It's not complacency

Again and again whenever there's a problem to do with muslims some useful idiot is wheeled out to give some pronouncement about what islam is, who muslims are and what muslims should do. Unfortunately as the idiot isn't usually a muslim they are ignored by muslims who generally take no notice of non-muslims and the rest of us who have come into contact with real islam and know bollocks being spoken when we hear it.
Mail.

Muslim communities in Britain are guilty of ‘complacency and passivity’ over the threat from home-grown jihadists, the UK’s top counter-terrorism officer warned last night.
The Metropolitan Police’s Assistant Commissioner, Cressida Dick, said there were many cases where ‘warning signs’ about extremists were not brought to the attention of authorities.
She also indicated some Muslims were too accepting of radical views, saying it was the police’s ‘greatest challenge’ to make them ‘wholly hostile to violent extremism’.
Her comments came as the Government was confronted with a damning assessment by a former head of the military of Britain’s capacity to confront terrorism.
Lord Richards of Herstmonceux, chief of the defence staff until last year, said the military was ‘not good enough’ to deal with the global threat from jihadis.
The crossbench peer, formerly General Sir David Richards, called for a rise in defence spending and warned that without it, the effectiveness of the Armed Forces would inevitably deteriorate further.

I'm pretty sure such warnings were given over the Nazi party too.
No, the complacency lies with those in authority and the political classes who don't see the real threat because they don't live with it. It's the same reason that criminals get off lightly and the Human Rights Act has become such a burden on our society with its allowing violent criminals to remain amongst us. The muslim communities are not complacent, they've at best given tacit consent to the preachers who are encouraging  jihadism in this country as jihad as they see it is a noble cause no matter how ignoble its methodology as it's usually carried out against non-muslims and they aren't real people. That is the problem of trying to dictate to something that has tied its barbarism to religious trappings, you are dealing with faith, a written book and traditions which encourage barbarism and it's run by a bunch of imam's who see no reason to moderate what the quran and hadiths say, most of it coming from the life and works of a murderous child molesting slaver with a psychopathic god complex.
So no, telling muslims what they should do won't work, if you aren't a muslim then your words are meaningless, four times as meaningless if you're a woman.
Yet it doesn't stop idiots like Cameron and Cressida Dick telling us and muslims what islam is and what it should be doing.
Nor apparently those in power deliberately disarming our military strength to deal with them in the future.

Arrested for quoting Churchill

Truly the UK is doomed if you can be arrested for quoting Winston Churchill. You'd think it almost impossible, however you'd be wrong, it can and has happened to Paul Weston the Liberty GB candidate for the South-East in the EU elections...
Liberty GB

Today Paul Weston, chairman of the party Liberty GB and candidate in the 22 May European Elections in the South East, has been arrested in Winchester.
At around 2pm Mr Weston was standing on the steps of Winchester Guildhall, addressing the passers-by in the street with a megaphone. He quoted the following excerpt about Islam from the book The River War by Winston Churchill:
"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property – either as a child, a wife, or a concubine – must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the faith: all know how to die but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith."
Reportedly a woman came out of the Guildhall and asked Mr Weston if he had the authorisation to make this speech. When he answered that he didn’t, she told him "It's disgusting!" and then called the police.
Six or seven officers arrived. They talked with the people standing nearby, asking questions about what had happened. The police had a long discussion with Mr Weston, lasting about 40 minutes.
At about 3pm he was arrested. They searched him, put him in a police van and took him away.

Now granted Churchill's message would be granted as beyond the pale in today's climate of political correctness, particularly by the likes of the political classes who have sought to emasculate the indigenous populations right to have opinions they deem subversive and frankly there's few more subversive than Churchill who was decidedly anti-establishment until they discovered they needed him after the establishment totally misjudged Hitler.
That said, giving a direct quote of Winston Churchill and finding yourself under arrest is likely to cause those who arrested you and complained about you to strongly backfire in their faces as I simply cannot see any judge or magistrate wanting to touch this one with a bargepole. Nor would I expect if it did go further any jury save one stuffed with muslims to convict.
Liberty GB are of course the same party whose member Tim Burton was arrested (and then found not guilty) of offending the Tell Mama organisations leader when he called him a ‘mendacious grievance-mongering Taqiyya artist’ and who do appear to be able to upset the authorities and get away with it simply by keeping to just this side of the law unlike some muslim preachers and demonstrators who hold sign up to behead anyone disrespecting islam and get away with it.
Still, it remains to be seen if charges will be brought, as it is if they aren't then the police have broken up a lawful and legitimate political gathering on the say so of someone who was offended by a Churchill quote. If charges are brought, it appears that quoting a great wartime leader of the UK is no longer legal in the eyes of the authorities or powers that be.
Freedom of speech? When it comes to quoting Churchill, apparently not...

The truth will out...

Actually the blog post title is a bit of a misnomer, there are I'm pretty sure elements of some truths that will possibly never be known (Kennedy assassination anyone?) and some where people won't believe the truth no matter what, because their god told them something else...
Still it comes as a surprise that the police are to publish a new set of figures telling us about rising violent crime after denying it was rising for years (mostly under the Labour government)
Telegraph.

