Are the UK Police the New Lawmakers? Where Are the Limits of the Law?

My attention was caught by the Daily Mail report below.

In fact, the practice of not arresting or charging those caught with various “illegal” drugs has been going on for years in the UK. The Thames Valley force may have extended it to a previously unheard-of extent but the rot (if that is what it is) set in decades ago, when some police chiefs decided that the terribly-valuable time of their officers was wasted in arresting persons found in possession of small amounts of cannabis. Subject to correction, I believe that it was London Metropolitan Police officer Brian Paddick [see Notes, below] who, as Borough Commander of the bandit country which included Brixton, first introduced the policy.

Let’s pause right there. A police officer —fairly senior, so be it— decides, arbitrarily, that he is not going to enforce a law, or not always going to do so. There are arguments to be made in favour of decriminalizing some (or all) now-generally-illegal drugs, but that is a decision for the legislature, Parliament, to make, not a police officer.

Now there has always been a measure of “police discretion”, as when (forgive any possible anachronism around a policeman actually patrolling an area and so actually being in a position to catch someone doing something forbidden) a policeman finds a child “scrumping” (technically, stealing) apples or pears from an orchard or garden, that policeman then deciding to deliver a stern on-the-spot warning rather than arresting the child. Likewise, the motorist getting a ticking-off from a traffic cop rather than a speeding ticket for travelling a few miles per hour over the set limit. However, the examples given are minor crimes by any estimation. Possessing forbidden drugs may be considered minor by some, but not by most, even today. That becomes even more so when the drugs are “harder” than marijuana.

There is the other point that a distinction can be made between a policeman deciding to exercize discretion in a particular case, and a policeman (at higher level) deciding not to enforce certain laws as a matter of his own decision and in the geographic area under his command.

This is of course a grey area, but it is troubling when a police force decides, on its own initiative, to abrogate the plain words of valid legislation. True, there are many laws still on the statute books which are no longer applied, crimes which are no longer prosecuted, but they are mostly those which have fallen into desuetude by reason of effluxion of time: one good example of a crime which has not been prosecuted for several hundred years (if ever) is that of “entering the precincts of Parliament while dressed in a suit of armour”. For other bizarre examples, see the links in the Notes, below.

Those old crimes, still technically criminal but never prosecuted, are an amusement. What, however, about things which are not crimes at all, but which the police, under the influence of political correctness or pressure (usually from the Jewish lobby) have decided to treat as crimes or quasi-crimes? Another grey area? I have blogged previously about how Jew-Zionists made malicious complaint against me to Essex Police (about 2 years ago, in late 2016/early 2017):

In that case, the police were notionally acting in pursuance of a wrongheaded, badly-drafted but technically valid and quite recent law: Communications Act 2003, s.127, but were trying to stretch its ambit so that views expressed which were dissenting, dissident, controversial and (according to some Jews, at least) “offensive”, became “grossly offensive” and so could in principle be caught by the Act.

In “my case”, the prosecution never happened because (it now appears) the Crown Prosecution Service [CPS] (and at a high level, in Whitehall…) took the commonsense view that a successful prosecution was both unlikely to succeed and not in the public interest. Leaks from the police, however, now make plain that some of their officers were completely in the pocket of an aggressive Jewish-Zionist cabal (the “Campaign Against Antisemitism” or “CAA”); one police officer in particular seems to have acted effectively as an advocate on behalf of the CAA to the CPS, advocating for me and others (persons unknown to me) to be prosecuted. He lost his professional objectivity completely, it seems; thankfully (for me and for the rule of law) he was over-ruled. Bitter herbs for him, perhaps.

The “Campaign Against Antisemitism” or “CAA” is now itself the subject of various police investigations around misuse of its charitable status; also, as some readers will be aware, one of its leading members, Stephen Silverman, was said (it was admitted) in open court (and by the CAA’s own lawyer) to have been an anonymous (pseudonymous) and sadistic Internet troll who stalked various women online.

More recently, in Summer 2018, I was harassed by a police constable based at Barnet, North London (which is effectively occupied territory), at the behest of a Jewish woman who had been firmly put in her place by Andrew Torba, CEO of the online GAB platform. That Jewish individual had demanded that Torba remove various accounts from his GAB platform (which is based in USA and Caribbean) and she had had the gall to threaten Torba online and publicly with “Scotland Yard”! Torba posted all the conversation on GAB and told her in very blunt terms to, er, “get lost”! Many GAB and Twitter account-holders also told her to “get lost”!

I was accused of having reposted one reply to that woman from Torba (which repost would in fact not be a crime in the UK anyway), but that did not stop PC…well, let’s just call him Plod…from sending me an (undated!) “Warning Notice” re. “harassment”, which under English law has to consist of at least two incidents, both of which have to be unlawful, whereas here was one (alleged) incident and that entirely lawful even on its face!

