Anti-white police chief

Posted by anonymous on January 28, 2006, 06:17 PM | #

Is he as stupid as he looks?

Posted by Andrew on January 28, 2006, 06:21 PM | #

Are you sure this bloke was not employed by the BBC.
A perfect example of Intelligence gone amuck.
Is there some kind of Hormone treatment these Idiots take, it could not be possible that it be a Natural phenomena?
The place is being run by the mental institution’s inmates. The Leftist twilight zone again.

Posted by Phil Peterson on January 28, 2006, 06:33 PM | #

He’s an abomination. Another Nu Labour gift to this country.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on January 28, 2006, 07:03 PM | #

He’s playing the race game according to the white (i.e., liberal) rules: race is a bat used in the game of white moral one-upsmanship.

Posted by Lurker on January 28, 2006, 08:07 PM | #

JJR you have mixed up two cases. Damilola Taylor was a boy. At the time of the murder the media went into overdrive, salivating at the thought of a racist white on black murder. But oh dear! Turns out the killers were black leaving the media contorting themselves. They couldnt back off because of the initial interest, made reporting the trial a bit difficult!

The black girl you are thinking of was Anna Climbe (sp?) killed by a loony relative and her half-wit boyfriend.

Ian Blair is a pathetic joke. He didnt notice the Anthony Walker media feeding frenzy last year?

Posted by Guessedworker on January 28, 2006, 08:08 PM | #

There is something more to this story.  The recent spate of black criminal savagery has been too much even for the genteel North London classes to ignore.  Events like the murder of John Monckton and the attempted murder of his wife, both in front of their young daughter in their Chelsea home and the recent murder of Thomas Rhys Pryce cause uneasy reflection.

Of the latter Simon Heffer recently wrote in the Telegraph:-

His neighbours have testified to living under siege in their gentrified part of north-west London. One man is afraid to walk in the street with his laptop after dark. Another will not alight at the local Tube station if smartly dressed. Others look round carefully before making the journey from a parked car to their front door. I wonder how often a police officer was seen in the area on routine patrol at night before Mr Rhys Pryce’s killing? There are usually two reasons, these days, why areas become so dangerous as this: one is that the Government’s absurdly liberal drugs laws encourage brutal crime, and the other is that the police have given up ensuring the safety of the inhabitants. If wearing a suit in a certain part of London can now put someone in danger of his life, might it be that the pendulum has swung a little too far in the wrong direction?

Strange and unfamiliar thoughts arise in liberal minds.  Why was that young solicitor stabbed repeatedly through the skull?  Is an implacable, ineducable, irredeemable racial foe revealing itself even as the official enthusiasm for diversity reaches maximum decibels?  Where is there ... where can there be any respite, any silver lining in the unfolding racial horror story.

It is this liberal disaffection which would be most threatening to the MultiCult.  Angry white taxi drivers and retired colonels can be handled.  The epithet stratagem exists for that very purpose.  But the liberal classes?  That’s serious.

So, the phantom Scots plod, with his Scottish face, hair and name - for he is not English, like so many Nu-Labourites - springs into phantom Scottish action (not that I’ve got anything against Scots, you understand - I’m just fed up with them ruling England).  Naturally, he makes a complete pig’s ear of it.  He was trying to say, “Don’t worry chaps.  Actually, there’s lots of violence down among our beloved, vibrant countrymen and you never even hear about it.  Damned media.  Let’s call them racists and everything will be OK again.”

But is isn’t.  The media doesn’t want to be the patsy in what is a crap claim anyway.  Regardless, the MultiCult’s desperate defenders leap to shore up the shoring up ... Livingstone, Mayor for racial Marxism ... Lord Harris of Haringay (another Nu-Labourite, who once claimed £16,000 for taxi fairs in a single calendar year) ... Cindy Butts ... Len Duvall.

The only result is that plod-Blair has damaged himself.  A year and he will quietly go off to Nu-Labourite pastures aNu.  Black criminal savagery will carry on regardless.  The MultiCult will lurch towards totalitarianism or revolution.  Two decades, that’s all it has left.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on January 28, 2006, 08:33 PM | #

Strange and unfamiliar thoughts arise in liberal minds.