After years of 'fiddled' crime figures, new data shows violent crime increased last year and could be set for a huge surge
Violent crime could be on the brink of a record rise in England and Wales after two police forces which adopted “open” and “ethical” crime recording policies showed a 25 per jump in violence last year.
The significant increases in recorded “violence against the person” offences in the two counties - Gwent, in south Wales, and Kent - are expected to foreshadow similar increases in other forces following widespread concern about police “fiddling” the figures.
Across England and Wales last year there was a surprise 1 per cent rise in violent crime recorded by the police to 614,400, or nearly 7,000 extra victims in the year.
The jump was partly attributable to the huge increases in Kent and Gwent, but another 20 forces also showed jumps in violence, including five with double-digit increases.
Because chief constables have come under massive pressure to ensure crime is recorded accurately, the rise is expected to continue in future statistics.

That's always been part of the problem for the police, they were saying one thing and yet people on the actual ground were saying something else. They said violent crime was falling, people knew otherwise and did not feel safe in some communities. So now a couple of forces who got their fingers burnt have produced other figures to suggest that far from falling, peoples perceptions of what's actually going on were fare more accurate than the police's use of statistics and the rather novel method of not recording certain crimes to make their figures look good.
The problem they have now is that once you're caught lying, there's always going to be the suspicion that you're lying in the future. It won't matter that they were following the politically correct dictates of their political masters, they lied, they are no doubt still lying. Their hubris in deciding they knew best by not recording or downgrading certain crimes has come back to bite them, they could tell us the sun will rise in the east now and we'd still be inclined to pop outside at dawn and check.
That's why truthfulness, or the appearance of it is always necessary in the public services, sadly most of them try to cover it up to make themselves look good and this is the result when they get found out, no one believes them ever again...

Jobsworths

The world is a weird place, give someone a modicum of power and a few rules to hide behind and  common sense just goes out the window. Sure humans are territorial, but you'd think if a crime had been committed then a rule would not be supplied to tell someone to their fasce that due to the Data Protection Act you can't tell them who stole your property...
Express.

STAFF at a GPs’ surgery have refused to name a mother who brazenly stole an expensive pram – for “data protection reasons”.
Police hunting the crook have been reduced to trying to trace her by releasing a CCTV image, despite the fact that her name is well known to employees at the practice.
The woman turned up at the surgery with her own child in a cheap pram.
But she left with the infant in mother-of-two Hayley Skidmore’s £300 pushchair, a limited-edition black Maclaren buggy.
When police arrived surgery workers immediately recognised the thief on CCTV.
But in a move branded “ridiculous” yesterday, they refused to tell officers the woman’s name saying it would break data protection and patient confidentiality laws.
Miss Skidmore, 26, of Cadbury Heath, Bristol, who was at the Cadbury Heath Health Centre on February 5 with her son Lewis, aged one, said: “I think it’s vile that a mother could do that to another mother. I’m still in shock about it.
“The manager told me she had been told not to reveal the name because of the Data Protection Act. I don’t understand it. Obviously the woman who stole my pram was there for an appointment but giving her name to police would have nothing to do with her private medical information – it’s about a crime.
“She should be prosecuted. She shouldn’t be allowed to get away with something like that.”

I'm pretty sure the Data Protection Act is only to prevent access to confidential records, not prevent identification of a theft on the premises. However it does appear that the staff are using a ruling to prevent the police carrying out their duties by simply giving them a name. I don't believe the patients records will need viewing, simply a means to find the thief rather than rely on video evidence.
However interpretation of the Act and its consequences does appear to give jobsworths a whole new level of power to play with and refusing to cooperate is a hallmark of a jobsworth in action. Never mind common sense, rules is rules and my interpretation of them makes me a little tin god, or so I believe they think.
I suspect the police will find the woman, it may be too late to save the buggy of course, it might have been sold on. Yet they could have had it sorted within hours, not days or weeks.
Yet because a manager decides that a name, is covered by the Act, rather than the record, someone has to suffer.
Welcome to the UK....

How not to do something

Day after day I look through newspaper reports to see if there's something I fancy commenting on, I give my opinion and let the rest of you decide if I'm right or wrong. However occasionally something comes along which is breathtaking in its insensitivity. After all if a close one to you dies suddenly, you'd expect a degree of sensitivity from the police...
Express.

THOUGHTLESS police rang a woman on her mobile to break the news that her husband had died instead of telling her in person.
Ruth Williams, 31, was working at a pub near her home in Tremadog, north west Wales, when she got a missed call on her mobile phone on January 2nd.
When she called the number back and was told that her husband Dave, 35, had suffered a fatal asthma attack at a neighbour's house, she initially thought that someone was playing a sick joke on her.
She said an officer at the police station later apologised, but that no-one had explained why she was not told in person that the father of her two children had died.
She said that after she received the missed call at work on the day her husband died, she rang the number back and a man introduced himself as a police officer.
Mrs Williams said: "He asked me if I was with Dave, and I said to him, 'No, I'm at work and he's at home.'
"But then he said: 'Are you in a relationship still?'
"I said 'Of course, I'm his wife.'
"He then told me that Dave had died. I swore at him and threw the phone to my friend and work colleague who spoke to him. I thought it was a sick joke."

