THE LAST DITCH An Englishman returned after twenty years abroad blogs about liberty in Britain
Allies for a day
I wish you a Merry Christmas and a liberty-laden New Year

Who serves whom?

We don't call them police forces any more. That's too explicit an acknowledgement of their role as the enforcers of our all-powerful state. Policing, God help us, is now a 'service'.

The question is; whom do our policemen serve? Is it us, the public, or the political class that guarantees their unfunded pensions from the incomes of taxpayers yet unborn? If, as they claim, it's the public, why does it sometimes feel they are serving us in the agricultural sense; as a bull serves a heifer?

Ordinary people don't believe the official crime figures because they don't accord with our experience. For years the Establishment line has been that the figures are accurate but that our fear of crime is the problem. We are neurotic and should be more trusting of our benevolent masters. Yeah right.

PC James Patrick, an analyst with the Metropolitan Police 'service' recently gave evidence to a House of Commons committee that the figures are improperly manipulated by senior officers to make police performance look better. He said

Things were clearly being reported as burglaries and then you would rerun the same report after there had been a human intervention, a management intervention, and these burglaries effectively disappeared in a puff of smoke.

How embarrassing for the political class that has used the rigged numbers to assure us it's doing its job of public protection! It seems our 'neurotic' belief that they were feathering their own nests while not giving a flying expletive about us except as sources of feathers was well-founded.

I have been waiting with interest for the state's response to this revelation. And, the Alistair Campbell approved interval for the story to die down having elapsed, here it comes. The Times reports this morning that PC Patrick has been placed on 'restricted duties' and forbidden to speak to public or media. The whistleblower has received his usual reward.

So that's clear then. Lying to make the state look good is fine. The public has no right to know the truth about the performance of the police service it is forced to fund. The career of any public-spirited person with a sense of duty and honour is unlikely to advance in the Met. In marked contrast to that of an officer who heads a botched operation that blows the head off an innocent man, for example.

Nothing to see here folks. Move along now please or you might just find yourself being served.


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Tom, In fact it is exactly the fault of politicians funding pensions with ponzie schemes.

It is still true that the police who are into the scemes are paying realistic payments towards their pensions. It might be argued serving officers payments are covering pensions paid to retirees. Of course some police officers have private pensions.

When you think of the damage to funded pension schemes by raids on those schemes by an ex chancellor/PM Politicians are culpable (great word). They are the ones you should direct your ire, at at least over pensions.

Tho you could argue it is the fault of the electorate for voting for those politicians, but don't forget the electorate don't get a choice in who is put up to be voted for, what qualifications they have and they get stuck with one of them if they vote or not ...

james higham

the figures are improperly manipulated by senior officers to make police performance look better

Just as with the railways, Tom.


It's unfunded in that there is no fund. My pension derives from income-producing assets that rise and fall in value and yield at my risk. The police contributions are not invested. They are effectively just paid less to the extent of them. Like public employee taxation it's a polite fiction to disguise economic dependence. 

Their pension is paid from general taxation and is not exposed to market risk. If a private sector employer made such a deal and then became indebted to the amount of trillions, it would default and no pension would be paid. To meet the mad promises made to policemen, firemen etc., other people's pensions are being raided, inflated away or destroyed by taxing their revenue sources into bankruptcy. 

Not their fault. Not the politicians' fault neither. It's the fault of a greedy, economically-illiterate electorate that demands benefits and services well beyond what current national income can provide - and has now demanded it for decades. 


I am not saying you don't have some valid points to make in this post - epecially about the states creeping control/politicisation of the police - but "...guarantees their unfunded pensions"?

How are police pensions any more unfunded than say the UK state pension?

As far as I can tell individual officers pay more than many in pension/stamp deductions, my my information is that the pension contribution was actually doubled before the turn of the centurey)(therein is another story), so if their pensions are actully unfunded where is the money they are paying towards them going? And why do you use that dissapearance to beat up on them?

Surely you should be looking with deep suspicion at politicians?


Wow. Thank you for that. Another book for my reading list. 


This is an interesting article about crime and justice in Britain.


I believe most people know they are being serviced (on a regular basis) by the para-military dress-up clubs deployed around your towns and cities.

For those with a short memory, I cite the dress-up clubs tardy response to deploy during the riots that occasioned the Tottenham shooting of a well-known thug, or the shootings in Cumbria that had plod running around like the Keystone cops entirely unable to do anything useful.

For all that, I have some sympathy for the "beat" copper there is no possible benefit derived from actually upholding the law, they progress further up the promotion ladder by sitting in the office and spying on electronic communications that might offend the grievance industry (unless the perpetrators name is Dromey apparently).

john miller

Whistleblowing is one way traffic.

A professional reporting his client to the State is just and righteous and failure to do so subjects the professional to harsh punishment.

A State employee reporting the State to the public is a foul and disgusting thing.

The comments to this entry are closed.