Indeed:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/13/AR2006011302301.html
Robbed in Prince George’s—of Our Peace of Mind

A bit of random diversity from Britain:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/berkshire/4649948.stm
‘My tormentor posted me excrement ‘

Posted by Lurker on January 28, 2006, 09:08 PM | #

GW - Im sure youve noticed how many coppers in English forces are Scottish. I generally think thats a good thing, they often seem to hold more robust views than PC English PCs colleagues. Im not including Ian Blair in that obviously - the guy is a fool.

Posted by Al Ross on January 28, 2006, 09:29 PM | #

In the comparatively rare cases in which Whites murder Blacks, the media are happy to act in a Blair-like PC manner and give extra coverage and editorial comment to events.
Perhaps in deference to Guessedworker’s sentiments regarding his fellow British citizens from Scotland, the Met should change its HQ name to England Yard.

Posted by Angela on January 28, 2006, 10:01 PM | #

Maybe a Londoner can answer this for me, as I often wonder.

What kind of area is the BBC situated in, and Thames TV for that matter. Are these studios located in dangerous areas?

Posted by PCA on January 29, 2006, 12:59 AM | #

Let me relate a story to you when I was in London 2001. It is a good illustration of the disillusionment of the London Police and race relations in the UK. If it was not for my friend been there as well, many people would have thought it was untrue.

Anyway here it is;

A friend and I were walking home late one night to catch a Taxi (Taxis in London, that is another story), after a night of drinking.

As we turned the corner a man was leaning against the wall. As we walked past, a Jamaican voice rang out ‘you need some (inaudible), real good you need it’.

We paused and I saw a fairly large strong black man, I immediately knew what was going on, and kept walking again, expecting my friend to follow.

My friend turns to him and says ‘what?’

‘Hey man, got crack man, real good, real cheap man’

I stop and turn, my friend kind of pauses and stares at him for a little to long, not sure what to say. The Jamaican starts to take out little bags of crack from his mouth. When my friend realises he has unwittingly started a drug deal, for crack no less, he says firmly, ‘No thanks’.

‘Ever tried it man, its great, bla bla’, says the Jamaican.

My friend then says, ‘we are looking for a cab man, you know where we can get one?’ I’m thinking what an idiot my friend is and the Jamaican says ‘no’ and keeps on going on about his crack (my friend later tells me he asked the question because he did not want to appear to have a thing against black people and admits it was really stupid thing to say).

I at this stage say, ‘We’re right mate, lets go’. We continue walking. We then realise he is following us. I console myself by thinking there are two of us, we will be right.

After following us for a minute he starts up again. Then the Jamaican states very loudly ‘Man, give me my money!’, not our money, but his money!

Now I know we have a ‘situation’ and was thankful I already had a few drinks in me. We ignore him and try to keep walking. He then reasserts his dubious claim in an even more authoritarian voice.

We both stop and turn on him. I notice he is not armed and say in no uncertain terms ‘we don’t owe you sh*t mate, get lost!’.

He really starts to get loud and demands his money.

‘What do we owe you money for, get lost, we don’t want any trouble!’, I realise he is testing our nerve (obviously some white people will happily hand over their money, than cause a seen with a black person).

We turn around and try to leave. He then lunges for my pocket to take my wallet. Now it has turned physical. We turn around and he keeps on trying to take my wallet. We start pushing and shoving (no fists etc). He keeps on going at my wallet. I realise that now this is probably going to get serious. I don’t want to fight him at this stage, as he is quite large and I am sure he is better at throwing his fists than me; and he could also have knife on him.

We are starting to make a scene. At this time there are two groups of people walking past. One is white (4 people 2 guys/2girls) and one is black britons (10-12 people about 7-8 girls/3-4 guys).

This Jamaican is cunning, he turns ands says to the black group and says ‘brother these white pricks are trying to rip me off, they won’t give me my money’. So he appeals to his kin’s racial consciousness.

One black guy in the group asks for some reason, ‘How much does he owe you?’.

For some reason he says ’30 quid brother’.

I say ‘I don’t owe his a thing, he’s a crack dealer trying to mug us’, all this time my friend and I are trying to fend him off as he attempts to pick pocket us.

When the white group hear the racial element, they quickly scurry off.