No doubt it's from the same group that trawls twitter and facebook for the crime of speaking your mind, but really this was utterly crass, occasionally people find out by accident a loved one has died, but you expect the police to at least turn up in person to confirm the details. And yes, it's quite possible to trace a mobile to a specific location, it's not like the police have never done it before.
No one likes to be the bearer of bad news, particularly if it involves a death in the family, but to do it by phone when they aren't that far away? Granted Australia I could perhaps understand, but then it's usually a relative, not the police.
North Wales Police ought to be ashamed of themselves, but somehow other than a mealy mouthed apology at a later date I doubt anything else will happen. It will be a classic case of 'lessons will be learned' until it happens again.

Tokenism

There have (as ever) been calls that owing to the current hoo-hah over the current Commissioner of the Metropoloitan Police over the Plebgate affair, corruption at Scotland Yard and questions over his own role as a former South Yorkshire officer in the aftermath of the 1989 Hillsborough disaster.that the next Commissioner should be from an 'ethnic minority' background.

Express.

SCOTLAND Yard has a “diversity crisis” and should be forced to consider appointing a black or Muslim officer as its next commissioner, an influential MP urged last night.
Keith Vaz, chairman of the Commons Home Affairs Committee, said trust in the country’s biggest force was being eroded and it was time for “dramatic” solutions.
He said a form of positive ­discrimination was needed to ensure at least one candidate on the next shortlist to run the Yard was from an ethnic minority background.
The country’s highest ranking ethnic minority officer is the Met’s Deputy Assistant Commissioner Patricia Gallan, meaning a black woman could soon become ­Britain’s top police officer.

Essentially they are saying that 'old whitey' needn't apply as they wouldn't be considered for the post should they get their way. Nor do I believe that Scotland Yard has a diversity crisis, I rather suspect that they have invented this as an excuse for their fifteen minuted media grab to try and push their racist agenda. (although their view is that ethnic minorities cannot be racist no matter what they do) Despite current statistics which show owing to their backgrounds and upbringing that certain minority groups are corrupt to the core because they always put their family/tribe/countrymen first.
Nor does the fact that certain minority (ex) officers scandalous behaviour such as Ali Dizaei who if not for some courageous whistle-blowers his meteoric rise through the ranks might have ended up with him being the Commissioner, was only halted after he was exposed as a liar and a crook by the Daily Mail.
Meaning that just because someone is from an ethnic minority shouldn't make them fit for any job, never mind a top one.
No, this is just another attempt at tokenism writ large by those who believe all whites are racist and that only ethnic minorities are fit to lead us.

Numpty

I don't use social media, I barely use my pc for blogging and my phone for texting come to that. Not that I'm a technophobe, few engineers are and I co-exist quite happily with various test equipment linked to pc's or with their own output/input monitors.
Yet even if I did, I certainly wouldn't announce to the world where I was or if I was going somewhere, were I to be so stupid as to be on the run from the police, doubly so.
There are some though...
Express.

A THIEF who went on the run for almost a year after stealing £8,000 from his workplace was arrested after positing his location on Facebook.
The 33-year-old stole thousands from the safe at a travel agents in Warrington before running off to Scotland for 10 months.
He was arrested after posting his location on Facebook and was jailed for a year at Chester Crown Court.
PC Graham Davies from Cheshire Police said: "I nearly fell off the chair when I saw that he had decided to not only leave his Facebook profile unprotected but also list his new employer. It was very rewarding to get this offender."

Initially I was wondering why the police are monitoring facebook rather than being out on the beat, however having seen what the police do take seriously on social media and some of the ridiculous arrests made because of faux outrage by various people I probably shouldn't have been wondering at all, it makes for easy arrests and boosts their figures, though sadly does little to stop actual crime other than childish insult. That said, it does strike me that this guy really should have known better because the police may have been informed by anyone looking at his page. You also have to wonder why the idiot didn't change his name or open a different account...
So what's happened is this numpty has justified the police trawling social media for crimes both real and imagined.
Clearly we are turning into a nation of dullards.

This is why we need to return to the Peelian principles.

The Peelian principles were introduced by the founder of the modern police force Robert Peel, they are simple, straightforward and very easy to comprehend, something that the righteous and ACPO absolutely hate as they take no account of political correctness or league tables...

1. The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.
2. The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon the public approval of police actions.
3. Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observation of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.
4. The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.
5. Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.
6. Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice, and warning is found to be insufficient.
7. Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
8. Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions, and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.
9. The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it

Telegraph.

