The Night Mail

[Flying Fox 34F]

I know this dark sense of humour all to well. The joys of working alongside the Transport Police!

Those of a delicate nature would be busy being Keyboard Warriors, if they knew the realities of the world.

 

Paul

[Dave Hunt]

I think that dark humour as a mental defence mechanism is widespread in the medical profession, police force, the armed forces and anyone else whose daily life is likely to bring them into close contact with the possibility or actuality of danger, injury, suffering and even death. Once someone is immersed in such a scenario, though, I think that they tend also to indulge in the sort of banter that can surprise outsiders and often make them think that such people don’t really like each other or get on together whereas the truth is just the opposite.

 

Dave

[Dave Hunt]

My one attempt at CPR was not only unsuccessful but extremely tiring. Myself and a colleague tried for about twenty minutes to revive someone before the emergency services arrived, taking it in turns, and by the time we stopped were both physically very tired.

 

Dave

[Tony_S]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

Founded in 1884, its members played a significant role in the founding of the Labour Representation Committee in 1900 and from that the Labour Party. It also played a large role in the founding of the London School of Economics in 1895. Early members included George Bernard Shaw and Beatrice and Sidney Webb;

Pretty much what I remember from O level History (British economic and social history, 1700 to1948 ). 
 

[br2975]

20 hours ago, Hroth said:

There was a sword attack incident in Hainult, London this morning, during which a 13 yo boy was killed and 4 others, including two police officers, were injured.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-england-london-68926446

 

The attacker was tasered to a stop.  Its a pity he wasn't shot by armed officers.  Now we have the waste of money for a trial and keeping the attacker locked up for an appropriate length of time.

 

.

This country is not geared up to deal with, or cope with police involved shootings.

.

This is not the USA where such shootings can go unreported in the national press, and where most Americans shrig their shoulders and say "Oh ell, he probably deserved it"

.

In my professional opinion, any police officer who takes up a firearm 'needs their bumps felt"

.

One day that officer may be called upon to pull the trigger, and however 'righteous' that shot, he (or she) will be entering a 'world of hurt' that will last for years.

.

The officer will immediately be removed from frontline duties whilst the incident is investigated, and placed in a backroom job.

.

Whilst accepted practice suggests the officer also be treated as a victim, that is rarely, if ever the case and the officer is immediately treated as a suspect.

 

The matter will be investgiated by his/her own force, as well as the (NOT VERY) Independent Office for Police Conduct.

.

In addition, the incident will be thoroughly dissected by the media, the press, and a myriad of agenda driven 'support groups' and other interested parties who are not interested in any facts that do not suit their narrative.

.

Meanwhile, the officer will be treated like a pyrriah, at worst ignored by the bosses, and at best kept at arms length - and this even includes many former colleagues and friends..

.

The officer will be tried in the court of 'public opinion' - regardless of the full facts not being known.

.

Former friends out side the job will avouid the officer, as will those of the officer's partner.

.

The officers children will be taunted at school, or in the street with accusations that 'your dad's a murderer'

.

Eventually, there will be  one of several likely outcomes

.

H.M. Coroner's Court may consider the killing lawful - at which point the agenda driven  'interested parties' will cry 'cover up' OR the killing could be deemed unl;awful and the officer sent for trial, at which point the 'interested parties' rub their hands with glee, and flood the internet with ill informed glee.

.

The 'publicity driven' I.O.P.C. will never clear an officer outright - there will always be certain matters that come to light, such as failings or breaches of internal policy, or failures to fill in vehicle log books, or broken body cameras............. all this is seized upon by those 'interested parties' who again cry 'foul' - 'see the, officer was in the wrong'

.

If the officer walks away from court after acquittal - again there will be cries of 'cover up'

.

At the end of 5 to 7 years, we still have one grieving family, one drained and despondent cop, - but  a number of now much richer lawyers, barristers, journalists and publicly funded 'interested parties' and 'support groups' .

.

.

So, much as 'Joe Public' says 'shoot him' - this country as a whole (or should it be 'hole') is not geared up to dealing with police involved shootings, however justifiable the shooting may be.

 

[rockershovel]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Founded in 1884, its members played a significant role in the founding of the Labour Representation Committee in 1900 and from that the Labour Party. It also played a large role in the founding of the London School of Economics in 1895. Early members included George Bernard Shaw and Beatrice and Sidney Webb; all highly critical of Marx. It is currently an organisation affiliated to the Labour Party and was a significant influence on 'New Labour'. 

 

Hardly a sinister organisation, unless your definition of sinister is anything to the sinister of Genghis Khan.

Depends on your definition of "sinister" but they are definitely a "sinister" organisation in the heraldic sense. 