By now I realise I am in a very serious situation. The black group just seem to stare and crowd around us. Then some them start, yelling, give him his money etc. Then they start throwing in some racial slurs.

‘Give him is money, white boy’,

“You don’t want to fight a black guy, he’ll smack your white ass’,

Etc., etc,

Indeed most of them are starting to find this very amusing and are laughing

I try to think fast and tell them ‘call the cops and let them sort it out’. The response I receive a blank stare.

I then tell my friend to ‘get over there and call the cops’. He breaks free and gets to the side of the street and tries to call the cops. Would you believe at that very moment a mini cab drives by! So my friend stops calling the police and hails the cab.

The mini cab driver stops and sees his potential customer in trouble. He gets out of the cab and is guess what? A black Nigerian!

He starts ranting loudly ‘What is going on, what is going on’.

The situation would have been funny if it wasn’t so serious.

I am now alone with the Jamaican and with all his cheer squad behind him he says, ‘You want to fight me you white c*nt’, and keeps on repeating it.

Now I decide it is time for me to break free and run (most people ask why I didn’t just give him my wallet, the truth is it just did not occur to me at the time, sounds crazy, but true).

The Jamaican has stopped trying to grab my wallet and is trying now to grab me.

Then out of now where the Police arrive. I breathe a sigh of relief. Out of the car comes one lone short white police officer about 40 years old (I never understood why he was not accompanied). He looked dreary and gave a look like he had broken up 100s of these situations before.

The Jamaican stops immediately and knows he could be in for a bit of trouble (remember he has mouth full of crack capsules).

My friend I start pleading that this guy has been trying to rob us. The Jamaican stands deadly still.

Then the black group behind me start howling and telling the Police officer we are lying and that we owe him money.

I say that I don’t even know them. They then start abusing me with racial epithets. ‘Shut the f*ck up white boy’, “Stupid white c*nt”, etc.

I distinctly remember the noticeable change in the Police officers demeanour when he realises the racial dimension to the incident. Namely, that of stopping to try to get the bottom of the situation; to trying to get out of there as quickly as possible.

He asks the black crowd to calm down if they indeed know me, they reluctantly admit they don’t know either of us. He instructs them to move away. They don’t move an inch. They were not threatening the officer, but let him know they did not care what he thought.

This emboldened the Jamaican from been quite nervous to been quite cocky. He starts stating that we ‘white pricks’ owe him the money.

He asks me if we owe him money. I say in frustration ‘for f*cks sake, I don’t owe him anything…..’, before I can finish the sentence, the police officer yells at me ‘Don’t use language like that with me sonny!’. In what I can only assume was a clumsy attempt to placate the black crowd.

Bear in mind that I have been sworn at, racially abuse by strangers, and the Jamaican had just sworn and racially abused me while talking to him only seconds before; truly unbelievable.

I apologise, steel myself and tell him that ‘I could not owe any money I just passed him in the street and he attacked me after he tried to sell me crack and that he has a mouth full of crack as we speak’.

The Police officer artfully ignores all the crack references and asks the Jamaican what we owe him the money for.

He goes silent and knows the game is up. Then with a police officer in front of him (this is true I swear). He yells that ‘White pricks owe me MONEY! and then lunges to steal my wallet; no less than one metre in front of the Police officer.

The police officer stops the Jamaican and then instructs my friend and I to ‘You two clear off, leave now’. I looked at him aghast. That’s right no statement, no arrest just move.

We left, the Nigerian cab driver happily obliged to take us home. Indeed he gleefully told us at length how he did not like Jamaicans.

As we drove away, I turned around to see the London Booby jump back in his car, while everyone went their separate ways (the Jamaican presumably to mug his next person).

I am not sure how representative that was of Bobbies (it my only experience), but let me assure you that was the reality of London Police PC Policing in 2001. Nothing short of a cowardly disgrace.

Posted by Guessedworker on January 29, 2006, 04:13 AM | #

Thanks, PCA, for that riveting account.  You were very lucky to get away.  Once the trouble had kicked off just handing over your wallet wouldn’t have been enough for the Vibrancy.

