Let’s talk about violence
There was never ‘a clip around the ear.’
DOMINIC ADLER
This story concerns UK Government legislation guaranteeing firearms officers anonymity during criminal proceedings. Should they be found guilty, the court may reveal their identity. This is in response to the 2022 police shooting of gang member Chris Kaba, which I wrote about here.
The legislation also reveals another interesting fact – the threshold for charging police officers accused of breaking the law is to be raised. Currently, the IOPC and CPS will pursue a case against an officer in the courts if the chance of conviction is… (drum roll) a whopping 5%. This is to be raised to 35%, which is still lower than allegations made against Joe Public.
Basically, the IOPC and CPS will give virtually any case ‘a run’ if a copper’s involved. That was true when I worked on police professional standards, but I’m sure the threshold wasn’t a mere 5%. Which explains why so many police marksmen are found not guilty at court, because they should never have been charged in the first place.
Talk about two-tier justice, eh?
And people wonder why British police are occasionally accused of being spineless? When, of course, they’re not accused of being too violent. This dichotomy led me to thinking about police use of force in general. I originally imagined this article as satire, an imagined meeting at the Home Office circa 2030. A newish UK Government, an unhappy coalition of milquetoast Conservatives and bash-em-up Reform UK types, try to establish an agreed line on law and order (at the time of writing, neither party appears to have much of a policy to speak of). An old-school cop, accompanied by a worm-tongued Spad, explain to the assembled civil servants, sopping wet Tories and hang’ em and flog ‘em Reformers the truth about police violence – the good, the bad and the ugly.
Comedy would ensue. Uncomfortable truths would be revealed. Pearls would be clutched. Then, I realised, I was a coward. Satire would be a cop-out. It reminded me of something I once read about donating money to charity – you know it’s the right amount when it makes you wince. I think the same applies to writing. When you write, your candour should make you uncomfortable.
So I’ll say it now; there’s always been – and always will be – people who need a slap.
I grew up in a not-very-glamorous part of south London in the late 70s and early 80s – this observation was par for the course. The question is, who administers it? Was ever thus. I’m suddenly reminded of the centurion in ‘Life of Brian’ who, upon catching Brian plastering anti-Roman graffiti on a wall, corrects his Latin and makes him paint more graffiti as punishment. Had the centurion given him a friendly punch* on the hooter instead? Brian might’ve thought ‘sod this’ and abandoned the People’s Front of Judea. This, it stands to reason, means Brian would’ve avoided crucifixion. And being kidnapped by aliens, but I digress. Of course, his encounter with legionary brutality might have led Brian to double down on his activism. That doesn’t mean he didn’t deserve a punch on the nose.
* We’ll discuss the notional police ‘clip around the ear’ anon.
Blaming the Boomer Elites: The Quangocracy / Human Rights Industrial Complex
This issue certainly isn’t about ‘the youth of today’ (who are owed an apology for generational injustices suffered). Besides, pesky kids are usually pesky for a reason. In my experience, they are largely pesky because of the world into which they are hatched.
The others? Some are just… bad. Police officers see this when others don’t, won’t or refuse to. So does anyone, really, who deals with the pointy-end of the public in their natural habitat, as opposed to a probation office interview or inside a courtroom.
In fact, when it comes to the mess we’re in now, I’m blaming elite Boomers. The 1968 generation eventually pioneered government-by-quangocracy and human rights maximalism. They trailblazed strange ideas about how the world really works. Others sought a different society. Undermining policing was a fundamental way of achieving it. The irony their utopia would require a more coercive police force appears not to have occurred to them. Which is to say I’d prefer a punch on the nose to ten years in a gulag.
The now all-conquering quangocracy / human rights industrial complex is a broad church, but a common article of faith turns on police use of force. Which is, of course, terrible in virtually every circumstance (the rest are what I’ll call the ‘why didn’t you shoot him in the leg?’ lobby).
Yes, violence is bad. Yes, police brutality is wrong. But let’s try to separate unnecessary brutality from occasionally necessary violence. The process whereby violence becomes a euphemism. ‘Use of Force’. And another ugly truth? This isn’t (whisper it) always bad.
