Dale Farm Travelers and “human rights”

Given how long this saga has been running, could we have ‘traveler’ spelled with only one ‘L’ please?  As to the rest of it, Dispatches got to the root.  We don’t like what some travelers do and other travelers don’t stop them doing.  This involves miserable criminality from fly tipping, criminal damage and on to dismal con tricks, slavery and clowns who think armed robberies don’t hurt anyone.  Their culture is as internally racist as any.

The next consideration is why a council is spending £18 million of these bad neighbours when they won’t spend much smaller amounts on non-traveler scum.  Caught in the middle of current clown economics are decent travelers and many more of our own, stuck without affordable housing.  I doubt people hate travelers because they are travelers and anyone who does is a clown.  Being pissed off with people because of criminality, nuisance, filth creation and bad neighbourliness is a different matter.

No high-blown human rights issues really matter in any of this, as the arguments apply to all of us and thus use of this stuff for one small group is inflammatory.  We have a problem with poverty and social order across the board and refuse to deal with it. There should be sites for travelers with decent facilities and they should agree to stop protecting their own when they criminally transgress and stop using common resources without respect and forcing clean ups from our taxes.  But there should be housing for our own poor and isn’t, so is it remotely fair to single out travelers for favourable treatment?  What human right gives to one and denies another?

Eight Amish men are in jail (or were recently) because they refused to put orange safety triangles on their buggies.  This is a much smaller breach of law than what’s gone on at Dale Farm.  It’s stupid, but then that’s what we are in these situations.  They way the travelers present themselves as family people is fine – yet if this is how they came across in dealings with us, unless we’re turds, there would be no problem.  The truth is a long way from this.

I’d grant planing permission on the former scrap yard with severe conditions of tenancy making evictions of bad behaviour reasonably easy.  I’d build social housing with the same conditions.  Like many others, Dale Farm travelers are victims of their own scum – it’s time to deal with scum across the board and stop clown notions of racism being forced on us.

Human Rights My Arse in Burton’s Window

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1392349/Paedophile-illegal-immigrant-finally-thrown-Britain-claiming-deportation-breach-HIS-human-rights.html is the story of a massive waste of money on a Pakistani paedophile, finally deported.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1392273/Burglar-freed-human-rights-look-children-history-violence.html is about a scrote threatening a headmistress and using the HRA to get out of jail.

The Human Rights Act has been around a long time now.  It’s worse than useless and typical of how lawyers make legislation that merely gives lawyers rights to earn fees.  Most of us can’t use it because we can’t afford it – a typical way real human rights are flouted.  We need our own act in order that this European mush wastes away.

The human rights industry cares little for individuals in the normal run of their lives.  We need such protection against monsters foisted in our midst who would be run out of town on a rail if it weren’t for the law.

We are soon going to find that criminals, many of whom ‘hide’ revolting crimes in drugs, prostitution and violence behind ‘family life’, supported by poor police and local authority attitudes and welfare, can rest easier and victims have even more to fear from ‘due process’.

I’m not sure where the ritual involving Burtons came from, but victims may well have to start engaging in it to try and embarrass our clown establishment into action.  This idiot legislation gives nothing to the many, whilst protecting the violators of human rights.

Dennis O’Connor Tells The Truth: police and politicians have been lying for 30 years

BBC News is giving air-time today on a belated report and research by HMIC. Police have given up our streets to antisocial crime over the last 30 years.  In the meantime of media space they air a ‘death by Powerpoint’ sketch demonstrating academics have realised they are so dull it is a good idea to give presentations in underwear.  I have so far constrained my own activities in this area to telecommuting, in trollies but sans webcam.

Dennis O’Connor is right.  Our police have become an utter disaster, though this extends far beyond their inability to form decent response teams.  Other agencies are as bad or much worse.  Courts, Town Hall agencies and politicians fail us almost entirely, and this is often in spite of officers trying to do decent work.  The silence of human rights institutions on these matters, crucial to our own people’s well-being, whilst pratting about on immigrant issues, sexism and diversity is a crime.

The jaundiced eye, made so perhaps by suffering as a victim, might see Dennis Connor as very conveniently late and post ZanyPFNulabour, wanting boots on the ground just as ACPO will want to remove them to protect its chocolate-dipped strawberry budget.

What we need is new, working legislation, legal representation for victims, and for victims to be brought into the resource equation, forcing bureaucrats to do the right thing by them with the thought of severe compensation claims when they dump recidivists next door.

Dennis is not really talking solutions.  Neighbourhood Watch and the rest have already failed.  We need legislation to stop noise, threats, abuse and the presence of behaviour that makes us feel threatened.  The BBC gave air-time to an ACPO fool and a Police Authority clown.  They rolled out the usual platitudes and were not asked any of the serious questions or directly confronted by victims.  Both men should be sacked.  I heard every one of their feeble excuses years ago, as nothing was done over more than seven years.

What we need starts with cops who can and will do something.  They need to be able to seize noise making equipment (with aggressive  noise, and noise that intrudes into other people’s homes being something we effectively ban) and treat disorder like domestic violence and street gangs on the basis that it harms others who have to witness the rubbish.  If kids won’t pay attention to elders and treat them with respect and are engaged in bullying, we need severe censure of what allows this, including non-parenting parents and schools.  Evidence, and how we gather and present this, needs to be effective, and we have to stop people just being able to lie about what they are doing and ‘going no comment’.  Cases need to be properly recorded and collated, and the collated evidence needs to be usable in a manner that stops repeat perpetrators and all the agencies from escaping responsibility, blaming victims and claiming (like Inspector Gadget) nothing can be done.

Once again, we are in a situation in which the very people who have been failing for 30 years are put in charge of change and can lay claim they have been doing something new and we should wait for the outcome.

Gadget, Copperfield and contributors to such blogs are not wrong per se.  They get that the situation is crap right and that lots of silly crap is reported by idiots.  Their bosses are clearly overpaid toadies.  Yet there is very little focus on their own role in not being able to report this openly and get things changed.  They are cowards, but this needs to be seen in the sense that we all are, confronted with the threats of losing our jobs and what whistle-blowing really means.  We need reporting systems that understand this ‘cowardice’ and do not have them.  IG and his mortgage slaves are only like the rest of us, and we get pretty nasty once we get into denial and the protection of our own interests.  Indeed, we know from research and deep in our hearts that we blame victims for their plight, and are scared to publicly report what we feel as the truth.  If this was not the case, we would not need confidentiality in research to get people to respond.