The only answer to all this is repatriation (not yours, of course).  The immigrant presence was never legitimised by the consent of our people.  We are morally within our right to insist on self-expression and the execution of our will.

We reclaim our land or we lose it.

Posted by Phil Peterson on January 29, 2006, 04:48 AM | #

What kind of area is the BBC situated in, and Thames TV for that matter. Are these studios located in dangerous areas?

The BBC’s headquarters are situated at Bush House near Aldwych Theatre. It is not a particularly dangerous area by London standards. But the BBC also has studios in other places.

Posted by Phil Peterson on January 29, 2006, 04:54 AM | #

PCA,

The lesson I have learnt over time is that I shouldn’t be required to walk in London or depend on public transport at night. If I need to go into London late at night, I take my car. I would also drive to work were it not for the sheer volume of traffic and the congestion charge.

Posted by David B on January 29, 2006, 08:11 AM | #

Blair is a buffoon, but an influential one.  Fortunately, he is going to be in deep shit over the Menezez affair (the shooting of an unarmed innocent Brazilian mistaken by the police for a suicide bomber).  The latest news is that after the shooting the police tried to falsify their records to cover up the error.  Blair may not be personally responsible for this, but he did try to prevent an independent enquiry into the affair.  I think he may be heading for early retirement, alomg with his equally buffoonish Assistant Commissioner Tarique ‘Tokenism’ Ghaffur.

Posted by Lurker on January 29, 2006, 08:25 AM | #

Phil - I should point out that Bush House is the HQ of BBC World Service, not the BBC as a whole.

Broadcasting House:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcasting_House

used to be the HQ back in the days of radio and early TV, still is an important centre. Thats in central London.

Then there is Television Centre:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_Television_Centre

Thats certainly the home of BBC TV and its in vibrant west London., very close by is a new centre, White City. Ive no idea which of these centres is the actual home of the BBC.

Thames TV is based in Teddington in SW London, but they only produce a few drama shows these days, not news. They are no longer part of ITV but an independant programme maker.

Posted by Phil Peterson on January 29, 2006, 09:14 AM | #

Lurker,

I stand corrected. That is an easy one to get wrong since I tend not to care too much about the BBC.

Now here is a thought which occured to me: Robert Fisk. We often say that journalists are hypocrites (which is generally true). But there are also those that aren’t. Fisk was almost killed by an Afghan mob not too long ago. It made no difference to his worldview however.

Some Liberals can get mugged by reality and be made to see the light of day. However, if one is already stupefied, the mugging has little effect overall.

Posted by Matra on January 29, 2006, 01:57 PM | #

David B:

Fortunately, he is going to be in deep shit over the Menezez affair (the shooting of an unarmed innocent Brazilian mistaken by the police for a suicide bomber).

It’s true that de Menezez was innocent when it comes to terrorism. However he wasn’t completely innocent as he was an illegal alien in the UK. He deliberately broke the law by choosing to remain in the UK after his Visa expired. I’m not saying he deserved to die but had he respected the laws of the country he was illegally living in he’d still be alive today.

http://demenezeswasanillegal.blogspot.com/

Posted by Laban on January 29, 2006, 03:02 PM | #

BBC Television centre is in Shepherds Bush, a pretty vibrant area where even 20 years ago you had to keep the car doors locked as you sat at the lights on the Shepherds Bush roundabout.

The BBC spent £11.8 million on taxi fares in 2004.

Posted by Desmond Jones on January 29, 2006, 04:05 PM | #

Darwin touches on this connundrum,

The wishes and opinions of the members of the same community, expressed at first orally, but later by writing also, either form the sole guides of our conduct, or greatly reinforce the socialinstincts; such opinions, however, have sometimes a tendency directly opposed to these instincts.

Out-group sympathies re-inforced by a genocidal and perverted left for the last 50 years, and really much longer, have an enormous impact. Darwin states,

Slavery, although in some ways beneficial during ancient times, is a great crime; yet it was not so regarded until quite recently, even by the most civilised nations. And this was especially the case, because the slaves belonged in general to a race different from that of their masters.

He further suggests that,

This latter fact is well exemplified by the Law of Honour, that is, the law of the opinion of our equals, and not of all our countrymen. The breach of this law, even when the breach is known to be strictly accordant with true morality, has caused many a man more agony than a real crime.

