Today is the 190th anniversary of the Metropolitan Police! Is it? Let’s toot and parp and wave flags and release balloons and parade outside New Scotland Yard (practically the old one the Met went back to sited by the River Thames) and celebrate like mad! Huge brass bands in unison. Yay! We’ve never had it so good! One Hundred and Ninety Years of the Metropolitan Police! Let’s make this particular parade a sight miles better than those seen at Hendon!
Met Police – early days. Source: Pinterest
Hold on a moment! Wait! Who are the Metropolitan Police?
Are they a force that improves society or worsens it?
I say the latter. The better they try to become the less efficient they are. This is the law of entropy and its one law they definitely fail to uphold!
Its not only that. Its the way they think and the rest of it. Essentially they are very backwards. One might think wow this is an ultra modern police force with all the tools and mod cons available to it.
If that really is the case one question begs to be asked, why have they not got rid of crime? And why do I say they fail to uphold the law, any law even?
Well, they say they like the truth. They seek the truth. They apparently punish wrong doers.
This is a list of objections from 1830 in advocating for the Met’s abolition. Source: Twitter
It seems to me they do not. In my case I very truthfully told them of certain situations by which certain parties were trying to punish me, harass me, make my life uncomfortable, damage my property in order to get rid of me.
The big problem? I have disabilites. The perpetrators do not. And what did the Met like. Them, the others! The cops liked the perps – not me. They chose. They picked. They were not impartial. When my perps decided to make up things about me the Met ran to them with their eyes wide open. Something like ‘What? He did what? Right we will sort him out. We will question him and punish him.’ They even tried to drag up ages old accusations that I had already provided ample evidence for. But they didn’t want to look at the crimes I wanted investigated – and when they were challenged by various investigating bodies, their claim was ‘these crimes are now too old to be investigated.’
They couldn’t be arsed to investigate crimes against me, backed up by photographs, videos, solicitor letters, witnesses, but they could very easily be arsed to investigate fake crap touted by my perps and take action…
The most amazing thing about this was the perps didn’t even need any sort of evidence. They just waffled on and on and no doubt hooked the officers’ emotions.
Now that in my view is a crime. Clearly I uphold the law better than the police! I follow the law to the letter better than they do. And believe me, I am very poor for it.
Someone, a detective with ‘aspergers’ apparently, told me I did not understand how the police worked. He tried to explain it in a nutshell via a few rudimentary tweets. It didnt convince me they had a modus. Not when they showed an enormous bias and then tried to grovel their way out of it via both the IPCC, the DPS, and even a number of face to face meetings.
If that’s how they ‘work’ to me its most definitely a contrived way of working! Its certainly no sort of impartial police in any way or any form. Its a police force, like practically all the others, that’s not fit for purpose.
Watching over society – or manipulating it? Source: Flickr Eastman Collection
Do police suffer from something called ‘cognitive ease?’ What that means its easier/more lazy to understand truths that are not such, in other words, they are lies, when they are easier to absorb and easier to take in.
Lets look at it like this. Sitting an a table and trying to understand an autistic guy explain some details with exactness, precision, and backed up by ‘data’ is totally boring. Officers are not going to be convinced. They are thinking to themselves. This guy is a liar.
Sitting down with the perps and listening to sob stories is sooo wow! Its a ‘truth’ that hits one in the face, except its not a truth. This is cognitive ease. What this means is the simpler stuff becomes more interesting. In this case, it becomes the truth. Mrs T. and her boyfriend S very cleverly hit on the police as being the truth tellers.
You see, the police, despite their alleged impartiality, do subconsciously develop a bias. The fact they say they do not is yet another example of cognitive ease!! Its easier to dupe oneself than to not dupe oneself. Ask Wittgenstein about this. One of his favourite mottos was ‘Nothing is so difficult as not deceiving oneself.’
Let’s toot and parp and parade along the Victoria Embankment and let off some streamers and balloons and celebrate the Metropolitan Police’s 190th anniversary – because they are the best police force in the world!
The best police force in the world? What a massive delusion!