A key issue that is not addressed is that of lying complainants.  The existence of these clowns makes it difficult for anyone to complain, not least because relevant authorities will smear anyone suggesting they are not doing their job.  Cops and other professionals lie to, and the presence of bureaucratic bullying and its extent is a scandal.  Evidence is key, yet the difficulties in gleaning it expose victims in almost every case.  The authorities use this to their own advantage to suppress complaints.

The whole model needs to be reworked, starting with work on who will do the reworking.  What we get in this country is bureaucratic non-solutions that could never address the real problems.  The IPCC is a classic example, probably meant to fail in case we ended-up with an organisation that could do anything about stopping miscarriages of justice.  There was plenty of good talk, then all was lost because we have to complain to police forces for a decision on investigation.  It’s even worse in forensics, where no investigation of bent evidence is even in the remit.

What we should do is get evidence of very serious cases out in the open and work out how to stop them happening again, admitting that they do despite (and because of) ‘senior promises’ they won’t.  Gadget et al need to be out in the open too – not personally – I agree this is mortgage capability suicide – but through a proper reporting system run on behalf of the public and victims.

The solutions are about partnership working, but the problem is also about easy bullshit about partnership working.  Senior promises are that it all bliss and excellence, the reality that it is like platting snot, says the ‘partnership inspector’ over a pint, planning his return to shifts after only a month with Town Hall dorks.

A huge problem I’ve been taking a look at is that our cops are working in a state of exasperation about louts and ‘evil poor’, and have lost the kind of tolerance needed with ordinary people in an odd bit of trouble, or have become victims.

The problem, in short, is that we are too cowardly even to discuss the real problems in the open.  Much that  appears ‘open’ such as media debate is , in fact, very closed.  It’s actually a disgrace that ACPO clowns and similar get the air-time without being surrounded by victims with axes.  One might not want quite that in practice, but we don’t get the real problems out.  One get today started to bleat on about policing being complex and having to balance terrorism issues and needs against dealing with antisocial criminals.  That’s right, “get”.  Another “get” went on about who victims would feel better if they knew cops knew who the troublemakers were and fixed them up with support when they weren’t there.  Cops already know who the troublemakers are and tell victims there is nothing they can do (only to lie later that they did say this).  The ‘answers’ on offer have already failed.  If our senior idiots think they can get away with this, the answer is to sack them until one paid fool comes up with something that works.

Victims only tend to be believed once they are dead, or can be made into politically useful pawns in speeches of promises, or given ‘jobs’ like Sarah Payne or Helen Newlove.  These two excellent women sound  far more convincing and just as ‘professionally’ competent as the overpaid dullards in politics and senior positions.  We should be learning from this and working out we don’t need ‘super-individuals’ who need massive sinecures to be ‘motivated’ to take jobs – they and attitudes towards pay are part of the problem.

Much as I am disgusted by ‘evil poor’ behaviour, the real problem lies amongst the rest of us and our ignorance, selfishness and ‘morality’.  We possess the first two, lack the latter and foist the pretensions of politesse and etiquette soaked-up as moral on all argument, killing it dead.  Tell me that some dork on £150K a year and free trips to Japan to read dismal papers a nurse thought up trying to qualify herself out of the job driving her up the wall as her own, who kills Baby Q is not more criminal than some low IQ thief who might be otherwise with a factory job.  The rest of us have become turkeys who won’t vote for against Xmas because it comes every day for us on the back of other people’s work and misery.  Baby Q scapegoats even persist in telling us the systems they claimed to create while in sinecure, were wonderful.  How many crap senior cops told us the same in the last 30 years and must have been lying on antisocial crime, killing the Askews and Pilkingtons of this world?  How many politicians knew they were lying and found this entirely convenient?  My own MP is one and still a “member” (think dick) of our illustrious, honest new Parliament – the one about to throw several million on the dole scrap-heap, with LibDems hanging around like professional wailers at the funeral.

To get at real solutions to rotten orchard problems like policing, we need new thinking at radical levels.  I mean new, not some clapped-out Marxism or even Vince Cable (likeable as he is).  My guess (and we need guessing) is we need thought experiments.  If robots were like Data and could do all the work, what “morality” would we want to extract from a “work ethic” – one for robots?  We would hardly build them to look down on us as evil poor, nicotine stained, idle scum, would we?  “Robots” do a lot of our work for us now.  We could currently import ‘cheap cops’ from abroad (Bahrain does this).  We do this throughout the rest of our system.  Sure it makes ‘sense’ to bring in IT skilled people who can count (most of us are really not very numerate or good at logical thinking) from India.  Bringing in in smarter people seems to make sense until you realise 90% of our taxi drivers are imports too (even if second generation) and know the white denizens one used to see are not likely to have become university teachers (though I did), and the people who would otherwise be taxi drivers are probably unemployed.  No I’m not racist, grow up.

The links in this blog come from Zemanta – useless, but an example of what technology might do for us once we get it right.  We need to deploy technology in our public debate to stop the overpaid liars who dominate it now continuing with the pretences in which we remain spectators.  Newsnight and other middle-class dross is some modern version of the gladiator circus.  Paxman is actually a limp arty-farty, not Spartacus, a palooka there to set up politicians to look as though they can box.  We have become so dumb we don’t realise today’s report means everyone who told us police were doing their job has been lying.  No, don’t take this to mean I think all are cops are useless shirkers and liars, grow up.

The real solutions probably involve freeing people up from financial dependence on jobs and new forms of discipline.  What we are doing is continuing with a core programme of dud assumptions about life that doom us to failure.  We can’t even get a cop to the door to sort out noisy neighbours, bullying, intimidation and petty crime, and only deal with petrol bombers after they have been signalling intent for 20 years.  “Success” is simply about earning enough to live away from such problems by containing them where we aren’t.  This makes us more evil than any “evil poor”.  Imagine Fiona Pilkington’s story told as Preistley’s  ‘An Inspector Calls’, and then think that some overpaid arty-arses at our National Theatre have reworked the play without thinking this up.

Familial DNA and Human Rights

When we nick people we take their DNA. It’s the equivalent of taking a bit of spit.  I’d queue up to give mine as a public duty.  There is a database and it sometimes throws up a match to serious unsolved crimes.  Now some near misses are turning up,indicating near relatives may be implicated.  Some ‘Sleeper’ serial killer has turned up this way.

Does anyone have a decent explanation of the civil rights angles on this?