Even though repatriation or exclusion is truely moral, the anguish it would cause upon the ordinary man is enormous. Even in the face of potential extinction, this Code of Honour, this out-group sympathy, enforced in the revisionist fashion of A Clockwork Orange, causes severe revulsion.

Darwin again,

How so many absurd rules of conduct, as well as so many absurd religious beliefs, have originated, we do not know; nor how it is that they have become, in all quarters of the world, so deeply impressed on the mind of men; but it is worthy of remark that a belief constantly inculcated during the early years of life, whilst the brain is impressible, appears to acquire almost the nature of an instinct; and the very essence of an instinct is that it is followed independently of reason.

Posted by Amalek on January 29, 2006, 09:35 PM | #

In his prescriptions for avoiding trouble with Muslims, Lawrence Auster forgot the sixth and most important point.

“6. Stop messing around in Muslim countries in a futile and superfluous attempt to secure oil resources. Take heed of the isolationist foreign policy principles of our Founders: stop stirring up hornets’ nests for the protection of the Judenstaat and the profit of globalised business, incurring the deaths of our white Christian sons.”

As the Yanks say, ‘turnabout is fair play’. Most people, whatever their race or creed, will leave you be if you leave them be.

Posted by David B on January 30, 2006, 02:12 AM | #

Fred Scrooby:  WTF????

Posted by David B on January 30, 2006, 07:09 AM | #

Fred:  Pot, kettle.  I commented on Sir Ian Blair; responding to my comments Fred launches into a paranoid fantasy about my motives.  My objections to Blair are much the same as everyone else’s:  he is a publicity-crazed PC fanatic, who can’t open his mouth without jamming his foot in it.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on January 30, 2006, 09:00 PM | #

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-2014428,00.html
Madness at the Met

WOW!  Rod Little grabs the brass ring!  A scribbler tells it like it is on matters racial!

His name seems familiar, but I can’t summon any details.  Lemme guess, he’s black, right?

Posted by Guessedworker on January 31, 2006, 08:30 AM | #

Nope, he’s white and an ex BBC Radio 4 man.  He was the producer of the infamously correct “Today” programme until the Gilligan interview which kicked off the Kelly Affair.

Liddle is, with Anthony Browne, one of two lonely voices in the Brit media beginning to speak truly on the Great Issue.  He has steadily migrated from his position as a pillar of the liberal Establishment to that of a fiercely independent and brave journalist.  In this article he has inched forward another step, mentioning how the fact that “a greater propensity on the part of our ethnic minority communities to commit crime” is unmentionable.  That, of course, he can now mention.

I tell you, the liberal-minded haven’t put to the test yet.  The assumption among those like Livingstone who are really committed to taking our land away from us and giving it to all humanity is that the “captured intellects” won’t flee the coup.  Well, sooner or later Third Worldism will announce itself to every urban dweller, or their children.  Herd-liberals have the same hard-wiring as the rest of us, and the anti-racist pieties just won’t wash.

They will for the real race-replacers hiding within the herd.  But increasingly over the next two decades the latter will become exposed.  They will be seen to be tiny in numbers, just the hard edge of the transnational governing and business elite, the ultra-left of politics and academia and the usual minority suspects in same and elsewhere.

Posted by Desmond Jones on January 31, 2006, 02:05 PM | #

Needless to say, I don’t share GW’s optimism. It does not follow the Darwinian rules of evolution that “Herd-liberals have the same hard-wiring as the rest of us…” The signs of decline are everywhere.

