Monday, May 01, 2006

Words fail me

What was it Peter Hitchens said in "The Abolition of Britain" ? The criminal justice system now enforces 'the letter of a bureaucratic law rather than the spirit of an agreed and respected moral code'.

The Times :

A grandmother spent a night in a police cell after a scuffle with a group of children in which she was threatened with a piece of wood. Brenda Robinson, 66, who does volunteer work at a church in Bournemouth, said that she was given only a glass of water by police before being interviewed the next morning.

She was arrested for assault after challenging the youngsters, one of whom had kicked a football against a family car. She said she had given the boy, 11, “a clip around the ear” after he called her a “f****** bitch”. Mrs Robinson was then threatened in her garden by a teenage boy carrying a lump of wood, and two 13-year-old girls, one of whom starting pushing her. She said that she pulled one of the teenage girls by the hair and threw her out of the garden. Shortly afterwards the police arrived and arrested the grandmother for assault.

Mrs Robinson, who said her daughter-in-law’s partner had been killed by a gang of youths five years ago, told The Times that “the dice were loaded against law-abiding people”.


Dorset Police, eh ? They've got some previous. When the late Harry Hammond, peace be upon him, was assaulted by a crowd of liberal deviants, it was he who was arrested by Dorset's finest and ended up in court.

25 comments:

Anonymous said...

One does wonder whether the police are deliberately trying to destroy society. The acronym that the Chief Constable proudly posts after his name, Martin Baker QPM, could that possibly stand for Quisling Party Member?

Davefa said...

I don't understand how this sort of thing happens in Britain. Cannot the police be sued? if they can, it is obvious it isn't happening enough.

Ian said...

Nice bit of tortuous cross linking there, Laban, since apart from being arrested by the same police force, there is absolutely nothing to connect this event with the late Mr Hammond.

Why stop at four years, I'm sure if you look over the entire history of Dorset Police you might be able to find another one or two "similar" events, after all, they must make thousands of arrests of innocent people all the time.

Perhaps Hammond's case might have been a good example of Hitchen's "spirit of an agreed moral code" being bypassed, seeing as he was only expressing opinion in a non-violent way, but I can't see how this equally applies to someone who hits an 11 year old boy and goes on to drag a 13 year old girl by her hair.

I'd fully agree that the "dice is loaded against law-abiding people", but are you trying to tell me that thumping children constitutes law-abiding behaviour ?

Anonymous said...

Ian - the 13-year old slags were trespassing on her property and behaving in a threatening manner and they had a weapon in the form of a piece of wood. The lady has the right to eject intruders from her property. Or maybe not, in today's British police state.

Sadly, for the boy, that was probably the first clip round the ear he had had in his life. A passenger on the welfare state - meaning other people's money - for life. In and out of prison, gang fights and being patched up on the NHS, drugs, burglarly, rape, grievous bodily harm. Out of control.

Ian said...

anon,

The reason why the kids were in her garden in the first place was that she assaulted an 11 year old boy for the capital offense of "insulting a granny".

I agree that she had a right to eject people from her property, but perhaps we shall leave it up to someone more knowledgable as to whether dragging a 13 year old girl by her hair constitutes "reasonable force" or not.

I also agree that being threatened with a lump of wood allows you to take defensive action, but since when does this include taking it out on someone else, she didn't seem to have assaulted the boy with the wood ?

Seeing as the boy with the lump of wood was probably associated with the same one she'd thumped earlier, who is in fact "defending themselves" here ?

Now, I, like you, have little doubt these kiddies may well have been yobs and chavs of the lowest order, and I'd dearly love a law that allowed me dispense instant justice and knock the shit out of their kind for insolant behaviour if I were in similar circumstances, but unfortunately there is no such law, yet.

Crying foul in defense of law abiding citizens assumes you have the moral advantage, that becomes lost when you've started beating up kids, which is clearly not allowed.

And since when was this particular 11 year old a "passenger of the welfare state", any more than another 11 year old at state school ? Not only have you managed to conjure up a complete image of these kids from thin air but you've got a future premonition for them too.

And where this all ties in with Harry Hammond I am unsure.

Anonymous said...

I know you love ranting when racially motovated attempted murder is rewarded with a fine and some light community service:

http://www.sheffieldtoday.net/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=58&ArticleID=1476452

The Happy Rampager said...