Sink Estate Crime: towards some new answers

Crime affects us all.  Much of it is being passed over as antisocial behaviour, or hidden as ‘expense scandals’ and ‘economic bubbles’.  We have little grip on the true extent of it all.  The history of a can of tuna probably contains much that those of us privileged to live in the affluent ‘North’ would see as criminal.  I saw footage of a Chinese woman burning herself to death in protest at the demolition of her home, and of another buried alive trying to do the same thing.  As a kid, I imagined the Royal Navy sorting out the ‘Opium Wars’, not making the way clear for our traders to use the stuff as currency in criminal economics.  We are now in Afghanistan, allegedly supporting democracy, yet vast amounts more heroin is being produced there than under the vile Taliban and 30,000 Russians a year now dying as addicts.

In Britain, we generally see crime as the stuff our police occasionally catch people doing and sometimes prosecute them for.  We have no reliable figures even on this.  The British Crime Survey generally finds about twice as much crime as police report, but it seems an equal amount of ‘antisocial behaviour’ is going on, with police only recording about half of this too.  When I talk to people  who commit crime of this kind, they tell me they rarely get caught.  I don’t trust what they say much, but I’ve seen first-hand a couple committing crime on a daily basis, visited over 200 times in seven years barely prosecuted for what they really have done, and all relevant authorities engage in denial of the extent of the trouble they cause.  Responsible neighbours and informants have told me they have been doing this for more than 20 years, hiding behind their children in a wave of welfare-sponsored criminality and harassment.  I have been able to uncover this story over and over again talking to police, social and housing workers and pub-based ethnographies.  First-hand, my partner and I have found that all relevant authorities will engage in character assassination and lying against victims (bullying of a severe and cowardly nature) to conceal their bungling and the extent of the problem.  There is a fatal nexus of corrupt politicians, senior bureaucrats and inadequate street-level officers acting against the interests of crime victims to present a false public picture of the extent of the problems and what is really (not) being done about them.  This is reinforced by manipulating statistics that have no validity and a farrago of public relations initiatives presenting ‘success stories’ as though these are the general case, or about to become so.

The issue is not really one of policing per se.  Cops are well aware of the problems and one can find the stories almost everyday in police blogs. Inspector Gadget is a good example and he has also published a book.  We  should be deeply concerned by this ‘Samizdat’ and Gadget’s own view that to come out in the open would mean he would be both unable to do what he can as a ‘common sense copper’ and be unable to pay his mortgage.  We should not see cowardice in his approach.  Given the treatment meted-out on myself and my partner by the authorities as simple victims of criminal harassment and violence, his approach is both brave and sensible.  We should look to the underlying censorship of honesty in our alleged, and once hard fought for democracy.  Many others, across the public sector, contribute through blogs of their own or by commenting on such.  Whistle-blowers still face almost certain injustice and cruel treatment and legislation to protect them is useless and was probably intended to be so.  Most of us believe Clive Ponting was right to break the law to tell us of the General Belgrano scandal and would congratulate the jury’s ‘perverse judgement’ to acquit him under pressure from the law and the trial judge.  We also know the authorities usually win and that we are powerless in the face of power.

Facts are very difficult to come by in this area.  This should surprise us given the number of people paid to produce them.  There are reams of alleged statistics, though as they hardly address the underlying reality at all, they are not valid statistics in the scientific sense, only in the much older sense of the term meaning ‘numbers of the State’.  They are as far from science as any Soviet production figures.  One blog, by Crime Analyst, seeks to make sense of the mess.  A heroic effort, but one I believe doomed by the faulty production techniques involved in the originals.  Nonetheless, his group have worthwhile messages, rather than the ‘massages’ we are routinely given.  We will be told in the forthcoming election that crime has been reduced.  This is very likely a lie.  The British Crime Survey does not report until the end of July and last year reported no real reductions against police recorded figures that did.  HMIC has just reported a massive likely amount of ‘antisocial behaviour’ which should really be treated as crime too.  Our trust in the ‘number of the State’ generally is at a new low in the polls.  We should have no trust in Nulabour hymn-sheet  singers reporting crime reduction with straight faces.  We know they are lying because their lips are moving, yet need to remember it won’t be long before the next lot are doing the same.  The police blogs are full of reports on the cuffing of crime to meet targets and ensure the bonuses and reputations of Senior Management.

I’m not being cynical, other than in telling the truth as I have found it.  This vile situation need not pertain.  There are valid ways to get at the facts, some of them involving genuine statistical practice.  Much current, corrupt practice needs to be swept away; but we should remember here that they can always find a carpet to sweep corruption under and very few seem to have been made accountable in the Parliamentary expenses scandal and more were caught out in a simple consultancy sting recently.  Various Iraq enquiries have left us with no real idea why we entered the illegal war, how many we have killed, or why our fate was left in the hands of a man so stupid he advocated the frog-marching of drunks to cash-machines to pay instant fines.  We do not know why David Kelly died, only that there has been no inquest, some pathologists think the investigation was very dodgy and much has been sealed by the Government chosen judge, a man we might have rejected on his previous ‘form’ if given the opportunity.  Analysis of many miscarriages of justice does not give us reason to trust to honest disclosure in our legal system, and each recent scandal in child non-protection has revealed cover-ups of inane, bungling practice, previously reported in performance management as good or satisfactory.  Many high profile police actions have also been disasters.  De Troux (Belgian), Guildford Four, Birmingham Six, Black Panther, Yorkshire Ripper, Ritual Abuse, Nico Bento, Soham and many others.  One might search for Mervin Punch and the term ‘rotten orchard’ to get some academic perspective on this.  There are good examples, the Morecambe cockle-picker deaths being one.  The same detective involved in this seems to have taken over a complete mess in the Jersey children’s’ home affair.  It could well be that incompetence across our legal system is the norm.  Genuine statistical thinking and practice would at least factor this possibility in.  The ‘cure’ for incompetence comes in its recognition, the  Catch 22 being the incompetent won’t be capable of the recognition.  Public sector blogs are full of accusations of, usually, high-level incompetence and sheer self-interest.

The way into the facts requires people who are independent of the power-interests to do the investigations, and a form of public scrutiny that prevents cover-up in disclosure and decision-making.  To an academic these are routine points, as is the acceptance this is very difficult to achieve, though not impossible to approximate to.  We routinely screw up as academics on this.  Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, published in 1962 is a classic on how even science is screwed by vested interests.  Two of my own areas, motivation to work and human resource management are chronically skewed to a management perspective at textbook level – nearly all management teaching is now, and just look at some of the donkeys it has been producing, typically claiming to learn only self-interested lessons.