A most important obstacle in civilised countries to an increase in the number of men of a superior class has been strongly insisted on by Mr. Greg and Mr. Galton,* namely, the fact that the very poor and reckless, who are often degraded by vice, almost invariably marry early, [or in today’s world have high illegitimacy rates] whilst the careful and frugal, who are generally otherwise virtuous, marry late in life, so that they may be able to support themselves and their children in comfort. Those who marry early produce within a given period not only a greater number of generations, but, as shewn by Dr. Duncan,*(2) they produce many more children. The children, moreover, that are borne by mothers during the prime of life are heavier and larger, and therefore probably more vigorous, than those born at other periods. Thus the reckless, degraded, and often vicious members of society, tend to increase at
a quicker rate than the provident and generally virtuous members. Or as Mr. Greg puts the case: “The careless, squalid, unaspiring Irishman multiplies like rabbits: the frugal, foreseeing, self-respecting, ambitious Scot, stern in his morality, spiritual in his faith, sagacious and disciplined in his intelligence, passes his best years in struggle and in celibacy, marries late, and leaves few behind him. Given a land originally peopled by a thousand Saxons and a thousand Celts- and in a dozen generations five-sixths of the population would be Celts, but five-sixths of the property, of the power, of the intellect, would belong to the one-sixth of Saxons that remained. In the eternal ‘struggle for existence,’ it would be the inferior and less favoured race that had prevailed- and prevailed by virtue not of its good qualities but of its faults.”

Posted by Guessedworker on January 31, 2006, 02:22 PM | #

From the oikish, left-of centre Daily Mirror today:-

EXCLUSIVE MET CHIEF FACES COUP BY FURIOUS OFFICERS
By Jeff Edwards And Oonagh Blackman

BLUNDERING Ian Blair was condemned by senior police officers yesterday as an “arrogant” intellectual too remote to lead his force.

Last night senior ranks at the highest level were openly discussing how to oust the unpopular Met Commissioner in the worst leadership crisis in 30 years.

Home Secretary Charles Clarke, who met Sir Ian yesterday for talks about his future, and the Metropolitan Police Authority are monitoring the situation.

But No 10 said Sir Ian had Tony Blair’s “full confidence”.

One senior officer told the Mirror: “There is a serious issue over the confidence of the force in Sir Ian and his ability to lead it.

“Many of us think he has been too damaged by his own blunders to go on and that he should resign immediately. A view is building momentum that Sir Ian is now holed below the waterline.

“He is seen to be out of touch with the realities of being Britain’s most important police officer.”

A senior Metropolitan source added: “There’s a strong feeling that Sir Ian believes that he’s intellectually superior to everyone else.

“But he’s accident prone with a real tendency to put his foot in it. A lot of staff think he should resign.”

More than 140 Met Superintendents, Chief Superintendents, Commanders, and Deputy Assistant Commissioners, plus civilian bosses now believe Sir Ian should quit.

The calls follow a catalogue of blunders and criticism since he took over at the Yard a year ago:

Last week Sir Ian claimed he could not understood why the murders of 10-year-old Soham schoolgirls Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman “became the biggest story in Britain”.

HE accused the media of racism by failing to give as much coverage to the killing of Asian Balbir Matharu as to the murder on the same day of lawyer Tom ap Rhys Pryce.

But his own press office issued 10 more releases on Mr Pryce’s death than on Mr Matharu’s.

After innocent Jean Charles de Menezes was shot dead in mistake for a suicide bomber Sir Ian was slow to put the record straight.

Yesterday it emerged that he admitted the Yard made a “serious mistake” in failing to correct misleading stories about the shooting.

Our officer source said: “When you hold such a position you need to think before you speak.

“If he can get things like this so badly wrong, does it mean that other extremely important decisions could also go wrong?

“Sir Ian has not got the weight of his force behind him. They see him as remote and not connected to real policing matters.”

Our Met source said: “It was hard to believe he could be so insensitive about the Soham girls.

“To then accuse the media of institutional racism because of the different ways various murders are reported was naive.

“His latest mistakes have not come from pressure. They are self-inflicted injuries, stupid remarks uttered by a man who should know better.” Sir Ian could be booted out by the Metropolitan Police Authority.

But the ultimate sacking power lies with Mr Clarke.

Yesterday No10 and the Home Office rallied behind Sir Ian as the pressure mounted.

A Downing Street source said: “The Prime Minister has full confidence in Sir Ian.”

The Home Office said Mr Clarke backs Sir Ian but admitted his remarks about the Soham case were a blunder. A spokesman said: “Sir Ian has apologised.”

Sir Ian, 51, is one of a new breed of intellectual police officers.

He was educated at Wrekin College in Shropshire, Harvard High School and Christ Church College Oxford where he gained a second class honours degree in English language and literature.

But his aloofness has not endeared him to the rank and file of his 40,000 staff. Many regard him as “intellectually arrogant” and lacking in real leadership qualities.