 

More to the point, they trace their origins to a time when Fascism, in the literal mainstream sense was a mainstream political philosophy and mass franchise mostly didn't exist. Shaw and Webb were hardly "horny-handed sons of toil". 

 

In the 1930s they adopted an overtly undemocratic policy of Constitutional and structural change to work towards Communism, resulting in an Oxford Union motion to that effect. They also founded Ashridge College, explicitly to produce "Liberal Tories" - there are links from this to the emergence of "One Nation Toryism" in the 1950s

 

229 Fabian members were elected in the 1945 General Election. Most would lose their seats in 1950-51. 

 

 

[jamie92208]

Some years ago when I was in charge of Personnel for my division, I had to deal with an officer with a poor sickness record.  However I  knew that he had shot someone several years before to save the life of another colleague who had been taken hostage at gunpoint. The hostage was a good friend of mine and fortunately escaped with no physical injuries.  The AFO put 5 bullets into the offender which miraculously didn't kill him.  A 38 revolver.  When I went to visit him at home a very sorry tale, similar to what Brian related above, emerged. Zero support and certainly no counselling, plus some mockery from fellow officers about his marksmanship.  I was the first senior officer in 15 years who had attempted to get the full tale. This was mainly because of my knowledge of the original incident.  Certainly my predecessor in my post had done nothing to sort things out.  

 

I arranged for him to see the force psychologist who helped him to get back on track and his sickness record improved dramatically. However, for other reasons I got no thanks. 

 

Jamie

Edited May 1 by jamie92208

[Compound2632]

4 minutes ago, rockershovel said:

More to the point, they trace their origins to a time when Fascism, in the literal mainstream sense was a mainstream political philosophy

 

Hardly. Fascism was a product of the Great War, first emerging in Italy, the term first being commonly used in reference to Mussolini's government. Unknown as a term in 1880s/90s Britain, though one might see Thomas Carlyle's 1840s 'Great Man' theory of history as possibly tending in a fascist direction. 

[rockershovel]

15 minutes ago, br2975 said:

.

This country is not geared up to deal with, or cope with police involved shootings.

.

This is not the USA where such shootings can go unreported in the national press, and where most Americans shrig their shoulders and say "Oh ell, he probably deserved it"

.

In my professional opinion, any police officer who takes up a firearm 'needs their bumps felt"

.

One day that officer may be called upon to pull the trigger, and however 'righteous' that shot, he (or she) will be entering a 'world of hurt' that will last for years.

.

The officer will immediately be removed from frontline duties whilst the incident is investigated, and placed in a backroom job.

.

Whilst accepted practice suggests the officer also be treated as a victim, that is rarely, if ever the case and the officer is immediately treated as a suspect.

 

The matter will be investgiated by his/her own force, as well as the (NOT VERY) Independent Office for Police Conduct.

.

In addition, the incident will be thoroughly dissected by the media, the press, and a myriad of agenda driven 'support groups' and other interested parties who are not interested in any facts that do not suit their narrative.

.

Meanwhile, the officer will be treated like a pyrriah, at worst ignored by the bosses, and at best kept at arms length - and this even includes many former colleagues and friends..

.

The officer will be tried in the court of 'public opinion' - regardless of the full facts not being known.

.

Former friends out side the job will avouid the officer, as will those of the officer's partner.

.

The officers children will be taunted at school, or in the street with accusations that 'your dad's a murderer'

.

Eventually, there will be  one of several likely outcomes

.

H.M. Coroner's Court may consider the killing lawful - at which point the agenda driven  'interested parties' will cry 'cover up' OR the killing could be deemed unl;awful and the officer sent for trial, at which point the 'interested parties' rub their hands with glee, and flood the internet with ill informed glee.

.

The 'publicity driven' I.O.P.C. will never clear an officer outright - there will always be certain matters that come to light, such as failings or breaches of internal policy, or failures to fill in vehicle log books, or broken body cameras............. all this is seized upon by those 'interested parties' who again cry 'foul' - 'see the, officer was in the wrong'

.

If the officer walks away from court after acquittal - again there will be cries of 'cover up'

.

At the end of 5 to 7 years, we still have one grieving family, one drained and despondent cop, - but  a number of now much richer lawyers, barristers, journalists and publicly funded 'interested parties' and 'support groups' .

.

.

So, much as 'Joe Public' says 'shoot him' - this country as a whole (or should it be 'hole') is not geared up to dealing with police involved shootings, however justifiable the shooting may be.

 

I've long held the view that no Cabinet Minister should be allowed to put our Armed Forces in harms way, who has not themselves served or has a next of kin who would accompany them. 