Academic work sometimes needs to be complex and nit-picking in method and detail.  Some laboratory work is close to miraculous, as the actor-network theorists say.  We tend to write to exclude criticism, always failing because there is a ‘faster gun’ out there.  Too often though, we write bureaucratic prose, shit that just looks clever, or fits the rules of a journal, publisher or clique of self-interested twats running a  conference in an exotic or convenient location.  I’m no doubt supposed to be above words like ‘twat’,  but can easily demonstrate the language in which academics do slag each other off and exert their superiority over others.  It’s all about as cunning as a ‘new man’ trying to get his rocks off amongst feminists. The politically correct words change over time, but faking sincerity and the comedy of orgasm are always with us.  I can point to work by academics suggesting swearing can boost morale in organisations and might be justifiably encouraged.  What really concerns me is the way we exclude much that is important simply on the basis of manners we have soaked up.  These ‘manners’ allow the most dreadful insults and cruelty to be exerted by ostensibly very polite bureaucrats.

Much across the public sector blogs will be dismissed as ‘canteen gossip’, ‘axes being ground’, the ‘jealousy of failures’, ’emotive’, the ‘grumblings of malcontented employees’ and in many more ready-to-hand ways.  We will be merely anecdotal or just one opinion.  When confronted with a book of a hundred respected scientists stating ‘Why Einstein is Wrong’, the great man said one voice would have been enough, had it been right.  None of us are claiming to be right, perhaps just claiming a right to be heard in fair consideration.  This is well-known to be very difficult in practice.  We can, in fact, only approximate to this in the purest social research.   The excuses used to dismiss what anyone has to say are rarely justified, and often amount simply to the blatant use of power by those controlling resources, effectively telling those who cannot afford to do research to go and do the full Monty before they can say anything that will not be regarded as worthless.

One thing we  do know about evidence is that it does not come in the form of some kind of natural observation language.  It is spun in theory.  We also know language is very complex and one needs to know a lot about the generic frame of reference in which it is used, the practices in which it is understood.  Academic language on this includes phrases like ‘common assumption paradigms’ and the need to ‘deconstruct’ arguments apparently different to discover whether similar assumptions in them are being missed in the ostensible opposition.  If you don’t know what ‘paradigm’ or ‘deconstruct’ means in this sense, you might be tempted to go to a standard dictionary.  This won’t help.  You need to know more of the context of the words to understand them as meant here.  You could waste days and only bark up the gum tree.  The journey into research methods should challenge anyone’s most heartfelt assumptions, not just give you a set of tools and words to argue one side  of a case better like a lawyer.  Highly trained people can cock-up altogether, as an examination of the few miscarriages of justice mentioned above demonstrates.  Much journal published academic work is utter drivel, and utter drivel, in practised hands can pass as the real thing as Alan Sokal’s hoax showed in part. Meaningless tosh got me to many international venues, where I generally told the truth as I saw it, something that would not have got me on the plane.

What research should do is try to creatively ‘guess’ what the real problems are, through talking, listening, observation and taking account of what can be established in history.  Experiments are great of you can do any.  These are often inordinately difficult in science.  You only have to think of the Large Hadron Collider at CERN, where billions have been spent and miles of territory consumed to build a device to tell us something about almost the smallest stuff we can imagine.  To get ‘smaller’ we might have to take over all of Jupiter to find a graviton, or build something of inter-galactic scale.  Science is often done on the cheap through thought experiments and we should see more of these in social research.  Wittgenstein did this in technical philosophy with his language games.  I used to create fictional alien races (no they didn’t do the anal probing thing now standard in highly unimaginative UFO tales) with manners and language very different from ours.  Once students got round to decrying such behaviour as impossible for human beings, I would reveal my ‘aliens’ were, in fact, human tribes well-known in anthropology.   The penny dropped for some; to others I remain an insufferable smart-arse.  In my Dad’s day it was worse.  He was branded a queer because he read books. He might have been the world’s first gay rugby league player, but he wasn’t.

A Letter to the Knacker-in-Chief

Dear Chief Constable,

My partner and I are beginning to recover from more than 7 years of what we are tempted to call ‘utterly dismal policing’.  The problems are actually much wider than this and it is unfair to lay all the blame on your force.  It is sadly clear our political and legal systems have reached a point of decadent decay.  Instead of being helped, we have been left exposed to danger and frankly beaten up on by your force, Town Hall agencies and politicians we will never vote for again.  I would ask you to take this ‘beating’ into serious consideration of whether criminal charges can be brought.  We have not been directly attacked in a straightforward physical manner, but our health can be shown to have suffered severely and there can be little doubt malicious intent has been involved.  I have suffered physical beatings paying rugby league and as a cop, and can attest they are nothing in comparison with this bureaucratic bullying of already traumatised victims.

We like most of your officers we meet.  They are not the problem in the main.  They tell the same story most of the time, one amplified over the country in police blogs and books such as those produced by ‘Inspector Gadget’.  This doesn’t get to the crux of the matter, but is a fair place to start, not least in wondering why officers who attend violent incidents with so much bravery are ‘cowed’ into private and anonymous revelation of what is really going on.  The story is that they can’t do the job they joined to do because of a collapsed legal system and Senior Management Teams farcically out of control and demonstrating chronic self-interest.  This is much deeper than crass allegations I can remember from motorists and crooks who would say I was only acting against them to gain ‘promotion points’.

We can only conclude, after 7 years that nearly killed us and done irreparable damage to our health at a time when we were already otherwise ill and vulnerable, that there is nowhere to complain to.  Complaints systems across all agencies are not independent, and none have proper mechanisms to collect evidence in a timely and direct manner.  They should, properly, be seen as part of a bureaucratic cover-up intended to prevent public scrutiny of the mess that is now our political and legal system.  Victims are denied representation and access to the ‘evidence’ used in the decision-making process.  There is no need, in the first place, to look into our individual case on this matter.  Indeed, we can only apprehend further individuation and character assassination in this route.  In Public Law, we should not be put into a situation in which we can only apprehend bias.  If we are to be treated fairly at all, this needs to be understood.  We are simple souls who have told the truth throughout this sorry mess and if you wish to say otherwise you need to state on what grounds and make yourself available for proper civil action for defamation.

The main perpetrators of our harassment have moved down the road.  One is in court next week for ‘arson with intent’ (trial) and sentence for a serious assault.  The cases are 12 and 18 months old already.  Neither involve us directly, though we did witness the violent affray and disturbance starting the night before the ‘arson’, which contained reference to a machete and death threats, and a number of shouted admissions of the arson prior to the noisy arrest (some made in the presence of your officers), and attempts by the ‘arsonist’s’ partner to prevent witnesses giving evidence shortly after the arrest, an incident dispersed by your officers.  The case has already been adjourned several times because witnesses have not turned up.  Our new local inspector assured us he would stop anyone else falling victim to these two recidivist and violent criminals, but it is clear the same old story is emerging at their new address.  We see no sign that the trial judge will have the full case before him or her and such matters as ‘community impact’ seem so much hot air.  This should rightly concern not just the impact of this dreadful couple in our area, but also the failure to provide them (and consequently us decent folk and their children) with meaningful interventions from the other agencies we are told you have effective partnerships with.  In as far as we would give them the time of day, these odious crooks have been let down too, though it is the effects on their children that should draw focus.