Police forces are routinely massaging crime figures to make hundreds of offences “disappear in a puff of smoke”, MPs have been told.
Official crime statistics are regularly skewed to make a police force’s performance appear far better than it is in reality, the House of Commons Public Administration Committee heard.
Retired and serving police officers gave evidence about techniques used to manipulate the figures - which they said were sanctioned by senior officers - such as downgrading offences to less serious crimes or persuading victims not to make a complaint.
In some cases crimes were only recorded if they were solved, and others were kept completely off the books if an offender could not be traced, the committee heard.
The disclosures will further undermine confidence in official Home Office statistics which claim crime is at its lowest level for more than 30 years.

I don't know where the Telegraph gets the idea that the Home Office data on crime statistics is actually believed by anyone with an IQ over 90. Just chat to most people and you'd come away with the impression that crime both petty and major is a factor in their lives and they do not believe that somehow or other society is safer than it was. Indeed cases such as the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes and the death of Ian Tomlinson suggest that the police themselves are perfectly willing to absolve themselves of criminal behaviour if so required. Nor have such high profile corruption cases such as Ali Dizaei helped the perception of the public towards the police being people you can trust.
It does seem at times that the police are no better than the criminals they are supposed to deal with and ACPO lead the way.
The old saying that 'a fish rots from the head' seems remarkably apt here.

Sorry, don't believe he did...

It does strike me as odd the court decision on the spy found locked in a bag in that Scotland yard are convinced he locked himself in it and died.
Mail.

Police today admitted that they are unable to explain the death of an MI6 spy whose body was found locked in a holdall bag.
Gareth Williams' mysterious death has been the subject of fierce speculation since he was found dead in his Central London flat three years ago.
Following a year-long investigation by Scotland Yard, officers today announced that they believe his death was accidental and that no one else was involved, although they concluded that it is impossible to reach a definite verdict on the case.
The finding contravenes the verdict of a coroner who last year ruled that Mr Williams had 'probably' been killed by someone else.
Scotland Yard detectives said that since it was possible for the codebreaker to climb in to the bag and lock it unaided, it is not necessary to posit any outside involvement.

Now other than the possibility that the guy was absolutely way out bonkers and had some sort of locking himself in a case fetish, it does rather strike me that climbing into a bag and locking yourself in it is a rather stupid way to kill yourself, even a yoga expert struggled with the task, nor can anyone explain why he did in in a bath.
Admittedly it is (sort of) possible for someone to do something as daft, which doesn't quite rule out the possibility of misadventure, but in this case the simplest solution (because he could) does rather strike me as a rather tenuous set of conclusions to come too, especially as the police found 15 sets of other peoples DNA in the flat whom they've been unable to identify.
There is of course the possibility of suicide and a bit of an attempt to wind up the investigators, but those who knew the guy didn't think he was suicidal either.
I guess we'll never know, but I'm with those who suspect foul play, even if it looks like something no competent murderer would do either come to that.

Honesty doesn't pay

I like to think I'm an honest man, opinionated yes, but I'd like to believe if I found a bundle of money in the street or on someone's premises, that I'd hand it in...
Well at least until today I did...
Mail.

An honest builder who handed in nearly £18,000 in cash to police after he found it stashed in a fire-damaged flat will go without any reward following a High Court judge's ruling.
Steven Fletcher found the hoard of 'neatly bundled' notes in a metal box in a burnt-out property he was renovating in King Street, Leicester, in September 2011.
The £17,940 cash haul - all in £20 notes and neatly packaged into £1,000 bundles - was concealed under a kitchen unit.
The flat had been empty since a fire gutted it six months earlier and Mr Fletcher immediately handed in his find to police.
But a High Court judge has ruled Mr Fletcher does not have any right to the cash after police failed to trace its origins.
Police experts and forensic analysts examined the mysterious hoard. Drug-testing was, however, 'inconclusive', although some notes showed minute traces of cocaine.
Magistrates nevertheless ordered forfeiture of the cash under the Proceeds of Crime Act after Leicestershire's Chief Constable, Simon Cole, successfully argued that it probably came from 'unlawful criminal conduct'.

I was always under the impression that lack of evidence doesn't constitute proof, though it does appear that the legal system of the UK operates under different rules (surprise, surprise)
Now it may well be that the cash was being used for criminality, or was the proceeds from criminal activity, but there's no evidence that it was (or wasn't)
There is of course the drug traces, however as the Mail itself told the world back in 2010...

Every bank note in the UK is contaminated with cocaine within weeks of entering circulation, experts have revealed.
Police have stopped testing notes for traces of the drug in criminal investigations as the contamination is so widespread.
According to the Forensic Science Service the results are now meaningless as every note tests positive for cocaine.

So, other than the fact that the police were suspicious about the way that the notes were carefully sortied into bundles of one denomination which meant they were 'unlikely to be the profits of legitimate cash trading in their eyes and in the eyes of the court. This along with the fact that no-one came forward to claim the cash meant they felt justified in keeping it.
I'd be willing to bet the next time Mr Fletcher or anyone else reading the Mail article finds a wad of cash hidden away, handing it in to the police will not figure in their thought processes.