It was clear to me that the Jewish Zionist woman complainant, smarting from the whipping given to her online by Andrew Torba, had decided to make an entirely malicious complaint against me. I should add that she is or was a member or supporter of the “Campaign Against Antisemitism” and at one time used to tweet prolifically and negatively about me. The point is that the police should have realized that her complaint was both malicious and had no basis at all in law. They did not. They chose not to. Very alarming…

It is worrying when the police not only do not know the law they purport to be applying, but actually try to continue to insist that what is not the law actually is! Plod not only telephoned me at least once, but emailed me intimidatingly (as he thought) and, as said, sent a semi-literate, undated and completely ineffective (legally ineffective) “Warning Notice” to me.

What made that incident worse was the feeling that the police in Barnet were running wild and were not acting properly under law. I heard (though this was never confirmed) that “the said Jewish woman” is the ex-wife of one of the “Shomrim” faux-police or private Jewish police, who are based, it has been said online (correctly or not), at the building(s) of the Barnet Police! A private tribal militia operating out of London police stations? It would have been thought incredible only a few years ago.

I could have taken the above-mentioned matter further via official complaint against PC Plod, who, in my view, came close to committing “misconduct in a public office”, but contented myself with writing a detailed letter both to the Borough Commander in Barnet and to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner. Even then, after some time, Plod harassed me via email once more! Only when I provided a face-saving way for him to get lost, did he.

I perceive a degree of drift here: the police deciding not to apply some laws on a blanket basis, in other cases as good as making up the law as they go along. Taken further, those tendencies could together collapse the rule of law in the UK entirely.


Update, 24 January 2019

Update, 20 May 2019

I saw a couple of Peter Hitchens articles…

and this: it seems that the police now see fit to interfere in actual elections!

9 thoughts on “Are the UK Police the New Lawmakers? Where Are the Limits of the Law?”

    1. I suspect that London Council Tax payers and other UK taxpayers are paying for much of it, together with wealthy Jews.

      What I find sinister is not the local militia aspect, bad though that is, but the infiltration or contamination of the local (real) police by this well-funded force.

      I shall reply separately about the Brussels demo.


    2. Re the Brussels demo, all well and good, but marches and demonstrations of discontent achieve little or nothing. The peoples of Europe are being poisoned by the very “leaders” and rulers who should be protecting them. The people need champions who can achieve concrete results against the enemies of their future.


  1. How do you explain the “Yellow Vest” protests in France? It is quite clear Macron etc backed down because of them, although I accept the French have a tradition of protesting – unlike us British, however it depends on the
    particular context as to whether it could be successful or not! As for the “Brussels” demo, although significantly smaller in scale I would say it was quite successful – insofar as publicising the “UN” Marrakech agreement at least!


    1. My comments about the uselessness of marches and demonstrations were about the UK, not France, which has a different political culture and history.

      Having said that, the impact of the Yellow Vests has been great not because they marched and demonstrated but because they were starting to rampage through Paris, looting and burning. Macron must have been asking, “Is Paris Burning?”

      Compare that to the tame marches etc in the UK, where the police “liaise” with the protestors in advance, then accompany them like sheepdogs organizing a flock of sheep.


  2. Bearing in mind that the Crown supplied opium (sometimes at gunpoint to the not-yet-addicted) in China one might surmise there is an economic reason for soft pedalling drug busts, also considering that under Geo. Osborne UK’s GDP was defined to include drugs and prostitution! (And bear in mind the treacherous purported UK Government appears to want the population dead anyway!)

    I thought police discretion had to be exercised case by case but the extract quoted from Lord Denning MR in this case suggests otherwise, it would be interesting to know where the full report can be had for free:

    This blanket non-enforcement looks highly dubious legally and undermines if not negates the rule of law; just as much so as the College of Policing Guidelines on so-called Hate Crimes do, not least because they render almost any conduct potentially infringing:

    Click to access Hate-Crime-Operational-Guidance.pdf

    The enforcement is selective, and prejudicially so.

    This stinks of “hate crime” motivation but the prosecution seems not to have gone with that. I’ve just visited the page to verify that link and find in the comments:

    “why was this not registered as a h8 crime?”

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I might reply, flippantly but also somewhat seriously, that when a white man attacks a black or brown man (or, a fortiori, a Jew) in the UK, it will probably be flagged, at least initially, as a “hate crime”, but the reverse is only very rarely the case…


  3. Indeed that is the likelihood. I can remember the ‘good old days’ when crime was prosecuted by the police and courts as just crime without them trying to get inside the minds of offenders for ‘hate’ motivations. This changed NOT under Blair as many would suppose but under the CONServative Party government of John Major when a Jewish MP called Ivan Lawrence introduced hate crime amendments to the Police and Criminal Justice Act 1994. I can recall a discussion on Newsnight around that time when a sensible junior Home Office minister called Peter something or other said crime should just be prosecuted as crime regardless of the ethnicity of the perpetrator or any possible motive. Those were the times when the Tories still had relatively sane people in their party and not the fully globalist and left liberal rabble like now. Hate crime legislation is inevitably dangerous nonsense because to operate successfully without bias towards any group it requires a judiciary and police without fail to show no favouritism on EVERY possible occasion and human nature being what is that is unlikely to be the case.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s