The consequences of anti-aggression
The record will show I’m not a violent person. In fact, I’ve always had an aversion to fisticuffs. On the other hand, even if I’m hardly Chuck Norris, I’ve used force to exercise police powers. I’ve (quite properly) been required to justify my actions in court, under hostile cross-examination. Once upon a time I was also firearms qualified (stop giggling at the back), which means I’ve had a long, hard think about whether I’d be prepared to shoot someone. Happily, this was never put to the test.
That’s me. On the other hand, yes, there are punchy coppers. Yes, there are instances of appalling police brutality. There have also been instances of police use of force which have been misrepresented. Life’s a confusing mosaic of conflicting circumstances, innit? Not that you’d believe it if you read the average purveyor of ‘quality news.’
The fact remains we need coppers who are really, really good at fighting. Anyone who denies this is wrong. When you’ve met the Angry Man, for real, you’ll know what I mean. And if you haven’t? Well consider yourself lucky, and spare a thought for the people who deal with them so you don’t have to. Nor is the application of violence an exact science. There will be mistakes. There’s no such thing as ‘clean’ violence, and if there is? I haven’t seen it.
My inner-Hobbesian / Desmond Morris seethes at the nonsense of denying aggression is hardwired into our species. This is the real ‘crisis of masculinity.’ All we’ve achieved from forty-odd years of attempting to feminize men and boys is to make them more frustrated and prone to violence (interestingly, more than a few mothers have mentioned this).
QED, we now have a violent world where the cohort of people we expect to deal with violence – young police officers – are taught innate aggression is evil and shameful, not something to be mastered and controlled. Speaking of which, I happened upon this not-at-all-sinister example. Warwickshire police are using virtual reality headsets to give men (including their own officers) ‘immersive lessons’ about their innate propensity for violence towards women. Incidentally, this was masterminded by a female chief constable. Imagine any other group were singled out for mass corrective conditioning, based on a ‘protected characteristic?’
Oh well, I’m sure someone was promoted. Anyway, if you live in that neck of the woods and pay council tax, why not send them an email? Tell them to get a bloody grip.
Yet Keir Starmer (that noted patriot) suddenly expects Gen ‘Z’ men to discover their martial spirit and fight Russian aggression? For Britain, a country the young have been taught is the acme of colonizing, slave-trading, exploitative, evil? Who’d have thought they’d be sceptical? Although I’m sure, shortly after peace is declared, Keir and his mates will be dispatching human rights lawyers to investigate British troops for alleged battlefield naughtiness.
My point is our society has tried to create a culture where aggression, loyalty and belonging are original sins. As far as I can see, it’s contributed to creating a culture of unchecked aggression, via a crisis of masculinity.
The notional CATE
Then there’s the other, unspoken type of police violence. It’s virtually extinct now. It’s the mythical and nostalgia-tinted ‘clip around the ear.’ Which, henceforth, shall be called CATE. I used to be a policeman. An appetite for acronyms is seared into my brain.
Back in the day, when Dixon of Dock Green kept the Queen’s Peace by wearing a smart tunic and smiling benignly, there was YET ANOTHER ugly truth. Which was, if you were a dick, Old Bill would kick the shit out of you. This was occasionally referred to as a good old ‘CATE.’
There were no CCTV cameras. No audio or video in custody suites. No body-cams. There were no rainbow lanyards, macarena display teams or VR anti-aggression propaganda sessions. Magistrates maintained the polite fiction police officers always told the truth, in order to keep wrong ‘uns banged up (i.e. an institutionalised tolerance of low-level ‘noble cause’ corruption). Most police officers of the 50s, 60s and 70s were hard, working-class men. Many had done National Service.
There was also racism, sexism and corruption. As I said earlier, life’s a confusing mosaic of conflicting circumstances, innit? I joined the police in the early 90s. The culture change of those days was an extinction-level event for the remaining old-sweats roaming the earth. Coppers who’d joined the police in the early 1960s. A few weren’t very nice people, to be honest. In fact, a subsection were as violent and unscrupulous as our customers.