You think?

Apparently the police are becoming concerned that sections of society no longer trust them, though heaven knows why (sarcasm) But now it appears that even the middle class no longer trust them and this appears to have hit a nerve somewhere in the politically correct mendacious higher ranks.
Telegraph.

In the wake of Plebgate Irene Curtis, the president of the Superintendents Association, admits that people from all walks of life, not just the working classes, mistrust the police
It is not just the working classes who fear the police, they are mistrusted by people from all walks of life, the president of the Superintendents Association has said. Irene Curtis, Chief Superintendent of Lancashire police and a former Head of Professional Standards at the force, has admitted that officers have a long way to go to rebuilding the relationship with the community that is essential for the survival of the force. Discussing whether the Plebgate affair had damage the police’s reputation, Mrs Curtis told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “I think that there are people from all classes that have a mistrust of the police for all sorts of reasons, usually as a result of interaction with police.” Shaun Bailey, community worker and former government adviser, had argues that some good could come from the Andrew Mitchell affair as he is a “very senior member of our society”. It proven to sections of society that never deals officers that is possible for the police to be "lying" and therefore could increase the pressure on them to “tidy up their game”, he argued.

Having watched members of the EDL arrested, transported and then de-arrested for simply having a drink in a pub on Remembrance Day it's easy to see from my lowly point of view why the police aren't trusted by anyone. To put it simply the police have been infiltrated by the likes of Common Purpose and now have an agenda as advanced by their private company which runs them aka ACPO. The political correctness, the diversity drives which sidelined able officers due to their (white) skin colour, the pandering to the religion of hate, lies, obfuscation, innate anti-white racism when dealing with groups with legitimate concerns. All have led to various parts of the community as a whole to view the police as the enemy, not their protectors. The forces around the country used to be proud of what they termed as policing by consent and are now realising that by their own actions and the morons running them from the top that, that consent is being withdrawn. ales keep emerging of the police simply not doing what is considered their job, it took them twenty minutes to approach the butchers of Lee Rigby despite said butchers being confronted by 'endangered' members of the public. They lied about 'pleb' comments to get at the government. They arrest the then leader of the EDL for leaping a barrier to get at a man burning a poppy on Remembrance day.
Can they rebuild the trust? I doubt it, not without shedding all the diversity/multiculturalism/political correctness that infests the upper ranks and dribbles downwards. They need to police by consent, pandering to minorities is not policing by consent, lying is not policing by consent, arresting people for taking pictures of railway stations is not policing by consent, arresting people who are upholding the right to protest is not policing by consent, nor is ignoring counterprotestors violent conduct.
The police have fallen far from the ideals which set them up, it will be a generation at least before any trust can be rebuilt, assuming they can even put things right.

Disparity

How come reports tell us that the police took 20 minutes to react to the atrocity in Greenwich?
How come when someone smashed some cabinets at a mosque in Gillingham, the police said  the damage happened at 20.00 and an arrest was made at 20.04?
Guess it shows where the priorities lie.
The one good point is that the cowards were not killed but were brought down by a policewoman and won't be getting their 72 virgins white grapes.
The bad news is that we can't string them up pour encourager les autres.
Boris Johnson also seems to think we shouldn't blame the mindless fascistic ideology wrapped up in religious trappings that is islam for the atrocity. It's noticeable that he doesn't tell us who or what to blame.
I also learned that one of the cowardly barbarians who perpetrated the act is a converted Christian, you'd think people would have far more self respect.
There is no place for Islam in a civilised society, now or ever.

That word 'could' again.

Could and should are the most insidious words in the lexicon of those who would ban things or remove essential freedoms from us in the name of security, health and often enough crime prevention.
And so it is with the police crying out over plans to make them destroy DNA samples after six months...
Mail. (Usual caveats)

Police and scientists have warned that dangerous criminals could escape justice because of a ‘baffling’ Government decision to destroy six million DNA samples.
It means detectives will no longer be able to use a pioneering investigative tool – familial DNA testing – that narrows down suspects using forensic material from relatives.
Martin Bottomley, who leads a specialist police team which uses the technique, argues some cases will now be ‘impossible’ to solve.
And top forensic investigator Patricia Wiltshire, whose evidence was crucial in convicting Ian Huntley of the Soham murders, said: ‘It is a crazy, retrograde move. In forensic protocols and police procedures, Britain is respected worldwide, but this could damage our reputation.’
The process of erasing all existing samples began in December and is due to be completed this month.
In addition, under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 – legislation championed by Nick Clegg in response to a European human-rights ruling – all new samples must now be destroyed within six months.