 

Perhaps we might extend the principle. No legal representative should be allowed to represent such defendants without having experienced violence of this nature. 

 

I always had a deeply ambiguous view of the activities of Greenpeace, but anyone prepared to sail under the bows of a Japanese whaler, or abseil up a derelict oil platform is a braver man than me and has earned a hearing. Perhaps the "Human Rights" circus would also benefit from some equivalent jeopardy - Perhaps "if they go, you go with them"? Whatever else might be said about Admiral Byng, there's no doubt that he DID "encourager les autres" for many years

[Compound2632]

Just now, rockershovel said:

I've long held the view that no Cabinet Minister should be allowed to put our Armed Forces in harms way, who has not themselves served or has a next of kin who would accompany them. 

 

That would over-restrict the field; in particular, it is discriminatory against women.

[rockershovel]

2 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Hardly. Fascism was a product of the Great War, first emerging in Italy, the term first being commonly used in reference to Mussolini's government. Unknown as a term in 1880s/90s Britain, though one might see Thomas Carlyle's 1840s 'Great Man' theory of history as possibly tending in a fascist direction. 

Orwell couldn't define Fascism, and I'm not going to try. 

 

One thing I DO recall from those distant days of A Level British Constitution, is the proposal that Fascism was an intrinsically European concept deriving from the contiguous, landlocked Empires of that Continent, in which the State could exert a degree of control unknown in the widely dispersed British Empire and North American region. 

 

Hence the rise of Fascism post-WW1 was the result of specifically European circumstances in which the infrastructure remained largely intact, and the people confined, while the Soviet version of State controlled totalitarianism took place amid forced industrialisation at a tremendous pace. 

[rockershovel]

10 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

That would over-restrict the field; in particular, it is discriminatory against women.

Oh, I don't know. My late father was given to referring to servicemen in general as "some other mothers' son". 

[Compound2632]

2 minutes ago, rockershovel said:

Orwell couldn't define Fascism, and I'm not going to try. 

 

My point was simply that it was anachronistic to mention fascism in the context of the origins of the Fabian Society.

[Compound2632]

3 minutes ago, rockershovel said:

Oh, I don't know. My late father was given to referring to servicemen in general as "some other mothers' son". 

 

Oh right. So in order to be appointed Secretary of State for Defence, you've got to oblige your son to join the armed forces. That excludes the childless, for starters!

 

It is an established principle of British government that a minister is not required to have specific expertise in the area for which they have responsibility; that's what their civil servants are there to provide.

Edited May 1 by Compound2632

[jjb1970]

Whether or not I think armed forces ministers should have served in the military I do think there may be a link between the fact that very few of our politicians have served or been subjected to what war means as a civilian and their propensity to deploy the military, authorize air strikes etc. It's not just politicians, there's an apathy to it among the public who don't feel any particular ill effects from foreign wars unless they're close to someone who comes back deceased or injured and things like drones have dehumanized war to make it seem like a video game, aided by a very sanitized media reporting of events.

[jjb1970]

41 minutes ago, jamie92208 said:

Some years ago when I was in charge of Personnel for my division, I had to deal with an officer with a poor sickness record.  However I  knew that he had shot someone several years before to save the life of another colleague who had been taken hostage at gunpoint. The hostage was a good friend of mine and fortunately escaped witno physical I juries.  The AFO put 5 bullets into the offender which miraculously didn't kill him.  A 38 revolver.  When I went to visit him at home a very sorry tale, similar to what Brian related above, emerged. Zero support and certainly no counselling, plus some mockery from fellow officers about his marksmanship.  Iwas the first senior officer in 15 years who had attempted to get the full tale. This was mainly because of my knowledge of the original incident.  Certainly my predecessor in my post had done nothing to sort things out.  

 

I arranged for him to see the force psychologist who helped him to get back on track and his sickness record improved dramatically. However, for other reasons I got no thanks. 

 

Jamie

 

A very sad story, it doesn't reflect well on the Police. As with many things, this issue tends to polarize opinion. I don't support vilifying Police officers for doing their duty and it's true that post facto inquiries have time and resource to analyse events in a way not possible for someone in a high stress situation forced to make a split second decision, in many cases based on imperfect information. On the other hand there should be a process to ensure that where force is used it has been used in a reasonable and proportionate way and to maintain trust in the Police and other organizations which may be involved. That will almost inevitably involve lawyers but as with many things it strikes me that the problem is not so much that there are processes to investigate such events but the form of those processes and institutional failings such as failure of the Police to support officers during the process.

[PhilJ W]

Trains and cake!!!

