I've quoted Sir Robert Peel's Nine Principles of Policing that he developed when creating London's first official police force in 1822 several times in the past. Time to repeat them again:
1. The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.I've also posted repeatedly on the decay of the UK's culture, and its performance as a laboratory petri dish for what the Left wants to implement here.
2. The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police actions.
3. Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observance of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.
4. The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.
5 Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.
6. Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient.
7. Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
8. Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.
9. The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.
This story (h/t: Ironhand) pissed me off:
Mark of madness: Police refuse to show suspect's birthmark in ID parade... because of his human rightsIt goes well beyond "lame."
When Tracy Ryan spotted a suspected burglar emerging from the dog sanctuary where she works, she thought she would have little problem pointing him out to police.
After all, he had a large port-wine stain on his face.
But when police set up an identity parade, they refused to take the man's distinctive birthmark into account - in case it infringed his human rights.
An officer from the Nottinghamshire force explained that the mark was too rare to be included in a profile of the burglar when it was entered into a computer database.
It would leave only a small pool of potential suspects in the electronic ID parade, he said, breaking police rules.
Under laws designed to take into account 'the rights and freedoms of the public', witnesses must be shown a minimum of 12 photographs before they are allowed to identify a suspect.
These are selected from a database of people who have passed through custody in Nottinghamshire, in the hope that the burglar is already known to police.
Because only a handful of people on a database had a birthmark or port-wine stain, the characteristic gave fewer than 12 results.
The characteristic was subsequently removed and the search was broadened.
This forced Mrs Ryan, 39, to examine the faces of 93 suspects, none of which she recognised.
It was on August 25 that £300 in charity donations was stolen from the Crossing Cottage Greyhound Sanctuary in Sutton on Trent, Nottinghamshire.
Mrs Ryan noted that, apart from his birthmark, the suspected culprit was tall and wore a white tracksuit. She also took his car registration number.
Police have subsequently made an arrest and Mrs Ryan is due to attend a second identification parade which will include the suspect, who is on bail.
He will be pictured alongside 11 people of a similar appearance. But if he has a birthmark, it will still be kept secret.
The suspected thief and the other participants will be made to cover one side of their face.
Mrs Ryan said: 'Surely an unusual characteristic like a big birthmark should help a police investigation?
'If there were just four or five people on the database with such marks, all the better.
'I understand police have to follow procedures, but to me the rules are flawed and amount to a pretty lame excuse.'
Her boss John Morton, who manages the home for 30 former racing dogs as part of the Retired Greyhound Trust, said: 'The police are saying they can't infringe human rights. But what about our human rights?You don't have any. You're not a member of a protected class.
'We are law-abiding people who have been victims of crime, and the police have a responsibility to maximise their chances of solving that crime. If this is the law, it has to be changed.'Yes, but it won't be.
But this story (also via Ironhand) inspired a RCOBTM reaction:
Police tell mother attacked by yobs at home: 'We won't send anyone... it may escalate the problem'Remember, this is in the same nation that produced Sir Robert Peel.
A mother who was punched to the floor in her own home by yobs was stunned when police advised her not to call officers to her house - because it would 'escalate' the problem.
Nikki Collen, 39, begged officers for help after a thug kicked in her front door and punched her to the floor in her hallway.
After her attacker fled, Nikki rang Warwickshire Police who promised to send an officer to her home in Kenilworth.
But an hour later she received a phone call from a woman police officer who told her it would be better if police did not attend because it might inflame the situation.
Mother-of-two Nikki, who is studying an Open University degree in nursing, said: 'I couldn't believe it.
'I was attacked and wanted to report it but the officer was persuading me not to press charges.
'She even told me that if the bullies saw a police officer at my home it could escalate the problem further.
Sweet bleeding jeebus.
'I was so scared I asked what I should do and she told me to try and sort it out on my own. I was really upset and felt really alone.Because your betters tell you you should. For "social justice."
'It's a horrendous way to live and has got to the stage where I fear going out because of the abuse I will get.
'I can't cope with it and need some help from authorities. I've just had enough and need to move. Why should I put up with this?'
Nikki, who lives with her son Josh, 17, and daughter Demi, 13, have been subjected to a terrifying campaign of harassment after a minor dispute over a bottle of hair conditioner last December.Of course not! That might violate their rights!
Since then the family have been sworn at, had used condoms hurled at their house, had their windows smashed and graffiti scrawled on their home.
Nikki said the police had been called on numerous occasions but no charges had ever been brought against the bullies.
She added: 'I am on anti-depressants, my nerves are shot to pieces and I'm terrified of walking out my front door.You and the rest of your countrymen.
'This is no way to live. When it's got really bad, I have to admit I have thought about ending it but I'm determined not to be beaten by the bullies who are acting like they are above the law.
'All I want is a bit of support from the police.'
Don't hold your breath waiting.
The family's problems have haunting comparisons to the case of Fiona Pilkington and her disabled daughter Francecca Hardwick, who were driven to their deaths after an 11-year bully campaign."Working closely."
Nikki said: 'I've read in the papers about Mrs Pilkington and just think the police simply don't care.
'If they can ignore that family for 11 years what hope have I got?'
A Warwickshire Police spokeswoman confirmed a female officer had spoken to Nikki about the attack on Saturday, September 19.
She said: 'The policing team have had some involvement in ongoing issues in the street.
'We have also been working closely with the local authority regarding tenancy agreements and ongoing neighbour disputes.
They're engaging in dialog, no doubt. Surely that will solve everything!
If you live in the UK and are an upstanding, law-abiding citizen, GET THE HELL OUT. It's too late to save your culture.