British Bobbies No More – Cringing Cops Even Warn Their Dogs on ‘Human Rights!’

What’s is happening to the Old Country?

No, this isn’t one of my usual clarion calls, just an anguished enquiry inspired by a Daily Mail story yesterday.

The ‘Old’ Scotland Yard

This post is  more a threnody for a phenomenon that Britain has seemingly lost forever, the good old British Bobby.
There was a time, not that long ago, when the police in the UK were respected by most everyone, even the criminals  it was their job to pursue.
I can recall the ‘Old’ Scotland Yard, its name allegedly derived from the ancient site of  the Scots Embassy when the two kingdoms were separate entities. I used to join colleagues after work in a bar down that way, and saw that police horses were still stabled somewhere in the vicinity.
I knew a lot of cops in London, as I often ate my lunch-time  sandwiches sitting in the sunny environs of Covent Garden – not in the winter, obviously – and officers from the nearby Bow Street ‘nick’ would go strolling by on patrol or off-duty, and over time, they’d recognise familiar faces and pass the time of day.
That was in the era of the so-called ‘canteen culture,’ when police understood their job.
Now they have become, at least in the upper ranks, overweening upstarts, PC motivated when it comes to undesirable minorities, but bullying oafs when it involves normal Brits.
Examples of the former abound, notably the disgraceful order issued to Bedford Police not to go after Islamic suspects as others would be gone after – and the photo above shows how many brownie points THAT PC nonsense earned!
And then there’s Lancashire, where some clown ordered his constables to ignore the disgusting public cavortings of the local pervert fraternity. It was that dimwit outfit too that harassed Christians for quoting the Gospel!
And then there’s North Wales, run by a certain Richard Brunstrom, a poltroon with a penchant for political correctitude. North Wales Police is not so much a law enforcement agency as a sick joke.    
The idiots are even PC-ing their dogs, now trained to head-butt rather than bite escaping thugs! I came across this previously over-looked nonsense while preparing this post.
The scheme was launched after the Association of Chief Police Officers published a paper for dog handlers on human rights. In it, police dog handlers in a position where they are considering setting their dog after a suspect are told to ask themselves: ‘Are there human rights issues involved in what I am about to do?’
A sick joke, right?
But when a well-behaved young English lad does something perfectly legal, that some puffed-up toad in uniform decides is inconvenient, what happens?
These thoughts arise today from the most unpleasant news item from the Daily Mail, about a repulsive buffoon of Inspector rank, regrettably unidentified, and even more regrettably, unfired…read on, folks!
A police inspector tried to block a teenager taking photos at a public event in a town centre saying it was ‘silly’ and ‘gay’ and ‘stupid’.
Officers prevented Jules Mattsson – then 15 – from taking pictures at a military parade in Romford, east London, in June 2010.
The Metropolitan Police said compensation had been paid and an apology issued.
Law firm Bindmans, which represented the youngster, said a police inspector had described photographing in public as ‘anti-social behaviour’.
‘On 26 June 2010, (Jules), at the time a 15-year-old student, was photographing the Armed Forces Day parade in Romford,’ said a spokesman for Bindmans.
‘Despite the public event taking place in the middle of the town centre, Metropolitan Police officers claimed it was unlawful to photograph the parade. The officers, led by an inspector, insisted he stopped taking photographs.
‘The inspector told (Jules) he was a public hazard and said that photographing in public was ‘anti-social behaviour’.
‘He described the act of taking photographs as ‘silly’ and ‘gay’ and ‘stupid”.
The lawyer continued: ‘When (Jules) continued to state the lawfulness of his behaviour, the inspector declared it was ‘dangerous’ as he was ‘likely to be trampled on by soldiers’ from the parade.’\
Jules continued to state the lawfulness of his behaviour but the inspector declared it was 'dangerous' as he was 'likely to be trampled on by soldiers' from the parade' Jules continued to state the lawfulness of his behaviour but the inspector declared it was ‘dangerous’ Solicitor Chez Cotton, head of the police misconduct department at Bindmans, said: ‘The police had no legal power to stop him photographing in a public place. The inspector attempted to justify his actions in shocking and absurd ways.’ Ms Cotton added: ‘The treatment of the police towards our client, a 15-year-old, was shocking. The inspector’s comments were designed to belittle.
‘Our client politely and reasonably maintained that the police were not entitled to interfere with his right to report.
Officers prevented Jules Mattsson - then 15 - from taking pictures at a military parade in Romford, east London, in June 2010, pictured     The military parade in Romford, east London, in June 2010
‘In response the inspector used serious anti-terrorism legislation, cynically telling Mr Mattsson ‘I consider you a threat under the Terrorism Act young man. I’ve had enough’.
‘The police have no legal power or moral responsibility to prevent or restrict what journalists record.
‘It is unacceptable that the police interfered with (Jules’) right to report in any event, but for officers to attempt to intimidate a young reporter in this way is deplorable.
‘It is right the commissioner has promptly apologised and paid a suitable level of damages.’
A Metropolitan Police spokesman said: ‘The … Directorate of Legal Services, on behalf of the commissioner, agreed an out-of-court settlement, as well as paying compensation and meeting legal costs for a 16-year-old male, following an incident where he was prevented by officers taking pictures at the Armed Forces Parade in Romford on 26 June 2010.
‘An apology has also been issued.’
NOT GOOD ENOUGH. The lad appears to be neither ‘silly’ nor ‘stupid’ and there was certainly no obvious reason to grotesquely insult him by saying he was ‘gay.’ That’s grossly offensive.   
The moronic Inspector should be dismissed. He’s unfit to hold any responsible job.