Ah yes, familial DNA testing, just another tool in the armoury of the police which requires ever more of our DNA to be on record 'just in case' meaning that the police once they have it for any reason will want to keep it.
There are the usual nothing to hide nothing to fear arguments going on in the comments, though the consensus seems to be that somehow or other this is a mistake, though many admit even with such records, mistakes are made.
Part of the problem seems to be that the police have swung into the position that DNA sampling is their first and foremost tool in criminal investigations rather than the old fashioned method of asking questions and investigating. Mistakes can and have been made and the police know this, but still want as much of the population as they can on the databases they have.
There's an old maxim that goes somewhat on the lines of 'It's better that 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man be wrongly convicted' something that the police and CPS as well as the powers that be seem incapable of understanding as they demand that the law is flouted in order to keep their precious databases. Sure you can argue that if everyone had their DNA on record certain crimes would be easy to solve, though I can think of a few examples where false accusations can be made of someone who happened to be there and did not commit the act they are accused of (Julia has a whole file full of false rape claims) Yet there are some of us who believe that our DNA is our own and that the state should not have it on record save only if we are previously convicted criminals, after all do you trust the bastards in power? Sooner or later someone would come up with another reason for such records if only to experiment on certain genomes who happen to be inconvenient.
Could and should does not mean will, no matter how hard the powers that be try to tell us it does.

So why did it take so long to get to court?

Three people have been sentenced for enslaving a woman between 2003 and 2006. The catalogue of their crimes is extreme including rape as well as physical violence, they all amazingly enough appear to be of the religion of peace hate judging by the names.
BBC.

Three people have been found guilty of abusing an Indian woman who was treated like a servant and sexually abused.
The mother of four, 39, from Hyderabad, was employed in three London households as a nanny and domestic worker.
Enkarta Balapovi, 54, was convicted of five counts of rape.
Shamina Yousuf, 33, and Shashi Obhrai, 54, were both found guilty of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. Obhrai, of Northwood, was also convicted of making a threat to kill.
The jury at Croydon Crown Court cleared Aleemuddin Mohammed, 35, of Sefton Avenue, Harrow, of sexual assault.
Obhrai, an optician from Moor Park in Northwood, Balapovi, a butcher, of Charlburt Street in St John's Wood, Mohammed and Shanaz Begum, a shop worker from St John's Wood, were found not guilty of trafficking offences on the direction of the judge.
On one occasion she managed to escape and reach a help centre but Obhrai found her. Jurors heard she held a kitchen knife to the victim's neck and threatened to kill her.

Ok, the people have been found guilty, however I do wonder why it took so long for this case to reach the courts, surely when the woman was abducted back from the shelter at knife point some alarm bells should have been ringing? It might just be that I'm parsing that paragraph wrong though and the knife threat happened later.
Still surely it should not have taken so long for someone to realise that something was terribly wrong here? Particularly the refuge? Granted I'm sure she could have been kept captive in a house, but escape should have been possible or at least a cry for help of some kind. Perhaps indeed she did and the police were too 'politically correct' to take it further if they thought it was 'cultural' it has been known after all.
Granted I don't know all the facts here other than what I've read in the press. But it does seem to be a very long period to actually reach the stage of justice being done (for a given value of justice)
Perhaps someone out there would care to enlighten us further?

Two tier, two faced

There's definitely a two tier legal system in operation in the UK, it's often enough applied to minorities getting away with or receiving a lesser sentence than someone of the majority, but occasionally it's a member of the 'establishment' getting preferential treatment...
Mail. (usual caveats)

A woman police officer responsible for issuing fines to drivers for talking on their phone was using her own mobile when she was involved in a fatal crash, an inquest heard yesterday.
Collette Carpenter had the device on loud speaker and rested on her lap to have a conversation with her partner when she pulled out into the path of motorcyclist David Bartholomew.
The 54-year-old father-of-two collided with the side of Miss Carpenter's Peugeot 206, was catapulted into the road at Ferndown, Dorset, and died of horrific injuries hours later on March 20 last year.
When she was interviewed by fellow police officers, Miss Carpenter, 23, lied and claimed she hadn't been using her mobile phone at the time.
The special constable later said she had briefly taken an incoming call before changing her story again and admitted that she had been on the phone for her entire journey with the mobile on loud speaker on her lap.
She claimed that talking on loud speaker with a phone on her lap was 'the same as having a passenger in the car'.
A police accident investigator told the inquest that by using her phone, the off-duty officer had 'very likely' contributed to the crash.

Now most cases actually involve texting when causing an accident when using the mobile phone. However, it does make you wonder why she tried to lie about using it at first rather than go straight to the using it on speakerphone excuse. A more cynical person might just suspect that even the speakerphone excuse was just that, an excuse and the phone wasn't on speaker at all, though naturally proving such would be difficult.
The very fact that her story changed and she was caught in a web of lies you suspect should have been taken into account. Though it apparently wasn't and she walked free after killing a motorcyclist after pulling out at a junction.

One motorist who has been penalised in the past wrote on a local internet forum in response to the inquest: 'So much for Dorset Police's 'No Excuses campaign.
'I received three points for having my phone on my lap whilst on loud speaker so it must be an offence.'

As far as I can tell (I may be wrong) she didn't even get points on her license. I suspect that most of the people involved in the enforcement of the 'No Excuse' campaign do the very things that they prosecute drivers for, whether it be Police Officers, magistrates, speed camera operatives, Driver Awareness Course instructors, council officials and Councillors.
I may be wrong...