Ian, from your last message one would assume that you approve wholeheartedly of thugs menacing and attacking people who have insulted them and dared challenge their right to harass and disturb. And you think this is 'defending themselves' how exactly?

You might also think drunken louts are fully justified in shoving people to the ground if they so much as dared to shout at them. In 'self-defence' of course. After all, anyone who remonstrates with drunken idiots must be the really dangerous ones everybody needs to defend themselves from.

Anonymous said...

Ian - Yes, I can conjure a picture of these two little 13 year old slappers out of thin air. I'm talented like that. They are a couple of dangerous little slags, serial truants, "happy slappers", completely feral.

Too bad and all that, but frankly, I don't give a toss about them. I do care about a 66 year old woman begin assaulted by violent young criminals who have no thought for the consequences, because there won't be any consequences. They may have to go for an hour of "counselling" during which they will crack their gum, paint their nails and talk on their mobile phones.

Laban said...

"are you trying to tell me that thumping children constitutes law-abiding behaviour ?"

In some circumstances, yes.

Including this one.

Anonymous said...

The BBC gives the impression it approves of rather strict law enforcement methods when practiced abroad.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4967108.stm

DumbJon said...

And Liberals don't mind unleashing the full majesty of the law on 'children' when it suits their needs:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/...

...england/manchester/4886014.stm

Meanwhile, human fallout is allowed to make whole areas of Britain uninhabitable, ignored by the police - who don't deal with 'petty crimes' - and positively supported by Liberals who keep themselves on +5 minutes alert ready to spring to the defence of the welfare trash of tomorrow and smear anyone who stands up to them ('beating up kids' puleaze).

Hey, if our scum sucking Liberal fraternity want to support the right of semi-human trash to turn life into a living hell for anyone within a country mile of their taxpayer-provided housing, then that's what they should do. Just don't keep telling us that you're 'tough on crime' or that you support the mass production of cautions because you think they help rehabilitation. For once in their worthless lives, why can't they tell the truth ?


(Ah yes, because the public would boil them in oil if they knew what they really believed)

Bruce said...

...she assaulted an 11 year old boy for the capital offense of "insulting a granny"...

Well, Ian, you've declared your hand there nicely.

Personallly, I don't wnat to live in a world where a granny disciplining a child is an 'assault'.

You young advocates of what I regard as such perverse views can either have your Brave New World, and I will move somewhere where old fashioned common sense still prevails. Or alternately my kind will gain the upper hand and it is you who will have to accept it or leave.

It seems that is what it is coming to.

Stuart said...

Granny was obviously a convenient 'soft target' for HM Plod; one recorded "crime" and one instant clear-up to make the figures look good for the politburo.

Dixon of Dock Green has become the new Stasi trooper proudly serving the socialist regime.

JuliaM said...

Of course she was - she didn't spit, swear, kick or fight her arrest.

For the lazy copper, an easy choice - much easier than arresting the little darlings who know their 'rights'.......

Ian said...

I see people are unlikely to realise this is not a clear cut case after all.

from your last message one would assume that you approve wholeheartedly of thugs menacing and attacking people who have insulted them

But it was the granny thumping a boy for insulting her, so by your definition, who exactly is the thug ? Does one instantly shed thuggishness when you reach a certain age or have grandchildren ?

When does "acting like a thug" suddenly become "discipline" ?

Mrs R should _not_ have used physical force in the first place, and certainly not against an 11 year old who was not a relation. It was uncalled for and aggravated the situation. She lost the "spirit of the agreed moral code" there and then.

I am dismayed that people honestly feel her initial action was somewhat justified, it is precisely what being a thug is all about, sorting out problems through violence.

And I still fail to see how this ties in with Harry Hammond.

Umbongo said...

So here is a 66-year old woman facing (at least) 4 11-13 year-olds one of whom had (repeatedly) slammed a football into her car. She asks the culprit to desist and he doesn't. What, Ian, should she have done? What would you do - particularly if the culprit calls you a ****ing ***!! ?

The Happy Rampager said...

Ian, it's OK to admit to being completely hard of thinking. There's no shame in it. After all, it's obvious that you are when you fail to recognise there's an intermediate step between a lad kicking a ball against a car and same lad calling the lady in question a 'fucking bitch'. That intermediate step would be the old lady asking the lad to stop causing a nuisance. So you see, Mrs R did not use physical force in the first place, your making an assumption that she did leads us to wonder about your level of intelligence.