The claim the Met is one of the best jobs! 1950s advert.
Now you see one of the problems about this so called best police force in the world with its advanced techniques and the rest of it? They dont even know what the truth is or how to be impartial!
Okay. Let’s change the line of enquiry….. but first here’s a little snippet: The first ever Met Police officer, P.C. William Atkinson, was sacked after only four hours in the job – because he was drunk!
I’m wondering how many drunk officers there have been since 1829……
Anyhow the point of the police was a hope there would come a time when crime had vanished. When that had happened the police too would disappear. That was the trump card in the police’s ideology and it was sort of like ‘Let us deal with this thing called crime. Once we have got rid of it there will be no more need for the police.’
As far as I can see the police are still here and crime hasn’t disappeared in any sense. Has it got worse? In a lot of ways yes. Why? Well its the police! They can’t be without a job. Crime is a production line that must be maintained. You see, the police are a factory. They need a product – and that product is crime. They cant survive without it. There’s attempts to justify all sorts of reasons why policing is needed. If there wasnt any crime to be had then it would be ‘goodbye Metropolitan Police – we dont need your services anymore!’
In a very perverse way crime is undoubtedly a good thing!
Never mind the irony! Let’s toot and parp and parade with a big band across Westminster Bridge. This is the Metropolitan Police’s 190th anniversary!
Parrrrp! Our marching band comes down the street….
In my view the police should be absolutely clean, should not be involved in any sort of wrong doing, should have no dirty fingers anywhere, should not be doing favours of any sort anywhere and the rest of it.
My abusers exploited the Metropolitan Police because they knew with their particular abilities (communication, pleadings, tone of voice, tears perhaps, fantastic great acting – along with a bunch of totally idiotic cops who turned out to be suckers for the sob stories being procured) they would be able to procure a misjustice. It worked fantastic.
When the police were finally challenged they lied and lied. They tried to get away from the fact any wrong doing had been done. We had meetings with their top investigating officers but they were like… oh just like those criminals they spend much of their time going after.. Someone steals something then they try to deny it. It wasn’t me they sob, it was him (points to the other guy…) Shitty society isn’t it? So totally unfair. The police are no doubt part of that con too.
The biggest con trick of all? ‘The police are the public and the public are the police.‘
When on earth have the public been the police? I dont see myself as ‘a police officer’ because I do not want to be a liar, a cheat, someone who upholds the law in certain ways for certain people and acts clearly with little impartiality. I dont want to be one of those people so I reject the notion the police are me and totally abhor the notion that I am the police. Therefore I reject policing as the concept its so regularly made out to be.
Let’s toot and parp and let off some streamers and balloons because ‘we are the police and the police are us!’ We should be proud of this fact – its the Metropolitan Police’s 190th anniversary and therefore its our anniversary too!
The Metropolitan Police: Established by Royal Assent 19th June 1829 and inaugurated 29 September 1829. The main promoter was Sir Robert Peel.
‘Allo, allo! We’re stuck in 1829! Could someone fast forward us to the future please? Source: Twitter
Sir Robert Peel had a desire to chase the moral authority and ensure society stayed in good stealth in order to keep the social fabric cohesive. In other words, make sure people were safe and reasonably happy.
The question is, did Peel invent crime? Crime as it was before Peel’s (and even Fielding’s time) could in fact be said to be a way of survival. One can argue crime is natural, a way of allowing humans to survive in hostile environments. Its actually very hard trying to work out when crime was first identified, I mean religious scriptures are full of it. ‘Thou shalt not steal’ and the rest of it. Its a centuries old industry in fact!
One magistrate, a certain Patrick Colquhoun, was so concerned about crime, he in fact set up practically the world’s first police organisation. This was the Thames River Police, based in London and the year was 1798. Despite initial beginnings the river police were soon a success. In their first year it was said they had saved merchandise to the value of £122,000 from being stolen from ships, or if it had been pilfered, it had been retrieved.
That is a massively huge success and one that cannot be argued with!