Privacy

So much of our lives are out there on various databases that it has become increasingly difficult if you live in the modern world to escape intrusions in the way of unwanted emails, post or telephone calls interrupting your life. Every contact you make seems to spawn a plethora of unwanted contacts back and some of those contacts are persistent to the point of bloody rudeness. Yet you'd think that some organisations would be a little more careful with your details? Actually scratch that, I know whom I'm writing to here in a sense, trust in authority is in sparse quantity amongst those who come here to read.
Telegraph.

Police forces have received millions of pounds for passing on the details of road accident victims to claims management companies, insurers and lawyers, it has emerged.
It may have led to thousands of people being pursued by “cash for crash” companies looking to profit out of personal injury claims, vehicle repairs and providing a replacement car.
Police forces denied making a profit, insisting the money they received was merely covering their administrative costs in providing details to insurers after a crash. Three forces — Fife, Hampshire and the Metropolitan Police — have admitted giving the contact details of more than 16,000 people to third parties. It is believed the practice is adopted by other forces, although they declined to provide details to LV.
The Met admitted it had been paid more than £5 million since 2009; Hampshire has received £480,000 since 2010, while Fife has been paid £194,000, a freedom of information request by LV Insurance found.
Jack Straw, the former Home Secretary who led a parliamentary campaign to curb accident claims companies, described the passing on of information as “scandalous”. “It is completely unacceptable that the police and public services are selling data in this way,” he said.

The problem for the government of course is that nowhere in the rules does it say they can't. That plus expecting common decency from public services in keeping your details to themselves is rather laughable. Private companies perhaps would be a bit more circumspect, though again it is private companies who are buying the data to use and names and addresses once on a database seem to be bandied about with scant regard to whether the details are relevant or that the people contacted on these databases actually wish to be hounded by  anyone.
Normally I'm not in favour of the state intervening on anything but the absolute minimum level in our lives. However the details held in their databases are ours, not the peoples who are handing them over. Perhaps it ought to be a criminal offence for a public service to hand over any such details.
In the end though it comes down to money.
Companies are prepared to pay for the details and the public services use the money to offset some of their costs (or pay for junkets, who knows) Yet those details are ours and once they are handed over there is no control over who gets to see or use them next.
Perhaps in this case there should be a law against it?

Injustice

Why is it that plod when they get it wrong will often go to extreme lengths to try and justify what they did? Oh I'm sure we only get to read about the cases that go really wrong (well some of them) and not the many that go to plan. Still in this case a mistake if such it was could have been corrected on the day, not 8 months down the line.
Mail. (usual caveats)

A teenage girl with autism was arrested and hauled before the courts because police mistakenly assumed she was drunk.
Despite being completely sober, 17-year-old Melissa Jones spent ten hours in a police cell, was finger-printed and had her DNA taken.
She was charged with being drunk and disorderly, forced to appear in court and became suicidal while waiting eight months for her case to go to trial.
Last week, however, prosecutors finally realised they had got it wrong and agreed to drop the case against her.
Miss Jones’s ordeal began shortly before midnight on June 16 last year when she and a friend went to a shop near her home in Edge Hill, Liverpool, to buy some Coca-Cola.
Another customer, a drunken woman, became aggressive when the assistant refused to serve her, and attacked Miss Jones and her friend when they intervened.
Both girls were stamped on and suffered severe bruising.
When police arrived the attacker had fled, and Miss Jones was crying and hysterical. Despite her protestations, police assumed she had been drinking and arrested her.
‘At the police station, a doctor confirmed she hadn’t been drinking, but still the police tried to pursue her through the courts.

Other than being a salutary lesson in not intervening, you have to wonder why the police ignored a doctors evidence that the young lady wasn't drunk. Even at the end though the CPS only dropped the case because they had insufficient evidence to prove she was drunk, not because they had it wrong.
The police even had the nerve to try and get her to admit her guilt by a £60 fixed penalty fine rather than accept the evidence that the young lady had autism and was not drunk at all.
Don't get me wrong here, I know it isn't easy being a plod and that they do get an awful lot of crap thrown them during their work, but really at times they simply do not help themselves. I'm still a bit mystified as to why they arrested her in the first place as she was the one who'd been assaulted. But have ran across the arrest first sort it out mentality from other reports of police actions in recent years to know just how some of them operate.
Now I realise we only have the mothers statement that there was a doctor, but the lack of evidence proving she was drunk does suggest that a doctor was there, after all, it's a simple test to prove you have been taking alcohol.
Perhaps the length of time was adjudged punishment enough for involving the police?
Either way, I doubt she'll trust them any more or get involved in future.

Lies, damned lies and videotape.

