THE LAST DITCH An Englishman returned after twenty years abroad blogs about liberty in Britain
The dangers of virtue signalling on the internet
Has Political Correctness Gone Mad?

Cressida Dick

The closest I came to despair during the long dark political night I hope is now ending was during the affair of Jean Charles de Menezes. It wasn't so bad that panicked policemen made a tragic error in the wake of the 7/7 bombings. That was both understandable and forgivable. Had I been a juror in a murder trial of the officers who blew that poor young innocent's head from his shoulders with soft nosed bullets proscribed by the laws of war, I would have voted to acquit.

I am sure they did not kill him for the hell of it. They believed (or believed their commander believed) that he posed a genuine threat to them and the Londoners around him. Their legal defence would have been self defence under a misapprehension and I would have believed it. They were negligent at worst. They were negligently led. The family of the young Brazilian should have had civil compensation, the Metropolitan Police should have apologised for a tragic error and the officers concerned should have been disciplined and retrained. 

My despair was rather driven by the Establishment's response to the incident. It closed ranks on the rest of us and on Justice herself. It lied. It destroyed evidence. It committed crimes. Had you or I killed Jean Charles under the mistaken apprehension that he was a suicide bomber we would have faced trial. His killers were state agents and didn't; making a mockery of equality before the law. They were sent away on holiday at taxpayers expense as a reward. Their identities are still unknown. The government drummed up a stupid "health and safety" case to make the matter sub judice and give ministers an excuse not to comment until the fuss had died down. That was the nadir of Alistair Campbell-style political cynicism — manipulating the law, the press, and the public's limited attention span to mask a terrible injustice and an embarrassing failure of state power.

Justice was not done and was seen NOT to be done. An innocent died with consequences neither to his immediate killers nor to those, police and politicians, who issued the fatal orders. That Labour Government proved once and for all that the Labour Party is nothing more than the political wing of the public sector unions. The rest of us are of little concern — even if we lose our lives — compared to the privileged brothers and sisters under the leftist state's partisan protection. Even Jean Charles's usually-privileged ethnicity didn't count when the state's loyal servants needed protection. I wish I could believe it was different under a "Conservative" government but the sneer quotes say all you need to know of my view on that  

This is why I am so saddened to learn that the commander of the unit responsible for this tragedy now heads the Metropolitan Police. She commands the force I rely on to keep me safe in my home town. Her loyalty to the political élites (not to her officers, by the way, as she was cynical in shifting blame down the chain of command) trumps the safety of the public her force exists to serve and protect. Neither ordinary Londoners nor the officers under her politically-correct command should feel safe this morning .

She's the Metropolitan Police Commissioner not on her merits as a police officer but because she fits a Politically-Correct narrative. I would love to celebrate the appointment of the first woman to command this important force - the mother force of world policing. I can't because (for reasons unrelated to her sex) she is unworthy of the rôle. I shall sleep less easy in my bed in London tonight. 


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


I would like to say, after that post above, you shine more brightly than ever in my firmament.


Yes I am aware that their use is permitted in such circumstances so I suppose I *was* being a bit tabloid pejorative in emphasising the horror of the poor chap's injuries. Thank you for thinking me better than that and my apologies for having fallen short on this occasion. I realise it's no more an excuse for me than it is for snowflake leftists to say I allowed emotion to cloud my exposition of the facts or worse to justify it as making for more effective agitprop. Thanks for clarifying the matter. I stand corrected and I appreciate it.


I agree with for one thing. "Soft nosed" or more properly "expanding" bullets are indeed proscribed by the laws of war....but such laws are designed to prevent unnecessary suffering in a conflict which has some applicable law.....terrorism and criminalty does not.
The alternative to "soft nosed" is "solid" which causes neat holes in the victim...not necessarily incapacitating or fatal, and in a civilised opponent resulting in that opponent being evacuated to the rear for treatment.
Furthermore, non expanding bullets travel through the victim for a long way, endangering others....expanding bullets are less likely to do so.
Apologies for being pedantic, but war is entirely different to terrorism and criminalty. The purpose of war is to remove the opponent humanely as a threat; with terrorists the purpose is just to incapacitate the threat as quickly as possible as safely to others as possible.
To confuse the two is to fall into the tabloid pejorative mode of comment, which I am sure you do not intend.

barnacle bill

Thank you Mr Paine for finally putting my mind to rest. Ever since I heard the announcement concerning her appointment I have been trying to recall why the name rings a bell. Not a good one either!

As you observe her leadership skills did not shine very brightly over poor Jean Charles de Menezes death. But of course she was appointed because of her sex and not any talent.


Why no mention of her association with the treasonous 'Common Purpose' organisation - motto: Leading Beyond Authority. Hence her promotion.

The comments to this entry are closed.