That the lad chose to swear at her in response to a reasonable request is 'escalating the situation'. So too is the lad's friends' decision to enter her garden carrying weapons. Why don't you condemn them for escalating the situation? Why do I have a hard time picturing you telling them to step back and count to ten?

Because you just don't think people who don't like having footballs kicked against their cars deserve any sympathy, while thugs who wield planks of wood with which to brain old ladies do, and you won't hear a word against them? Which might mean that you weren't necessarily a moron, but it would make you a scumbag and part of the reason why the law is weighted against law-abiding people.

Squander Two said...

> When does "acting like a thug" suddenly become "discipline" ?

If you have to ask, you'll never understand the answer.

In other news, one man's freedom fighter isn't another man's bloody terrorist.

And the answer to the question "Where do we draw the line?" is "Here."

Anonymous said...

Its the same old problem. The law is supposed to blind, to be fair. But under the PC conditions this has been taken to its illogical conclusion which by treating respectable people the same as scum, in effect sides with the scum.

Two or three generations ago this would never have become an official matter, any local plod (or perhaps their parents) involved in this would have given one or two of the kids a clip round the earole and told them to behave or they would be in real trouble. The idea that the law would take their side against a 66 yr old woman would have been laughable.

Bruce said...

Same nonsense happens here in Australia after campaigns against police 'corruption' meant that all cases had to be documented and follow bureaucratic guidelines. Which of course means the thugs learn how to get around the letter of the law.

I've been a victom of 'corrupt' policing myself in the supposed bad old says of the 1970's. But I'll take those days with their 'corruption' over the current thug rule anytime, please.

In fact I want the stocks and pillories back, and a few public executions.

Bring back the Birch!

Alan G said...

Ian,

I truly and sincerely hope that one day, you will find a group of young scoundrels using the side of your car as a target for their football. When they call you a F****** W***** and tell you to P*** Off (after you've asked them nicely to stop), I'm sure you'll know exactly how to handle the situation.

In fact, you might like to enlighten us all as to how you would personally deal with it. We all fancy a good laugh.

Ian said...

That the lad chose to swear at her in response to a reasonable request is 'escalating the situation'.

Agreed, but it is still not an excuse to use physical violence as discipline, especially against an 11 year old, and especially if that 11 year old is not a relation.

Did the yob comply with her request ? Did he stop kicking the football or continue ? Perhaps discipline would have been acceptable if the yob continued to kick the football against the car, but the report seems to imply the discipline was for insulting behaviour.

If you legislate that it is acceptable for anyone to use instant violence against someone who "insults" them, then that's a carte blanche to the real thugs, it wont help the real victims at all.

After all, what is an "insult" ? "Fucking Bitch" ? "Jesus is a Idiot" ? "Kill All Infidels" ? "Immoral Lesbian" ? "I dont like the colour of your hoodie" ? You tell me if that's going to work.

Two or three generations ago this would never have become an official matter, any local plod (or perhaps their parents) involved in this would have given one or two of the kids a clip round the earole and told them to behave or they would be in real trouble.

I am totally in agreement with this statement, and sympathetic with what bruce concludes, I'd be quite happy for the parents or the police to handle matters and deal out instant justice even in the form of "clips round the ear".

But then of course you need to have faith that policemen will be capable of using their better judgement, which is clearly not the opinion of people here, who think they are all a bunch of Politically Correct Stasi-Gestapo Thugs based on two isolated and totally unrelated incidents four years apart.

Perhaps the legislation is at fault not the executors ?

Still no answer on how this ties in with Harry Hammond.

Ian said...

alan g, to be honest, if a teenage boy called me a "fucking wanker" I'd have a quiet chuckle at the irony of his statement.

Davefa said...

Britain is fucked. Notrhing can be done about these kids since they are fully protected from any consequence of anything they might decide to perpetrate. The only problem with Clockwork Orange was that it was far too conservative.

The Happy Rampager said...

Agreed, but

"I am not going to stop supporting nasty little thugs over anyone they victimize."

You tell me if that's going to work.

Why not tell me how refusing to use your head is going to work?