I have seen excellent comments by you as Chief Constable and detailed presentations by ACCs from your former force that do you great credit if you mean them.  Since your appointment, there has been substantial improvement in the manner and speed with which the force telephone is answered.  One is not now treated as some kind of dreadful pariah in phoning to report or complain.  I have little doubt that you took over a ‘failing force’, and it is disturbing that you have publicly credited the former Chief (known even in the broadsheet press as ‘Shagger’) with laying good foundations.  One obviously wants to spare the blushes of his bereaved family, but it would be interesting to know on what evidence you based this statement.  It is not that shared  by official reports and wider public opinion.  It brings some of your more welcome public statements into possible disrepute as ‘just another positive mouthpiece’, something your predecessor was good at whilst allowed to range about as a sex-pest and in a severely distressed condition by the Police Authority.  You look much the better man, but the lack of honest disclosure on what has gone before leaves the public with apprehensions that we may have ‘business as usual’ under a new voice.  I have read you criticising the target culture and the ‘statistical lying’ going on.  This is, in fact, nationwide and will take more than words to put right.

On the ground, we have a better telephone system and some sense of a change in officer attitudes and response.  Yet around the corner we have seen racial attacks on a neighbour and much of the same old, same old.  Our ex-neighbours are still ‘at it’.  Arriving to take a complaint of an assault on our grandson connected to the racist stuff, in which an older boy had hit him several times and warned him off playing with the Asian children (lovely lads), something witnessed by a girl concerned enough to turn up at our house to ask if he was OK, the female officer told us it might be better to let sleeping dogs lie.  She was very well-meaning and we would commend her honesty.  She didn’t realise how patronising she was being after our previous experiences, but soon got up to speed.  She came over as the ‘right stuff’ and we would not want to complain about her, rather the opposite.  This is more or less what she said:

‘I can see there is a good case.  You need to be careful though, because this is what will happen.  Even if we get it to court [comments about CPS dross] and he is convicted, he will still be here and likely to make further trouble.  I know him and his family.  You will make enemies and we won’t be able to protect you.  Some of these families are out of control and we can do almost nothing about them’.

She was, of course, ‘preaching to the converted’.  This voice is all over the police blogs (we live in something like a democracy – please encourage them).  There is a blog in your force area, started by a woman (a PR professional with a law firm) ‘blitzed’ by criminality living opposite a park.  Cops are useless.  Down the pub, I run into a mature student friend, visibly shaking.  ‘Jesus, Arch’, he says, ‘I thought you might have been over-the-top about your neighbours, but now it’s happening to Clare and me.  The drug-dealing bastards next door are threatening us.  I think I’m going to have to kill him. Clare can’t sleep.  Look at the state of me.  Cops keep coming saying they can’t do anything’.  He lives in the force area on an adjoining division.

There is a statistical element to this Chief Constable.  Let me loose with a few resources to collect the evidence from victims on what they are suffering, what’s being done right, done wrong, what the real situation is.  The key statistical consideration is to get to the right population.  I am well-qualified to do research.  Some may say I am biased after my experience, yet they will not consider just how biased those with financial and prestige interests already are when they commission ‘research’.  Over at the IPCC they have just wasted what will be a lot of money on an IPSOS Mori survey of the national population.  This is not the relevant population and constitutes just the kind of ‘statistical blind’ you have commented on yourself (cited in Harriet Sergeant’s scathing book on policing in the country – available free at CIVITAS).  What’s needed is a full ‘data catch’ from the relevant population, the victims (which would include many of your officers who are stressed and disillusioned because of what they cannot do).  There have been examples of this.  When done, we discover the horrors of ‘Baby P’, the miserable state of  IPCC look-a-like in social care with a CEO instructing investigators not to investigate, paedophile social workers left in post for months (what of the officer in your force branded a liar and incompetent by two judges yet re-appointed to the same job as a civilian?) and, always, the cover-up by highly paid ‘managers’. Can we trust you to be any different?  Or our Police Authority to do anything about you if you are not?  These independent examinations always reveal that the ‘managers’ of our public systems have been very cosy with the politicians in presenting a false view of what has been going on, suppressing anyone wanting to blow-the-whistle.  Are you much of the same old, same old?  One hopes not.  We should be able to do more than hope.

We have seen our PCSO.  Nice guy up to some good stuff.  He admits his efforts are likely to be marginal, but one has to admire that he is just trying to do what he can.  He’d be a good cop and we’d rather see him as one.  Our local Bobby has been round.  He’d do better in one of my critical reasoning classes than he might think.  He is a good cop.  Another response officer has been round today.  Another good guy.  What they are doing isn’t enough and it’s not their fault.  The racist situation is almost  being policed as badly as that of our criminal neighbours for more than 25 years (this is how far back I can trace their criminal and violent benefit exploitation, drug-dealing and use, drunkenness, domestic violence, burglaries, thefts, ASBOs, ASJs, intimidation and serious assaults).

You and many of your senior officers claim to be learning lessons.  This is glib ‘managerialist’ nonsense, almost the first excuse now of politicians and senior people wanting to evade blame and proper focus on their incompetence.  It would be better if we regarded such statements as likely lies or equivalent to ‘no comment’ strategies by street-crooks.  One of your senior officers has stated in a letter that our problems were a result of a ‘neighbour dispute’.  Our local inspector and another I saw fairly recently both said it looked nothing of the sort.  Our local Bobby does not believe there was any kind of ‘neighbour dispute’ and another, putting a file together for yet another CPS-rejected case of 29 pages didn’t believe a word of this either.  Another of your senior officers, since promoted by you, foisted an inspector on us in ‘local unresolution’ when he must have known that inspector had conducted a secret, false investigation into me for ‘conspiracy to pervert the course of justice’.  This effectively put the enquiry into the hands of the very person who was conspiring to pervert the course of justice.  All attempts to get this investigated were blocked. We both know this is true and want to make formal statements in a criminal complaint to this effect.  Your recently promoted senior officer must have know the inspector was trying to make a false case against me, or at least a case against me that rendered him unfit for ‘local unresolution’, or was negligent in not discovering this, not taking action later, and making seriously false and incompetent claims to me about the suitability of this officer.

