Saturday, 10 September 2016

The (secular) Police State we are (increasingly) in....?


Is police corruption becoming routine in Britain? 

Are police increasingly using their powers to crack down not on criminals but on anyone who dares to speak out against them? 

According to a report from HM Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC), nearly half of 17,200 officers and staff surveyed said that if they discovered corruption among their colleagues and chose to report it, they didn’t believe their evidence would be treated in confidence and would fear “adverse consequences” (i.e. against the complainant).  

The Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) recently reported that there has been a sharp increase over the past five years in the number of police officers dealing serious illegal drugs and an equally startling rise in the number of officers abusing their power “for sexual gratification” — in other words bullying or cajoling suspects, witnesses and even victims into sexual acts. 

It recently emerged that the Metropolitan Police Service (“the Met”) suspended 73 police officers, community support officers (quasi-police) and other staff on corruption charges in the past two years. They cited drug crimes, bribery, theft, fraud, sexual misconduct and un-authorised disclosure of information.  

Eleven were convicted in court, but what happened to the others? Seemingly some were allowed to resign or retire (presumably with full pension rights) and some were dismissed. 

This is all reported in a recent article from The Spectator magazine which can be read here: 

The article’s author,  Neil Darbyshire, believes that, with its constant leak inquiries, harassment of whistleblowers and journalists, and scandalous misuse of terror legislation to tap the phone records and emails of ordinary citizens, the Met is probably more authoritarian and opaque than at any time in modern history and that this culture comes directly from the top i.e. from failures by the Commissioner himself. 

He thinks that the present generation of police chiefs come from a very different breed than those in the past. “Fast-tracked and homogenised from an early stage”, they can be difficult to tell apart. Often laden with degrees in law, business and “criminology” accumulated during their police careers, they are more managers than police officers — managers of budgets, managers of public relations and, most importantly, managers of risk to their own careers. They speak in the obscure, vapid jargon of stakeholder engagement, paradigm shifts and proactivity.  

Darbyshire thinks this is very far from transparency, let alone the transparency that the Met claims to champion. 

He thinks that the present Met chief, Bernard Hogan-Howe, is one of these types of Commissioner. 

Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe,
the Metropolitan Police Commissioner - good cop, bad cop... or just weak?
Apparently, his “total policing” policy, as explained by him, meant that “no legal tactic is out of bounds” in the investigation of crime and Darbyshire cites, as an example, his use of the Official Secrets Act to try to compel a journalist to reveal the source of a story about celebrity phone hacking.  

The Official Secrets Act is meant principally to be used to trap spies, traitors and those who threaten the defence of the realm — not reporters going about their legitimate business. This, says Darbyshire, was a disproportionate and oppressive use of the law. 

Similarly, says Darbyshire, legislation designed to combat terrorism and serious crime, such as the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (“RIPA”), is used with alarming frequency by Hogan-Howe and other police chiefs to snoop on the internet and phone records of law-abiding citizens.  

This, says Darbyshire, is the tactic of the police state and not so much total policing as totalitarian policing and, says Darbyshire, favours more armed officers on routine duties, more use of Tasers (an electric gun that delivers severe electric shocks to the receiver) and the mainland deployment of water cannon to disperse rioters, despite the fact that its use in Northern Ireland tended to inflame tensions rather than cool them.  

Face of the future?

As Darbyshire puts it, one of the consequences of a heavy-handed police leadership stretching the law and using their power to bully and intimidate is that rank and file officers are encouraged to think they can do the same.  

Moral decline, often the consequence and corollary of the decline in religious belief, is not selective but affects all of society – including the supposed guardians of society. 

Add to that the increasing problem of Jihadist terrorism, increasingly being imported into Europe, and occasioning the introduction (often clumsily and heavy-handedly) of more and more draconian legislation (particularly during the years of Tony Blair’s government), allowing the authorities, and particularly the police, to deprive subjects of their rights, more and more, and to snoop upon, harass, molest and bully the ordinary member of society more and more. 

These are the all-too-worrying signs of the beginnings of an incipient police state. 

This is where the abandonment of morality and respect for others leads any society. 

Could the UK be going that way?


Sunday, 4 September 2016

The massive hypocrisy of the Secular Left...hardly different from the National Socialists

We should all already know about it but ludicrously few do.

The Secular Left.

And eugenics.

And it is not a happy story.

Essentially....the darlings of the Left were no better than the Nazis when it came to eugenics.

Which is not surprising since the Left were, and are, International Socialists and the Nazis were National Socialists.....but both Socialists.

Eugenics: the pseudo-scientific belief that society's fate depends upon breeding more of the strong and fewer of the weak.

Many of its leading advocates were Fabians and Socialists, the darlings of the intellectual Left of the day.

The supposedly humane intellectual, playwright and writer, George Bernard Shaw, said that "the only fundamental and possible socialism is the socialisation of the selective breeding of man", and that defectives should be dealt with by means of a "lethal chamber".

Leftist gas chambers, anyone?

George Bernard Shaw.
He was the archetypal Secular, Lefty atheist hypocrite and supporter of eugenic killing.

The extreme Left and the extreme Right are the same people - just an armband apart!

The Left-revered inventor of the welfare state, William, Lord Beveridge, held that those with "general defects" should be denied not only the vote, but "civil freedom and fatherhood".

William, Lord Beveridge
The inventor of the Welfare State was another Lefty supporter of eugenics
and of the denial of the most basic human rights.

Notoriously, the contraception promoter and Nazi-sympathiser, Marie Stopes – honoured with a postage stamp in 2008 – wanted the "hordes of defectives" to be reduced in number, thereby placing less of a burden on "the fit".

Marie Stopes
This pro-Nazi eugenicist and despiser of the poor and ordinary
is now shamefully featured on the British Post Office's 50p stamp.

The Nazi-friendly Stopes later disinherited her son because he had married a short-sighted woman, thereby risking a less-than-perfect grandchild. another of her sons was an open Nazi.

Professor Harold Laski, the crypto-Marxist LSE professor, co-founder of the Left Book Club, one-time chairman of the Labour party, and probable Soviet spy said: "The time is surely coming … when society will look upon the production of a weakling as a crime against itself."

Harold Laski.
The Secular Leftist founder of the Left Book Club was a paradigm Lefty hypocrite, claiming to oppose Nazism, whilst adopting the same kind of eugenic views.

Nice one, Mr Lefty Laski - indistinguishable on this issue from the Nazis he claimed to reject. A classic Lefty hypocrite.

Meanwhile, Professor J B S Haldane, scientist and Socialist, claimed: "Civilisation stands in real danger from over-production of 'undermen'." Err, that's "Untermenschen" in German, folks. You know - the type whom the Nazis wanted to exterminate in camps.

Professor J B S Haldane.
This famous Lefty scientist was also a supporter of Nazi-style eugenics
seeking to eliminate "untermenschen".

A parliamentary report in 1934 backed voluntary sterilisation of the unfit.

What did the right-on, lefty, liberal Guardian have to say about this?

Its editorial offered warm support, endorsing the sterilisation campaign that "the eugenicists soundly urge".

Likewise the equally Lefty New Statesman endorsed the same repellent view.

And these Darwinian ideas are as live as ever... and as surely advanced by many of the new atheists.

They believed that: "most of the behavioural traits that led to poverty were inherited". In short, that the poor were genetically inferior to the educated middle class. i.e. it was not poverty that had to be eliminated but the poor.

The Fabians, Sidney and Beatrice Webb (later Lord and Lady Passfield) and their ilk were not attracted to eugenics because they briefly forgot their Lefty principles but precisely because of those Lefty "principles" based upon social Darwinism - the same social Darwinism that motivated the Nazi death programmes.

Sidney and Beatrice Webb, Lord and Lady Passfield.
This notorious couple were the classic Lefty boobies who qualified as a pair of Lenin's "useful idiots" and stupidly believed that the Soviet Union had solved all man's ills. They were well debunked by the late Malcolm Muggeridge, the husband of their niece, Kitty. In accepting a peerage, Sidney Webb was among the first of the classically hypocritical Lefty moderns.

They had fallen so far morally that they were no longer concerned about individual freedom, or even the right to life.

These middle class and privileged boobies felt quite ready to remove the elementary human rights from those they deemed unworthy of it.

And these same boobies are now those who claim to be the champions of human rights.

Liars. Hypocritical liars.

Socialism - it's time for it to be consigned to the dustbin of history.

And now even the paradigm Lefty newspaper, The Guardian, is obliged to admit that its classic, perennial Secular Lefty stance and Lefty partisans are simply bad people made worse by hypocritically criticising the very views that they, themselves, have always endorsed.

Try this article in the very same newspaper, The Guardian: The Dark Story of the Left and Eugenics