 

[rockershovel]

33 minutes ago, jjb1970 said:

Whether or not I think armed forces ministers should have served in the military I do think there may be a link between the fact that very few of our politicians have served or been subjected to what war means as a civilian and their propensity to deploy the military, authorize air strikes etc. It's not just politicians, there's an apathy to it among the public who don't feel any particular ill effects from foreign wars unless they're close to someone who comes back deceased or injured and things like drones have dehumanized war to make it seem like a video game, aided by a very sanitized media reporting of events.

Leaving aside the likes of Penny "Dolphins" Mordaunt and that ex-military back-bencher whose name escapes me.....

 

Quite so. I was absolutely appalled by the decision of the government of the day to send in the RAF to assist in the destabilisation of the N African littoral a few years ago. The likely consequences were obvious to anyone acquainted with the region. 

 

 

[rockershovel]

34 minutes ago, jjb1970 said:

 

A very sad story, it doesn't reflect well on the Police. As with many things, this issue tends to polarize opinion. I don't support vilifying Police officers for doing their duty and it's true that post facto inquiries have time and resource to analyse events in a way not possible for someone in a high stress situation forced to make a split second decision, in many cases based on imperfect information. On the other hand there should be a process to ensure that where force is used it has been used in a reasonable and proportionate way and to maintain trust in the Police and other organizations which may be involved. That will almost inevitably involve lawyers but as with many things it strikes me that the problem is not so much that there are processes to investigate such events but the form of those processes and institutional failings such as failure of the Police to support officers during the process.

Perhaps it's time to revive the practice of "outlawry" by which individuals can be declared beyond the protection of the law, liable to be constrained or shot on sight. 

 

That, or the medieval practice of oath-taking, by which the accused was liable to produce supporters to take oaths for his good behaviour, on pain of their entire worldly goods being forfeit? 

 

If anyone can suggest any legitimate reason for possessing such a weapon, I'd be interested to hear it. 

[Happy Hippo]

1 hour ago, Dave Hunt said:

I think that dark humour as a mental defence mechanism is widespread in the medical profession, police force, the armed forces and anyone else whose daily life is likely to bring them into close contact with the possibility or actuality of danger, injury, suffering and even death. Once someone is immersed in such a scenario, though, I think that they tend also to indulge in the sort of banter that can surprise outsiders and often make them think that such people don’t really like each other or get on together whereas the truth is just the opposite.

 

Dave

Bl**dy crabs

[Hroth]

I hear that one of the police officers injured yesterday spent hours in surgery having her arm repaired.  Her hand was almost severed.

 

There is no excuse, mental health or otherwise, for this sort of attack.

 

[polybear]

4 hours ago, Flying Fox 34F said:

That should make a Bear happier!!!!!!

 

Paul

 
Bear actually scoffs full fat brown bread - most of the time I toast it anyway

 

4 hours ago, rockershovel said:

Common Purpose is a registered Charity providing "leadership and personal development". It is quite easy to find if you look. It operates internationally and is certainly deeply secretive about some of its purposes. 

 

It’s a mystery to me how such an organisation can get charity status

 

3 hours ago, bbishop said:

Shouldn't your end-stage patients have had DNARs?

 Momma Bear had a DNR - I’ve no idea if they actually asked her though

[Winslow Boy]

3 hours ago, Happy Hippo said:

I've just recounted them to make sure, and the answer is five.

Well I'll give you that. At least your not cheating.

[Happy Hippo]

My baddie finger has just slipped uncontrollably, and hit the keyboard.

 

The pain is unbearable (for my wallet).

 

However, it will definitely ease tomorrow when the new, bigger better bandsaw arrives....

 

Lucky Nyda is still away!🤣

[Michael Hodgson]

2 hours ago, br2975 said:

 

So, much as 'Joe Public' says 'shoot him' - this country as a whole (or should it be 'hole') is not geared up to dealing with police involved shootings, however justifiable the shooting may be.

 

That's because Joe Public still doesn't accept the decision by "democratically elected" politicians to do away with hanging.

 

Time was when villains didn't go tooled up to jobs because shooting the rozzers still carried the death penalty even after it had been repealed for bumping off the village subpostmistress you were robbing. 

I remember one of my schoolteachers who was a JP telling us that it still applied to arson in HM Naval Dockyards!  He also told us that hoped that if he ever needed to invoke the Riot Act he hoped the mob would give him long enough if he ever need to read it before they lynched him!

 

“Our Sovereign Lord the King chargeth and commandeth all persons, being assembled, immediately to disperse themselves, and peaceably to depart to their habitations, or to their lawful business, upon the pains contained in the act made in the first year of King George, for preventing tumults and riotous assemblies. God Save the King!”