Its not what I want to discuss though. In 1800 Colquhoun wrote one of the earliest expositions on crime and what a police force would be for – and how it would benefit society. Colquhoun pointed out the enormous social costs of crime and he genuinely tried to explain why crime was happening and the many reasons behind it – people being poor, ill, homeless and so on. The list of examples is endless.
He in fact said the law could not be the end all solution to the problems of society. He pointed out many ways had been tried to alleviate the problem of crime, but none of it worked because it involved punishing people. Colquhoun proposed an experiment where instead of police officers catching and punishing people, they would instead reach out and educate these people and offer help where necessary. And money was put aside for this purpose to facilitate people’s lives. It worked.
So what went wrong? Who knows. Some accounts say that by the 1820s crime was still on the down but most accounts suggest it had gone up. There are many factors for that and it did not mean the early police were a failure but rather it was social. More and more poor people were coming into London, not knowing the laws, not knowing the police officers personally, and turning to crime because it seemed the easy option.
The huge rise in this new crime concerned many including Robert Peel, a member of Parliament. And that is how the Metropolitan Police was formed.
Peel and his merry band of advisors’ leap of faith as they go to work to establish the Met…
Its said this was a success. Well it was. But it came at a price. And its one that has costed society to this day. The big problem is how society ((by way of the law/the police) regularly constructs people. Instead of helping them (except by means of perverse and contrived systems that go about things in a very long winded way that only makes them more desperate) we regularly shun them push them out of the way, so they have little choice but to stay in the criminal circuit.
This is where the police come in – to complete the circuit of shame. That is why some say crime is a way of life. It is because there is practically little or no way out of it. In many ways it can be said the new police force turned crime into a gigantic machine that has since known no bounds. One of Peel’s principles was the cessation of crime by way of prevention rather than punishment.
A lot of accounts however do tell us the Met wasn’t very approachable. When it started out in September 1829, “opposition from the masses to the new police was immediate. Among the epithets hurled at them were “raw lobsters,” “Peel’s bloody gang,” and “Blue Devils.” (Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol 55, The Metropolitan Police Act of 1829.)
It is clear many indeed viewed the police as an abomination. During the early years there were many songs or ditties penned about the police, and indeed the officers’ corruption.
“Good morning, Bob, have you seen any of the new Police Men, yet, aye Bob?
Yes I have Jack, and felt them too.
Yes, I met one the other evening, and I only said goodnight Charlie and blow me if he didn’t roar out at me like one of Cross’ Lions, for he made me tremble again and the very ground shook at the sound of his voice, and the perspiration ran down my face like peas.
Lord have mercy on us if we are to have such watchmen as these.”
(The New Policemen, or the downfall of poor Charles. 1829)
Prevention seems to have been the last thing on many officers’ minds.
Officers clearly much bigger than their surroundings… Source: Twitter
This was Peel’s big mistake to flood society with numerous officers. Crime became a thing that had to be regulated with the effect that numerous communities and numerous peoples continue to be affected, leaving many disaffected by the police’s techniques.
The modern irony to this is the fact most of our police still do not carry guns and that is why gun crime in this country, thankfully, is still very small compared to other countries where police are armed to the hilt. Its a system we have that is unique and its one that is precious because it could all fall apart at any moment.
But the fact police do not carry guns does tell us something and that is the prevention of crime – or the reduction of it – can in fact be achieved by other more sensible means.
I think we have a long way to go even before we can say the police have been a really worthy effort. Some no doubt will think that is already the case and it has always been the case too, but I don’t think it at all. The police’s treatment of me (as well as countless others who have been victimised or wronged) has otherwise educated me the police are not a force for good.
I have no interest in any crime or violence of any sort, or even drugs, whatever. I have met police officers who have admitted to me they have taken drugs (let’s be clear this is before they joined the police) but I’m not going to judge them for that as long as they haven’t harmed anyone in the process. On the other hand I do not take kindly to being one of their victims because it has harmed me considerably and made some rather belligerent and bullying people quite successful in their attempts to hate, discriminate against, and harass me.
That is why, after their 190 years of service to London, I simply do not see the Met Police as a force for good.
Let’s toot and parp….