There have been around 200 police visits to the ‘criminal scum’ who harassed us for years, most not at our behest.  In the course of our “neighbour dispute”, one of them got a two year sentence for drugs trafficking.  There have been other convictions, though we have not been told about them.  How many crimes were recorded as a result of these police visits?  I have not been told of the basis of the false case attempted against me and as a consequence no lessons can have been learned about this.  The inspector concerned lied to us for more than two years.  I’m told he now has nothing to do with your force, yet he turned up hosting a ‘Crimefighters’ conference and tried to stop me having what say I could.

How many crimes were recorded during our 7 years of hell?  We know there must be severe unrepresentation, as some of your officers drove off whilst crimes were being committed.  Has the assault on our grandson being ‘crimed’?  Have the many incidents such as those in the Pilkington disaster been ‘crimed’?  Where is the collated case of our experience, and where is that of these racist-linked incidents occurring now?

What are you doing to ensure our politicians are receiving a true account of what is going on?  Where is the public record of this?  I have made a recent complaint but not received a response from your PSD.  It might be better to get these matters into open court.  In order to present this case I will need to interview a number of your officers to get their views collated.  What can we do to ensure they feel they can speak freely?  You and other agencies, let alone political depravity (against which we can at least withhold our votes – I shall actively campaign to remove our Nulabour MP), have cost myself and my partner our careers and our health.  All we did was tell the truth and try to stand up against very nasty criminals and try to get help for their children and prevent them affecting others (which included a Fagin-like element).

Now, involved only because our grandson plays with Asians, we find the same old, same old.  What we should be able to expect from you is an honest and open approach.  Have you learned this key lesson, or will you just be same old, same old?  Why not meet us and some other victims to start the ball rolling?

You may not like your integrity being challenged Chief Constable, but before umbrage, spare a thought for what happens to victims when they complain to your Farce (common blog term) and other agencies rotten at the core in this respect.  We merely told the truth until we were blue in the face.  Your officers and especially officers from Town Hall agencies responded with false accusations, smear and by putting us in harm’s way.  None of this contemptible behaviour has been investigated and what has been reviewed in secret only led to more of the same.  Your officers are now supporting what we said all along.  Where were they when we needed them and what mechanisms prevented this?

We have no explanations about why such a malevolent and violent couple were given tenancy or allowed to harass us, assault us, be a constant nuisance, commit drug crimes and be allowed to retain their house, why there was no investigation into claims a ‘social worker’ (probably  a housing officer) phoned them to lie that I had called their daughters ‘prostitutes’, leading to two assaults on me (were these ‘crimed’ as such?) and why no one was present at our house when an inevitable set of further threats from a guy with an ASBO came, and why none of your officers came as a result of that 999 call (had I been told the truth at the time of this call I could have pointed out they were not where they later claimed to be). Our integrity is still maligned and we want a full report and all details as to how this position is being maintained.  We have no fear of the truth or open court.  You put us in a situation far less favourable than that of the most disgusting criminals in terms of disclosure.

We should not forget here, that in the Nico Bento case (Newsnight reporting), police, CPS and prosecuting council, failed to disclose vital and official forensics, and used an already discredited ‘expert’ (who has since killed himself) from abroad to convince the judge and jury not to believe the evidence in front of their eyes from CCTV.  The highly regarded official forensic scientist involved has been ‘gagged’.

The problems in our case clearly continue across the board.  One of your officers ‘forgot’ to process a Harassment Act case.  Given that your inspector had tried to persuade us this act was ‘only for film stars’ (despite the most used investigation manual at the time stating it was not), we are not inclined to think the officer merely forget – he seems more of a fall-guy.  Now your officers have let a racially motivated assault case ‘time-lapse’.

Our case could be used to demonstrate just how poor your officers are at working out who is telling the truth, even when a decent couple are complaining about notorious local criminals.  You can’t do this unless you admit your failings.  You don’t.  Katie Boardman (aka Summers) might be alive now had you done this.  The IPCC ‘report’ fails to link this case to ours or the Cochrane disaster (not even published – shame on the IPCC) – clearly demonstrating you have no clue about how to learn lessons.  Not only could your officers not tell who was telling the truth, they also engaged in hideous character assassination which should be dealt with as an assault.  Given that we ended-up clinically depressed, this should be crimed on each occasion.  I can sense your officers doing this to the Asian family being severely harassed at the moment.  They are mistaking their standing up for themselves as being party to the criminal events.  That they feel an Asian officer might do a better job for them is being seen as some kind of ‘reverse racism’ (I’ve met them, they ain’t) rather than a genuine and justified concern.  I’ve seen this reaction many times and many surveys have found ethnic minorities often fear bland politically correct guff far more threatening than a few direct words like ‘black bastard’.  Racism is complex and to call our local Bobbies such as pathetic as doing this to me after a lifetime acting against it.  One does not get to be non-racist by vapid application of diversity training, almost all of which I have found to be based on the idiot notion of it being ‘white on black’, and about learning PC-speak.  One has to understand though, that people being victimised by racists, can call into question whether we understand their plight and think one of their own race might understand better.  We do not have a good track record on this nationally and your force is no exception.

The assault on our grandson was independently witnessed, my partner, an ex-nurse, saw the bruises later in the day and all would give evidence.  There have now been many incidents, many I suspect, as in our case, not properly recorded and collated.  Our local Bobby has been along to set up some kind of video interview.  A substantial improvement and one we will go along with, admittedly in some trepidation.  We accept no one is ever entirely innocent (though on reflection this isn’t completely true when one considers awful crimes against babies), but this is surely to be expected, not something relevant to stopped gross bullying and, hopefully, in the process, changing the bully.

There is still a total absence of ‘community impact’ study and evidence-gathering regarding a few grim recidivists and violent families, and the ability of our local authority to continue dumping them in communities in which they will do the most harm and where generally decent people will be most vulnerable to them.  I believe human rights are being flouted in this policy, generally made and executed by people who will never have to live next door to the problem.  Why should the better-off be relatively protected when the rest of us are expected to take it?  If you are not prepared to share you house with such types (which is what it felt like to us), why should we have to put up with it and policing led by someone of your privileged class (the argument here is not dissimilar to the Asian family wanting an Asian Bobby)?

Everywhere, there are privileged people talking up new initiatives and telling success stories as though they are the norm.  They are not telling the truth and are supporting their own self-interested careers.  Pretty much every street cop or local authority worker admits this estate has real problems and despairs of being able to sort them out.  What we have found is that they are ‘cowed’ from such admission to public scrutiny and that some will lie and otherwise beat up on victims already on their last legs.  This is more dangerous to victims’ health than having to stand next to a vicious drug-dealer and let him hit you, as I had to do.  The crimes need to be identified, ‘crimed’ and dealt with.  Your force has totally failed in this respect, still harbours some of the criminals, and has done nothing to use law on such psychological abuse, which we can demonstrate has severe physical effect.  Your officers would not know where to start.

