the organized mass rape, drugging, prostitution, and sex trafficking of white, underage, Christian girls by (mostly) Muslim gangs. I refuse to use the word grooming because I consider it nothing but a politically correct euphemism to hide the horrendous nature of the practice.

Now, we are informed, they want us to:

“In addition to reporting hate crime, please report non-crime hate incidents, which can include things like offensive or insulting comments, online, in person or in writing. Hate will not be tolerated in South Yorkshire. Report it and put a stop to it.”

Which is, of course, arrant nonsense, and merely designed to make people afraid to voice their opinions or even facts that are verified, for fear of being reported to the police. And yes, the BBC, and almost all other media, print and electronic, are complicit.

It is not a new practice, it was most famously practiced by the East German government agency known as the Stasi. It is reliably reported that 1 in 5 East Germans was a Stasi informer. Sounds like the South Yorkshire Police (and other police agencies in Britain) want to contest that record.

Gavin Ashenden, the former Chaplain to the Queen, also has some thoughts on the matter, and they are very worthwhile.

He [George Orwell in 1984] warned of how a state setting out to control its citizens would do it by manipulating language. He called it doublethink. And the media would follow the same pattern with what he called ‘Newspeak.’  Slowly but surely the reality of things would be hidden by language that covered the truth with a fog.

Each week the news brings more of what we experience as doublespeak in the media. Hate crimes are one of the most corrupting and dangerous ones.

At first sight, it seems almost beyond belief that a police force could decide that thought crime was more important than actual crime.

But in England, that’s what’s happening.

Take for example South Yorkshire police. They have a particularly poor record of dealing with real crime. It was that force that decided to humiliate Cliff Richard by calling in the press helicopter to cover their break in on his house, even though he was innocent. It was they who covered up over the true record of the Hillsborough disaster. And currently, it was they who ignored the mass rape of the Rotherham teenage white girls, by predatory groups of men from one distinctive faith community (known amongst some commentators as the ‘Voldemort community’ – the faith that the media dare not or will not name.)

Heckova a record isn’t it? Anything goes when the authorities want to repress free expression and especially Christianity, which is Cliff Richards real crime.

It’s not as if it’s just happening in S. Yorkshire.

The police get to make it up as it goes along now it seems. Manchester police claim: “Greater Manchester Police now recognises alternative sub-culture hate incidents. These are incidents based on someone’s appearance and include Goths, Emos, Punks and other similar groups. This means they will also record any such incidents as a hate incident. “Other similar groups” What does that mean? Anything the police want it to mean.

One of the practical problems  with pursuing issues of private hate is that you can’t get inside someone’s head to test if it really is hate you are dealing with. What if it’s just dislike, antipathy, fear, distaste, misunderstanding or shyness?

What we are developing, with some speed is the idea and practice of ‘thought crime’ where the police set out to criminalise your feelings and your thoughts. Actually, it’s not even that. It’s what other people feel your feelings and thoughts and opinions are.

Which is where Orwell comes in again. Because hate doesn’t mean hate. It means attitudes the state doesn’t want you to have or express. Hate crime is thought-crime; and thought-crime is state censorship of thought and the expression of thought, which in other places is called ‘free speech.’

Do read the entire article which is valuable. But he is entirely correct, it is nothing less than the government telling you how you are allowed to think, and telling you that you shall be punished if you don’t toe the line. Not to mention that many people will tell them about your heresy. For that is the operative term. It has become a new secular religion and is insanely jealous of its prerogatives.

And do not make the mistake of thinking it is a British or European problem. Do you really think the left in the United States is not exactly like this, as well? How many conservatives have been shouted down, deplatformed, essentially shut up?

Yeah, I’ve lost count, as well.

Second City Blues

Most of you know, I grew up around Chicago, and of all the big cities, it is by far my favorite. It’s always been a rough, can-do sort of place, not exactly incorrupt, but a place where needful things got done. Well, that’s nostalgia for you. It’s not like that anymore, it’s become a war zone. Why? Here’s Jack Dunphy to tell you.

It is an accepted but lamented fact of life among police officers that in order to rise on the promotional ladder, one must endorse the political fashions currently in favor among the city’s politicians. And the higher one ascends on that ladder, the more convincingly one must do so. As a consequence, reflecting the governing principles of almost any city you can name, most police chiefs are liberals, or at least pretend to be with a passing level of feigned sincerity.

As a result of this, the upper levels of most police departments, most certainly those in large cities, become clogged with men and women who can recite leftist pieties as confidently as any MSNBC host, the better to curry favor with politicians whose sponsorship is essential to further promotion. All of these men and women believe themselves qualified to be the next police chief, but the one selected will have proved himself to be the most proficient panderer.

But this creates a problem within a police department, to wit, a division in the rank structure between those at or near the top who adopt the leftist nostrums of the politicians, and those at the bottom who must go out onto the streets each day and confront the very real problems engendered by those very same leftist nostrums.

There exists no more vivid example of this than the city of Chicago, where Hillary Clinton received 84 percent of the 2016 presidential vote, and where there hasn’t been a Republican mayor since 1931. Between Friday afternoon and Monday morning, 74 people were shot in the city,12 of them fatally. In one seven-hour span, from about midnight Saturday to about 7:00 a.m. Sunday, 41 people were shot, five of whom died.

These spasms of violence are sadly characteristic of Chicago, or at least parts of it. And equally as routine as the weekend violence are the Monday press conferences at which Mayor Rahm Emanuel and Chicago Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson put on their angry (or sad) faces and denounce the perpetrators and talk about how the mayhem is “unacceptable.” “What happened this weekend did not happen in every neighborhood in Chicago,” said Emanuel, “but it is unacceptable [that] it happened in any neighborhood in Chicago.”