Some government figures believe Sir Ian is “too politically correct” and more interested in appealing to minorities than protecting the public at large.

On his first day in office Sir Ian pledged to crack down on weekend drug users.

ONE week into July, suicide bombers killed 56 on the London Tube and a bus.

A fortnight later four more bombs failed to go off.

Although the alleged bombers were quickly rounded up, the Met blundered by shooting dead Mr de Menezes at Stockwell station.

It was falsely claimed the 27-year-old electrician was wearing bulky clothing and that he vaulted a ticket barrier.

Instead he wore a light jacket and walked into the station normally.

In comments made in November but only published yesterday Sir Ian said: “We didn’t put the record straight about all the issues around him. It was a bad mistake.”

Later, Sir Ian was at the centre of claims that the police had become “politicised” when he backed Tony Blair’s plans to up detention of terror suspects from 14 to 90 days.

He also proposed hiring soldiers to boost the ranks of armed police. His officials were caught off-guard and were forced to point out that anyone recruited would be “people leaving the armed services with proven firearms skills”. At the start of the year Sir Ian was asked to score out of 10 his own performance during his first few months in office.

He said: “One wouldn’t want to be immodest, but I think I’d probably put it at somewhere around seven or eight.”

At the end of the first 12 months he was asked again to score his performance. This time he refused. He has since said: “I’m getting more conscious of the fact that this position is becoming public property. It’s increasingly difficult to be open about my views.”

Posted by Desmond Jones on January 31, 2006, 05:38 PM | #

Yet London’s black community, his soon to be a majority constituency, fully support Sir Ian:

Indeed Sir Ian was correct to raise and respond to the issue of difference of treatment and attention by the media when considering homicides involving black or white victims.

In London alone over 50% of reported homicides are of Black people, this is disproportionate to the population and disproportionate to the media reporting of such incidents.

Murders and attacks on Black people - with one or two very obvious exceptions - simply do not dominate the news agenda in the same way as many of those affecting white people.

Having had the issue raised with him by members of the Black community, Sir Ian responded and for that reason alone he deserves our support but he has much more to do in looking closer at home within his own organisation to root out institutional racism.

The era of a London that is English is over and Sir Ian knows this. He’s pandering to his constituency. A younger, faster growing population, who will ensure any discontent within the Met will be thwarted. And who will eventually represent, as has happened in US cities like New Orleans, the majority of the police force.

Posted by Desmond Jones on January 31, 2006, 05:59 PM | #

The most recent data available (2000-2003 Survey of English Housing) affirms Darwin’s position:

  *Ethnic minority groups overall are less likely to be owner-occupiers than white groups.

And,

Britain’s ethnic minorities are growing at 15 times the rate of the white population, newly-published research shows.

Data collected by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) between 1992-1994 and 1997-1999 showed that the number of people from minority ethnic groups grew by 15% compared to 1% for white people.

[...]

The figures also revealed that on average Britain’s ethnic minorities have a much younger age profile.

The average age for the white population surveyed in the 1997-1999 period was 37 or less but only 26 for ethnic minorities.

Given a land originally peopled by a thousand Whites and a thousand Blacks- and in a dozen generations [much less at this rate] five-sixths of the population would be Blacks, but five-sixths of the property, of the power, of the intellect, would belong to the one-sixth of Whites that remained. In the eternal ‘struggle for existence,’ it would be the inferior and less favoured race that had prevailed- and prevailed by virtue not of its good qualities but of its faults.”

Posted by Andrew on February 01, 2006, 07:38 AM | #

I think that is the Word Prima. “Intelligence”. And with out a doubt, we are headed for what we view in the African Nation, North and south, But in the UK and Western style.
Unfortunately the co-existence will not be possible, as a point made, when the Intelligence is stomped out of existence, then economies become non existent- education is in rapid decline and the primitivism is on the door steps once again, so Crime and Murder and basic tribalism rules where Civilization once stood.
Quite a serious loss, just because some doo gooder and guilt ridden psychopath wants to control you, and re-Engineer the meaning of life and discovering it is death.
No such thing as a dead Hero. You are just plain dead, and finding out what is on the other side.