Complaining is a Hopeless Task

My partner and I know complaining against really grim levels of service from police and Town Hall agencies  is a hopeless task.  Personal experience has shown us this.  Frankly, we have been beaten up by the authorities and even politicians, who must have been able to see we were already traumatised through trying to get something done about an utterly disgusting, criminal and violent couple harassing us, committing crime and abusing their own children.  There is no effective way to complain and we were regularly put in harm’s way by the authorities.

In one grim meeting our MP said we should move.  He prefaced this by saying he would deny what he was about to tell us in the future.  His actions were those of a pathetic bully.  We have no doubt he should be deselected and is not fit to be an MP.  He had previously told me that he was totally dissatisfied with local policing and that he knew complaining to the IPCC or Local Government Ombudsman was hopeless, but was very unhappy and aggressive about the fact I had told others he had said this.  On what we know, the man is a disgraceful coward, prepared to conceal what he knows about the fate of victims of crime, preferring to threaten us knowing we had become clinically depressed than act in an honest manner.  Local politicians have proved equally hapless and without integrity.

The essential problem confronting victims of crime is not that their plight is not known.  The problem is that it is too well known by a fatal nexus of politicians, police and Town Hall votaries with a vested interest in covering it all up whilst pretending they are doing something effective about it.  These votaries are clearly prepared to beat up on victims, knowing they have almost no access to representation or independent investigation of their problems.  What victims need is for a properly investigated case to be put before a judge to ensure their protection and human rights.  What they get is isolation, character assassination and exposure to harm.

There are fairly simple ways to put this right.  The problem is that this runs against the interests of politicians and agencies supposedly in place to help.  They have been claiming to understand, learn lessons, and to be putting the right policies and procedures in place for at least two decades.  ‘Nulabour’ is now a running sore in our society.  This, and years of sleaze before them, have utterly demoralised society to the point that even the word ‘democracy’ has become a deception term.  It is difficult, as an academic, to trace the origin.  ‘Thatcherism’, for instance, has origins long before the lady herself, set perhaps in Denis Healey at the IMF with his begging bowl and the destruction of any chance of sensible industrial relations through the imposition of ‘hard hat’ management.  This dates ‘Thatcherism’ to an origin in the late 1960’s when no one had heard of her.  In the same way, the dreadful blight of ‘Nulabour’ runs from much earlier times than Blair and cronyism.

The first thing needed is proper public scrutiny and this is the first thing denied.  All we need in this respect is to collect and collate the actual experiences of victims.  This should be very easy given today’s technology.  That this isn’t happening can only be a result of a collusion to prevent it.  This collusion is extensive and must be calculated.  The very agencies established to form over-sight in fact prevent victims from gaining the independent investigation and support they need.  The mechanism here appears to be the placing of over-paid votaries to performance manage target cultures and deny natural justice to complainants.  Public Law insists that there has been a breach of the duty to act fairly if decision-makers fail to allow someone to put his or her case at all or fails to give him/her adequate facilities for making the case or does not show someone evidence it had about them, and makes a decision based on that.  Yet victims, who must in common sense be known to be likely to be traumatised and hardly likely to be able to make their own case, get no representation and are not allowed to see what is being said against them, or whether what enquiries have been made have been done properly.

In our case, I have been subject to character assassination that beggars belief.  Allegations were made that I had committed criminal offences (needless to say not true) and I only found out after having to demand disclosure of a Complaint Resolution Record and what I could get on the failed prosecution of our violent, now arsonist neighbour.  The information only leaked to me via the CPS, as did the information of a police cover-up of bungling from which the malicious statements about me emerged.  Elsewhere, I was accused of calling a housing worker a ‘drug’s baron’.  I hadn’t seen the lady concerned for at least three years and liked her.  I said the complete opposite.  I am sure this was malicious character assassination, confirmed when a barrister hired by our Council first told me this claim was in one of my emails (it wasn’t), then said it was in a note made by another housing worker (which he didn’t have), and then claimed he had made such a note whilst interviewing me a couple of weeks before, which was a lie.  A couple of weeks after this clown stated our case was not a bad one and we were not at risk, our main harasser was involved in a violent affray and threw a petrol bomb at an occupied neighbour’s house.

The situation is actually insane.  Cops, housing and social workers will put your complaints to the violent, harassing intimidators, putting you in harm’s way, offering no protection, yet hide from you all kinds of material based on their own wonky decisions about you that you need to know to put it right.  One of our harassers got two years for drug trafficking, having been seen dealing round the corner (where he’d been at it for years) and caught next door in possession of a substantial amount of heroin in the top pocket of his shirt and with all the paraphernalia of dealing in the house.  The LGO concluded there was no evidence of drug dealing from the property and would not tell us why she reached this conclusion.  When a judge saw the conviction she just blurted out ‘Why has there been no eviction’?  One cock-up after another was involved, even at this early stage in our seven years of hell.

What the worthies in complaints departments really do is tell you “fuck off you worthless piece of shit”.  Sure, they employ bureaucratic language, but this is even worse.  In one police blog, this is described as ‘denying your human right not to be made to feel like a twat’.  Part of the problem is you are dealing with jumped up pricks who are inciting you to describe them as jumped up pricks.  In an old Sean Connery film, The Hill, at least as I remember (I’m not good on films), Sean plays a squaddie subject to routine torture by some bastard gaoler.  Just as the worthies are about to take his complaint seriously, he beats up his tormentor, thus losing any credibility as a witness.  You can spot this happening through bureaucratic bullying from the complaints people.  Given that you are up to your arse with stress already because of the violent scum alligators dumped into your life already, you are hardly in any condition to deal with people suggesting you get contractors in to drain the swamp at your expense!  They use all manner of patronising contempt to antagonise you.

The Victims’ Tale

I never know quite what it is I’m trying to write about.  The academic left in me used to write articles intended to be unintelligible.  This was how I traveled the small world of academe, with its usually good and free-to-me food, and cynical, drunken, sometimes shagging company.  I’m a really serious bastard, but don’t want anyone to learn from me by giving me any credibility.  ‘Credibility’ is the shit through which the powerful rule us, the excrement of the manipulated statistics of modern mushroom theory.  We know the old joke.  They keep us in the dark and drop horse manure on us every now and then.

In recent years, my partner and I have discovered just how high the shit is piled.  It’s like one of those moments in literature when you discover Holden Caulfield is not merely a stroppy, boring teenage cunt you are forced to read about to get to university by a frustrated spinster who thinks Catcher in the Rye will be light relief compared with reading books by long dead frustrated spinsters, but that the bent teenage get is really speaking to you from a loony-bin.  You find this out by reading the York Notes, having long since discovered there’s no point having your own opinions.  Originality is such that that you learn only to define it by getting your PhD (piled high and deep) in English Literature by ensuring you only ever read York Notes and thus never babble on about anything the other original cunts who dole them out consider dangerous.  This isn’t me, should you be on that route, but my mate Spadge, as rough a rugby league arse beneath his daunting prose, as you’d care to meet.  Education teaches you its own brand of lying.  I did science.  This and joining the police force were just about keeping me playing rugby league too.

What happened to me and Dale was the dumping of something much more dangerous than horse manure into our lives.  The local council moved two utter shits into their property next door, the other half of our semi.  More on them later.  The ‘moment’ as above was the discovery that even more of the world was down the toilet than we’d thought.  Crap as our scrote neighbours were (and are now elsewhere), they played only a small role in our ‘moment’.  It was the discovery that police, Town Hall agencies and politicians prefer to beat up on victims rather than admit to their own failings and cowardice.  In short, they are a bunch of shits.  It’s like waking up in ‘Soviet Paradise’ from a dream of freedom.

You need to understand here, that coming across a cop or housing worker in trouble, old and knackered as we are, Dale and I would not walk on by.  We wouldn’t cross the road though, to piss on our MP or local Councillors if they were on fire.  Indeed, as you will discover later, they would be on fire if they lived next door to our neighbours.  The solution might well be to gather all our nasty, violent and character assassinating stuffed shirts in one place and issue our former neighbours with petrol vouchers and empty milk bottles.  I’ll finish the job with a sniper’s rifle (I’m not as good as I was, but these bastards don’t deserve a quick kill).

A word on language.  We all fuck.  It can be messy, wet and enjoyable.  Orwell suggested somewhere (a character in 1984), that the only true and biological response in the face of News and Doublespeak is to fuck it off.  The cold, ‘polite’ and vile voice of ‘dispassion’ is fucking us all to the degree of third-degree rectal scarring.  This is not a time for ‘incredulity towards metanarratives’ and other piss no one can understand, but one in which to ‘oversimplify in the extreme’.  Affecionados of postmodernism and Lyotard should remember one of his ripping yarns was about us being shafted by The Libidinal Economy.  ‘Oversimplifying to the extreme’, a phrase preceding his definition of a moment of refreshing ideas, we need fucking straight talking.  And we need to be able to do it without slimy lawyers and politicians degrading us as uncouth twats because we use our own language.

So what happened to us?  First, let me say it is still happening to others.  Our former neighbours are bang at it down the road.  She’s due in court for arson and serious assault (not on us).  There’s every sign cops and CPS will fuck up the case, adjourned several times since offences committed 18 and 12 months ago.  A mate, currently a mature student, his partner and her kids, living in an adjoining police division are getting the same crap from their next-door drug dealer.  Round the corner, racist attacks by young scum are being dealt with in the same bungling manner as in our seven years of terror.  A decent, honest response officer tells us a nasty, racist-linked assault on our lad, witnessed independently, might be better left alone, because the force and worthless Town Hall agencies can’t protect him from the shit family, who will still be there even if they get convictions.  The same stories are being told in police blogs such as Inspector Gadget (many more links to other blogs and books there).  There is, in the minds of many, including police officers, a conspiracy to suppress the truth.  We know, very personally, at as direct a level of any experiment I’ve ever conducted in laboratory, that even all this is not a true representation of just how shit it is.

I was away in the Middle East when all this started.  Dale and I met late in life, just as other long-term relationships were going belly-up.  Madness and nastiness were involved and she probably saved my life.  Neither of us was well.  Dealing close-up with madness takes its toll.  We needed somewhere to live with her daughter and very lovely young lad.  Broke, we risked taking a council house.  It’s worth remembering what a broken-down piece of shit it was.  Five grand and two broken backs later, we transformed it from health risk to livable.  Many cops notice how the crap state we allow public housing to lapse to.  A big question in this book will be ‘whose human rights are we protecting’?  We only got out house because I had enough on a credit card to fix it.  The general plan, having had to leave both our homes behind, would have been to save enough over a couple of years to buy another one.  All of us already know you don’t want to risk living where scrotes might come along, and private housing is generally a better bet.  Ours was a case of ‘needs must’.

Brown, the current hunk of priministerial meat, is tossing off in Parliament as I write.  Some guilded shit Nulabour should have done 13 years ago, that is now just an admission of failure, covered as a lie about the promised land.  When we moved in, Blair, the guy 25% of the population thinks should now be tried as a war criminal and who should twin himself with Kim Jong II, was on television spouting to a guy who had to move at great cost because of scrote.  The bloke was explaining about scrote invasion.  One lot moves in, blare music, start trading drugs, general fuck about being aggressive, use their kids to get benefits and as advanced skirmishers – we all know the rest.  You complain, but no cunt does anything other than drop you further in the shit by identifying you to the scrote.  No one else will move in now the advanced party is established.  Their mates get any properties that come empty, which happens because decent people move about.  Blair ‘understands’, though you can tell in the eyes of the bloke he knows the cunt don’t.  Piss about new powers, fixed penalty tickets (where they, useless as they’d be?), ASBOs and just how hunky-dory it will all be.  Just like slimed-granite Brown now.  Not long after, Blair was pissing in his pants talking of frog-marching violent street-drunks to cash machines to pay instant fines.  There’s a picture of this turkey, way back, in white Elvis leathers.  The failed rock star who took us into illegal wars is how we should remember him.  Clair Short is blowing him out at the Iraq Enquiry today, wasting her breath on dead, decided, polite ears pretending to be objective.  Blair stopped meeting the public around then, shoving these quasi-legal shitbags between him and reality.  These are times of deception and cops and others get light relief hidden in blogs.  Holden Caulfield would be wanking.

To get an idea of the Middle East, put your arm our above your head and imagine your fingers getting burned.  That’s the weather.  So you’ll quickly be off for a cold one.  Down the British Club, with some Belgians describing it as the ‘Brutish Claub’, you’ll find Brits who just have to tell you the White Cliffs of Dover look really good as you look back at them when you leave.  No one in their right mind would want to go back to the thieving, scrote-centred, criminal shit-hole Britain has become.  Sure, the cops here are armed, the place run by a mega-rich despot and you have to know your way round the wasta, but decent, hard-working go-getters like us have nothing to fear.  And you don’t have to pay taxes to keep the idle drug-scrote in heroin cut with Vim.