A question for the mayor: If it really is unacceptable, why do you continue to accept it?

Read the whole thing at The Real Reasons for Chicago’s Deadly Crime Wave, with a hat tip to Second City Copwhose comments are as always critically important.

After years of reading Second City Cop and other blogs about the Chicago police, I say Jack is completely on point here, especially in this paragraph:

But  If you were somehow to identify and arrest every single one of the shooters involved in the weekend violence, you would no doubt discover that nearly all of them came from homes with absent fathers, and that nearly all of them had been previously arrested for violent crime. (They won’t come close to arresting all of the shooters, or even a quarter of them; the website Heyjackass.com reports Chicago P.D.’s murder clearance rate for 2018 so far is 14.6 percent.)

It’s come to head faster and harder in Chicago, but it’s not a Chicago problem. Baltimore, St Louis, San Francisco, and yes, London, and many others as well all face the same problem, for the same reason and are showing the same lack of courage in addressing it. So are a large part of the national (and state) governments.

Daily, I read about kids who have murdered gang rivals (or often, innocent bystanders) whose rap sheets are dozens of pages long, and then a day or two later, I’m reading about how they are out on bond, sometimes with the joke of an ankle bracelet, which supposedly will require them to stay home.

Unless the people vote for real leadership, and unless some is offered to them, it will never change. These cities will become at least as bad as any third world country, and essentially no-go zones for ordinary decent citizens.

I’m reminded of whatever movie it was a few years (or maybe decades) ago that took as it’s premise that Manhattan Island itself had been declared a maximum security prison. It was dystopian then, now it is beginning to appear to be a viable solution.

The first steps are simple, the courts must be reformed so that they give meaningful custodial sentences for serious (especially violent) crime, the police need real leadership, not Democratic politicians, especially not the corrupt ones they have now. After a few years, perhaps one can start to address the reasons (and they are obvious) why so many young men are fatherless.

See, the solution is simple. Sadly implementing it, unless the population itself decides to; is somewhere between unlikely and impossible.

The Lion Awakens

We touched yesterday on the whole Tommy Robinson thing, and there is more to say, best said from America, although many of my British readers will, I think, quietly agree.

You may have heard, and I referred to, the demonstrations Whitehall, just outside the fenced off Downing Street, itself a reminder of the problems that Muslim immigration has brought. The British are possibly the most polite amongst us (except of course at football matches) 🙂 But they have their limits.

Joshuapundit writing on Watcher of Weasels has more and some videos.

Tens of thousands of Brits attended a demonstration in London to free Tommy Robinson yesterday and it was not your typical demonstration. These people were energized and angry. Here’s is Dutch politician Geert Wilders, who addressed the crowd:

Here’s what the crowd looked like outside Number 10 Downing Street, the Prime Minister’s residence. The ‘Tommy Tommy’ chant will be familiar to those familiar with Brit football chants:

When the London Police tried to suppress things, the crowd actually attacked them and a number of the police simply ran from the crowd.

Now, we’ve seen the British police run from Muslim mobs before. But this is the first time they’ve ever had to run from the British people. And high time too. They’re going to have to decide whose side they’re on.

The cops finally regrouped to block the demonstrators as they approached Buckingham Palace while the royal family was present inside.

British media is covering this as ‘a small demonstration of far right groups’ if they’re covering it at all. You take a look at these videos and tell me this was a small demonstration!

Emphasis mine.

Which is, of course, Fake News, the BBC, in particular, is every bit as adept at it as their buddies at CNN. But the truth stands on its own. Here are the videos:

 

And

 

Joshuapundit makes another point as well.

This whole scenario was so obviously reminiscent of the way Stalin used to handle this sort of thing that even a number of people on the Left who are not Tommy Robinson fans in the least are upset by it.

My original thought was that Robinson’s fate was a warning to others that you too can disappear and the papers won’t even write about it. They wanted to make an example out of him. They were probably going to wait a few months for the furor to die down and then have Tommy Robinson conveniently murdered in prison.

That plan seems to have failed miserably. Instead, they have made Tommy Robinson far more popular and a symbol of how the UK  is no longer a free country. If they keep him locked up or if they free him, he will remain a popular hero. And I don’t doubt they realize that murdering him in prison would make him a martyr as well.

Much as I hate to say it, I agree with him. This was an attempt to ‘disappear Tommy Robinson’. But thanks to the internet and some intrepid Britons not only are demonstrations happening in Whitehall but in San Francisco, in Sydney, in fact, wherever free men gather.

I think the elite in Britain have gotten so far from their roots, that they have forgotten the ancient wisdom of the people, who led us all to freedom. Rudyard Kipling put it best.

It was not part of their blood,
It came to them very late,
With long arrears to make good,
When the Saxon began to hate.

They were not easily moved,
They were icy — willing to wait
Till every count should be proved,
Ere the Saxon began to hate.

Their voices were even and low.
Their eyes were level and straight.
There was neither sign nor show
When the Saxon began to hate.

It was not preached to the crowd.
It was not taught by the state.
No man spoke it aloud
When the Saxon began to hate.

It was not suddently bred.
It will not swiftly abate.
Through the chilled years ahead,
When Time shall count from the date
That the Saxon began to hate.

#Free Tommy

ps: Yes, the summit. I haven’t enough information yet to have a valid opinion, maybe tomorrow.

%d bloggers like this: