Wednesday, August 15, 2007

Softly Softly

Michael Child writes:

"I was looking at you blog about the business of policemen getting younger, something I have noticed more and more as time goes by when I thought you would appreciate this picture of my two youngest children who have recently decided to join the force. They have made a number of citizens arrests and are looking forward to a continued reduction in both the age and height requirements. "

Ed: Before you know it Michael, they'll be signed-up as PCSOs, as the age is steadily being adjusted downwards. I assume they confiscated the alcohol from their parents?

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Good to see a Bordeaux being enjoyed rather than a New World wine! I don't know who sent this to me but it sums up the times:

OBITUARY

Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend, Common Sense, who
has been with us for many years. No one knows for sure how old he was
since his birth records were long ago lost in bureaucratic red tape.

He will be remembered as having cultivated such valuable lessons as
knowing when to come in out of the rain, why the early bird gets the worm,
life isn't always fair, and maybe it was my fault.
Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies (don't spend
more than you earn) and reliable parenting strategies (adults, not children,
are in charge).

His health began to deteriorate rapidly when well intentioned but
overbearing regulations were set in place. Reports of a six-year- old
boy charged with sexual harassment for kissing a classmate; teens
suspended from school for using mouthwash after lunch; and a teacher fired for
reprimanding an unruly student, only worsened his condition.

Common Sense lost ground when parents attacked teachers for doing the
job they themselves failed to do in disciplining their unruly children.

It declined even further when schools were required to get parental
consent to administer Panadol, sun lotion or a Band Aid to a student - but
could not inform the parents when a student became pregnant and wanted to
have an abortion.

Common Sense lost the will to live as the Ten Commandments became
contraband, churches became businesses, and criminals received better
treatment than their victims.

Common Sense took a beating when you couldn't defend yourself from a
burglar in your own home and the burglar can sue you for assault.

Common Sense finally gave up the will to live after a woman failed to realize
that a steaming cup of coffee was hot. She spilled a little in
her lap, and was promptly awarded a huge settlement.

Common Sense was preceded in death by his parents, Truth and Trust;
his wife, Discretion; his daughter, Responsibility; and his son, Reason.

He is survived by three stepbrothers; I Know My Rights, Someone Else
is to Blame, and I'm A Victim.
Not many attended his funeral because so few realized he was gone.

Richard Card said...

In my view there should be two great powers in the land; Crown and Parliament.

It is for the conspiracy theorists to seek to explain the destruction of constitutional monarchy by synarchy.

As far as everyday life is concerned I question what happened to the constitutional arrangement by which the Queen is Fount of All Justice in Mercy. This our guarantee that government cannot gain absolute power and our guarantee that the adminstration of justice is independent of, with primacy over, government.

Who does have power to effect the way we live our lives ?

If you look up, for example, "Liberty" or Howard League for Penal Reform or British Irish Rights Watch or Lawrence Inquiry ... then there appears to be certain unelected names which are a tad ubiquitous.

I suppose we accept two facts:

(1) There are only 24 hours in a day

(2) We can only listen to one person at a time.

This seems to be something to do with the disproportionate amount of time allocated to one "Chicken Balti" (Eastcliff Richard will be on to this) the ex-service nickname for the spokesperson for the human rights charity "Liberty".
Ms Chakrabarti. Who voted for her ? No one.

Devoid of Common Sense what should the masses think ? Media calls in Ms Chakrabarti to direct our thinking along approved lines ?

I think that a serious look should be taken at Charity Law.

Charities which set up with an objective to "Educate". They then gain disproportionate air time to comment (IE Direct) on their hobbyhorse issues.

Some years ago the charity "Inquest" helped out the charity "British Irish Rights Watch" and provided expert witnesses in "Non Judicial execution" for the case brought, In European Court of Human Rights, against UK Govt for the SAS shooting of the three IRA in Gibraltar. (Farrell Savage McCann)

As far as "Inquest" was concerned I questioned how, against their charity registration, they could deploy in the case. They are registered to act in England and wales and in Inquest Law. Domestic Inquests are not appealable in the European Court of Human Rights.

Yet there they were (and reported on it at their AGM)

Some years ago it became "Inquest" charity policy to support the civilianization of Coroners Officer duties. Their basis for this was distrust of the police to conduct sudden death inquiries if a conflict arose (such as a custody death).

I found this amusing. My namesake Richard Card wrote the Police Law Book. He is a Professor of Law at De Montfort University. Some of his staff are luminaries of the charity "Inquest".

I wonder how the Prof feels that his subordinates, concerned at the poor standard of police training in law and duty, supported civilianization of police duties ?

Of course if you die and the case is investigated by a civilian then you lose rights of access to the Court of a Constable at any time he feels new evidence has emerged.

A small increment of undermining the Queen as Fount of Justice and removing duties from the Office of Constable (A Crown Office).

British Irish Rights Watch ? Their charity registration includes to educate about the Irish security situation. Try asking them for their position on the IRA Garland Plan (published in the appendices to the Scarman Report 1972) ... funny how they don't educate anone in that ? It is only the IRA terrorist long term strategy ! (I did make a complaint to the Charity Commission but their position is that a charity has only to take reasoned advice ... and apparently the reasoned advice taken by BIRW was not to tell us about the IRA)

So I think there are mechanisms such as Charity sparrows who shot Common Sense Cock Robins.

In Thanet in the mid 90s there was a custody death. And the charity "Inquest" provided the bereaved family a barrister. The year before I had attended the charity AGM and custody deaths (1300 cases to date they claimed) were dealt with by a sub group of ex offenders and social workers I think. So I had to wonder why Thanet (with custody death number 1301 on the charity books ?) should suddenly be graced by a barrister from the charity.

At the AGM the year before there was a question from the floor (from me actually) about appeals under Section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988. The answer was that the charity did not make Section 13 appeals because there was no way to then overcome the "Absolute Secret Interest Custodianship" powers of the Attorney General.

So imagine my surprise to learn that the barrister deployed to Thanet had allegedly advised that Inquest in Thanet should be expedited to gain grounds for a Sectyion 13 appeal.

I reported to Thanet Coroner that I had grounds to suspect that her then imminent Inquest may be subject to appeal by which the Coroners Officer and PCS invigilator (both Kent Police IRA Deal barracks bomb case witnesses).

I also reported to then Attorney General John Morris along the lines that idiots (Kent Police) had deployed open IRA bombing case officers on a custody death case in which their witness credibility could be attacked via public interest appeal .. which a charity (recently not unhelpful to the IRA) seemed to be wont to expedite in spite of its previous charity position not to make such appeals.

You may recall that Thanet Coroner stood down and the Functus Officio Deal Bombing Coroner held a new inquest ?

Perhaps Professor Richard Card did not write in his police law book about that sort of chicanery ?

I stick to my position that there are unprofessional idiots in Kent Police. On that occasion, rather than concede a point favourable to IRA, I maybe had to save Kent Police from its own folly ?

I think charities should be limited to care issues.

If a person wants to influence legislation then they should stand for office. And if a person wants to educate others then they should not be totally empowered to decide their own curriculum.

That is how a country aware of its rights but oblivious to its obligations, duties and responsibilities arose.

Too much ChickenBalti ?

DrMoores said...

Richard - I'm sure this is very interesting to you but it does, like your other posts, go way off the subject for other readers. Please keep your comments short and to the point and NO MORE about the IRA or treason stories please or I will deny you access to the site. Thank you

Anonymous said...

Thanks Simon I thought it was just me!!