And yet…
Here’s another ugly truth. If you could clone an army of those coppers, put them back in uniform and turn off the CCTV and Internet for 48 hours? Yes, it might be like The Purge, but the crime rate would plummet. They’d have no need of guns or tasers, either. They were a force of nature. Legions of hooded, phone-robbing ratboys would dump their knives and silly electric bikes and run home, begging to go back to school. Anything but those bastard pigs, with their big boots and tattoos and grazed fists. Their fit-ups and moody statements. Their ability to get your mates to grass you up for pennies.
I know. How dare I indulge fascistic, Dirty Harry / Judge Dredd vigilante fantasies?
Like I said, uncomfortable truths are uncomfortable. Here’s another; vigilantism is a default. The natural, Hobbesian way of things. It abhors a vacuum. A vacuum of justice, created by the Boomer Quangocracy / Human Rights Industrial Complex. If they’d shown some common-fucking-sense and a little proportionality (how they love that word!) then there’d be no need for people to pine for the good-old-bad-old-days. Because, if they got them back? They’d only want something else.
Social media feeds are full of Russian and Chinese bots, pumping out content showing shameless thuggery on European streets. It’s done, deliberately, as a psyop. To make people angry. To feed the vacuum. Clueless European governments opine on internet control, instead of making the streets safe in the first place. Propaganda is meaningless if it doesn’t chime with peoples’ experience.
Which, talking of movies, is why the comedy-action film Demolition Man (set in a pathetically utopian future where crime is ‘non-existent’) is too accurate for comfort.
A culture of hypocrisy
We live in an era of partisan hypocrisy. For example, consider the summer of 2024. The white working-class took to the streets. Did the bleeding hearts of The Guardian go batshit crazy about police officers giving ‘extreme right-wing’ (which hardly any were) rioters a pasting?
Another uncomfortable truth moment; people are surprisingly tolerant of violence when it’s done in a cause they’re comfortable with. I’ll enjoy a moment of smugness; the record will show I’m perfectly happy seeing rioters of any persuasion getting the good news.
I’ve written extensively about two-tier policing, and the nonsense of denying its existence, here. Suffice it to say, when it comes to use of force, the two-tier argument is indicative of the mess we’re in now. Identity politics means anything police do is viewed through the prism of racism, or sexism, or something else. This is why, I suspect, the Government’s decision to publish nationality league tables in relation to offending will come back to haunt them.
Now, I’m not interested in racial point-scoring. It’s simply this; if certain groups in society are more prone to committing certain crimes than others, then that’s a social and political issue. I spent my entire police service trying not to be racist, although it was tougher than it sounds – what constituted racism seemed to change every other week. Did our relentless focus on antiracism change anything? Yes, but not on the streets. Instead, the people in charge of the Quangocracy / Human Rights Industrial Complex got bigger, better jobs, OBEs and seats in the House-of-fucking-Lords.
Answers? Me?
Hey, this article is mainly catharsis, but I do have an interest. I’m in my fifties. I suffer from a chronic, debilitating illness. To put it bluntly? if someone tried to mug me, I’d be in trouble. I’m an ex-policeman. I don’t want to have to rely on anyone else to protect me, but I do. So I want coppers who’ll get involved. Coppers who don’t have to worry about giving someone who needs it a slap. It really is that simple.
So I don’t have an answer. I’m not clever enough. There’s too many moving parts. Too many agendas. Too much denial. The world’s so complex we apparently require battalions of esteemed judges to decide what constitutes a Woman. Now, call me arrogant, but I barely scraped CSE Grade 4 Biology. Even I knew the answer to that one. So what makes you think we can agree on circumstances whereby Old Bill gives someone a slap?
A final uncomfortable, incontrovertible truth; we live in a society where there is absolutely no reason not to commit crime, or to live a criminal lifestyle. Habitual, recidivist criminals don’t care about tags, community orders or probation. All they do care about is their liberty, property and personal welfare. All the things, in fact, they deny other people. What do you think, in the absence of a functioning economy or prisons the size of Wales, might deter them?
So all I’ll ask is this; question narratives. All of them. Yes, question mine too. But, especially, question the narratives crafted by Quangocracy / Human Rights Industrial Complex.
This article (Use of Force) was created and published by Dominic Adler and is republished here under “Fair Use”
Featured image: sytonnia.wordpress.com
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.
Leave a Reply