There has been some furore over the last 24 hours in regard to whether or not the police evidence about whether Andrew Mitchell was witnessed calling a police officer a pleb. Which if the video evidence is to be believed, there was no witness as claimed by the police and it has become one man's word against another.
I didn't see the Channel 4 program as I was busy elsewhere indulging in my love of Tolkien at a showing of The Hobbit, but I've read and viewed some stills of the so called incident and the evidence as presented by the police including an email of a member of the public whom it turned out was a serving police officer who was supposed to be a witness and it now appears to be highly suspect and that Mitchell was set up by the police to take a heavy fall by lies. I'm not saying he didn't call the officer concerned a pleb, but it now appears if he did do it then only the officer concerned heard him...
It's not the first time that someone has fallen foul of trial by media and that the initial evidence and perceptions have been false, the problem being that some elements in society were all too prepared to believe it of the Tory Party (yes unions and leftists we're looking at you) and we really should have known better as the police have put themselves into various positions over the last few years in which what they consider to be evidence often isn't. It does seem odd that the person tasked by the government appears to have missed the email thing or rather not checked it correctly, but we're talking politicians here and at the time it did appear an open and shut case. Though I suspect if Mitchell is ever reinstated as chief whip some politicians are going to seriously regret it (Shades of Francis Urquhart anyone?) The man may be forgiving over being thrown to the wolves, but I personally wouldn't.
As it is, the reputation (already low) of the police has just taken another blow and the politicisation of the forces during the Labour years and the infiltration by Common Purpose now needs to be removed root and branch.
Otherwise they'll just go away, lick their wounds and try again...

'Might'

There are some jobs where getting it wrong does not have grave consequences, comedians and tv presenters etc. There are other jobs where getting it wrong does, firemen, police, armed forces etc. As a consequence we expect that those doing those jobs where getting it wrong have a higher commensurate reward and that mistakes are kept to a minimum. We accept that occasionally mistake will be made, however there are mistakes and mistakes...
Mail.

A 999 control room supervisor is facing gross misconduct proceedings after he told a woman 'you don’t need the police' shortly before she was raped.
The victim suffered a harrowing two-hour ordeal while her terrified children were listening in the next room.
She dialled 999 but abandoned the call after the 19-year-old attacker grabbed her around the throat. The operator heard a struggle and a man arguing.
Fifteen minutes later a supervisor called her back and asked a series of ‘closed’ ­questions before concluding: 'You don’t need the police.'
But the man could be heard whispering in the background forcing her to say everything was fine before hanging up and committing the rape in Southampton in February. He was later jailed for eight years.

That was not a mistake, that was incompetence, the report goes on to say that the supervisor 'might' lose his job. MIGHT?
Of course, silly me I wasn't thinking straight, after all this is a world where a psychopath in a police uniform can basically murder someone walking past and get away with it. A police force which can arrest 176 peaceful people on the suspicion they 'might' cause a crime.
So it clearly is a case that the supervisor 'might' be sacked, but judging from what has happened elsewhere, he 'might' even be promoted.

The kind of society some want?

One of the means by which the Nazi's and Socialists of the past (and in a few cases today) maintained their grip on those under enslaved by their system was that some people were prepared to report on what their neighbours were doing, in some cases whether they were doing it or not. In this instance kudos have to go to the police for deciding there wasn't a case to answer and no I don't blame them for having to check, it's their job if a complaint is made, it just makes a difference that they actually did bother to look. No I blame the kind of society who produced a person who could do this without checking all the details and simply assume 'fault' was to be found.
Mail.

A pub holding a competition to find the ‘Ugliest Woman’ got a visit from the police after someone reported them for sexism.
An unknown complainant demanded the competition be cancelled and wanted the owners of Islay Inn prosecuted.
However, when police arrived at the Glasgow venue they gave manager George Hogg the go ahead after discovering it was, in fact, a competition for men dressed as women.
Mr Hogg told of his disbelief of the complaint and accused the protestor of being ‘over the top with political correctness.’
He said: ‘I have no idea who made the complaint and the police wouldn’t tell me - but if he or she had bothered to read the advert properly, they would have realised that it was not ugly women we were looking for - but ugly men dressed up as women.

You have to wonder whether it was malice or misunderstanding behind the complaint, possibly it was a combination of the two with someone reading the advert without checking the small print and deciding to be offended by proxy, something which many minority groups claim is the bane of their existence.
Personally I have no problem if a pub wants to hold an ugly woman contest, I wouldn't even be offended if it were just open to women come to that same with an ugly man competition, after all they've been holding 'gurning' competitions for years.
No what bothers me is the political correctness that would make some person decide that this was their business to complain about. Rather than the libertarian view that what someone does is their business so long as it does not impinge on my freedoms. You should not have any right to be offended by any such thing, the most you should be able to do is ignore it, not waste police time on it.
Yet I have the feeling that this is exactly the sort of society that the powers that be want, a one where we imprison ourselves in chains of our own making. It would certainly save them the bother of paying guards, after all a society with people who complain about frivolous stuff will surely not spot them raking in expenses cash or robbing us blind whilst abusing our kids?
After all, that's why the higher echelons of the likes of Nazi's and socialists do...