Wednesday, May 22, 2013


Early days about what happened in Woolwich.

One man apparently butchered on the street.Two males who apparently did this paraded for a period whilst awaiting police to turn up. They duly did and, frankly, faced with the scene and activity before them neutralised the risk.The welfare of the two involved  is in the hands of our beleaguered health system.

My main thoughts are with the male (and his family and friends) who was killed by these two.

Followed by a close second to the officers and emergency services who had to deal with the immediate aftermath and  will have to account for their actions when they arrived.

The rent a quote 'wudda cudda shudda' will have their soundbites in the days ahead.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Armchair experts a bit quiet so far but the scum Daily Mail managed to get a dig in today about the female firearms PC being given damages over the pink gun.They never miss a chance do they?

12:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Another reason to have borough AFo'S like the taser but hopefully not the numpties that got picked for the taser!because no politican would ever arm all frontline officers as thats an election loser though they are safe with their protection teams!! They dont care about a SQUADDIE going about their buisness despite the platitudes they'll spout!!!!!!

3:41 AM  
Blogger Officer Dibble said...

Its coming....

Some of the press are starting with tne 'How did they allow it to happen' stuff, already

Itll move onto why didnt local police take so long to arrive and then stand by and why didnt they throw themselves at the crazed armed, blood stained zealots etc...etc..

Her Majesties media and politicians. I cant stand them.

RIP Fusilier Lee RIGBY

5:31 PM  
Blogger Crime Analyst said...

Though not usually a Daily Wail fan, the recent article by Simon Heffer said it all for me (see here).

As the link and the article reflects, the two barbarians are clearly guilty of treason.
Its continued existence assumes that citizens have a legal duty to preserve the state that confers citizenship upon them, in return for the protection and support the state gives them.

One crime that constitutes treason is ‘levying war against the sovereign in the realm’. Another is ‘adhering to the sovereign’s enemies, giving them aid and comfort, in the realm or elsewhere’.
Furthermore, a law passed in 1848 defines the separate offence of treason felony as proceeding ‘to levy war against the sovereign in order by force or constraint to compel her to change her measures or counsels, or in order to put any force or constraint upon or in order to intimidate or overawe both houses or either House of Parliament’.

With this definition in mind, consider the words spoken by one of Drummer Lee Rigby’s assassins in Woolwich: ‘You people will never be safe. Remove your governments, they don’t care about you . . . get rid of them. Tell them to bring our troops back so all can live in peace. So leave our lands and we can all live in peace.’

This would mean that they are Britons waging war on other Britons, and on the British state. It is, quite obviously, an act of treason.

Such people are the self-appointed, and self-declared, enemies of the sovereign. They are levying war against her, hoping to force her to change her measures and counsel.

One of the alleged assailants was born British. The other is a naturalised Briton.
Thus, in recognition of the enormity of their crime and in seeking to force the government of their own country to change its policies, they should be put on trial not just for murder, but for treason. In terms of their sentence, this would make no difference. The death penalty for treason is in abeyance under the terms of the 1998 Human Rights Act, yet it can be reinstated ‘in time of war or of imminent threat of war’.

Charging the pair with treason would be a wise way of sending two important messages at a time when this country has arguably become complacently tolerant of extremists in its midst.

Unfortunately, banning religion is not feasible. However, moving forward, what we as Britons should demand, is that any community or religion that contains violent extremists, prepared to injure kill or otherwise hurt others, should stand up and be counted. They must take responsibility for their own extremist minorities.

Through the ages, the majority within communities that have stood by whilst their extremists wage war and hatred. The Nazi’s are an obvious example, there are many many more. Al Qaeda is merely the latest, and perhaps most barbaric of them all.

The majority ought to be held accounbtable for the actions of the minority. Why should it be totally down to the law and justice officials to ensure peace in our time? If religious commununities are aware of the violent radicals in their midst, they should “out” them and not stand by hoping they will reform.

We have been liberal to the point of ridicule in this country. It is time these communities did more that offer apologetic words that achieve little or nothing.

When our citizens are threatened by extremist groups like these animals, the onus should be placed upon the communities to put it right. If they fail to do so, how are we ever to know that we are safe in our oown land?

As is stands, they are British, in theory only in my view. As such, they are guilty of treason and should be dealt with accordingly. Having seen so many pathetic examples of British Justice over the years, I won’t hold my breath.

2:38 PM  
Blogger Officer Dibble said...

Nicely put.

3:19 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home