Wednesday, February 06, 2008

Vengeful scum and dodgy coppers

Another day, another tale of a collection of contemptible human beings totally overreacting and making utter cunts of themselves.
A pensioner was killed after a couple used a policeman friend to trace him and then attacked his home in a dispute over a supermarket parking space, a jury was told yesterday.

Bernard Gilbert, 79, died of a heart attack after a brick was thrown through his window.

The former Rolls-Royce worker became a target when he shouted at Zoe Forbes, 26, because she parked her car in a space he had earmarked for himself at a branch of Asda, Nottingham Crown Court was told.

Mrs Forbes was upset and called her husband Mark, who told her to note down Mr Gilbert’s numberplate. He then asked a policeman friend to check Mr Gilbert’s address on the police national computer, using the car registration number.

Mr Forbes sent his wife a text message reading: “We’ll smash his car to bits and then his hire car and then whatever he gets after that until he dies.”

One wonders about the mental stability of the kind of arsehole that decides that this course of action is in any way proportionate. Or, indeed, even reasonable in any way whatso-fucking-ever. Seriously, just as I think that my general opinion of humanity couldn't get any lower, I find yet another tale to feed my contempt.

Remember, as Samizdata point out, if you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear. Unless, of course, you happen to shout at someone for pinching your parking space.

However, there is something missing from this report, and it concerns this paragraph.
He then asked a policeman friend to check Mr Gilbert’s address on the police national computer, using the car registration number.

Is the "policeman friend" in court as an accessory? If not, why not? Has this policeman lost his job and is he being prosecuted?

Aaaaahahahahaha!

We all know what happens to bent coppers and the very worst that this guy could expect is to "be retired" on full pension. The police are so routinely corrupt that it barely matters: it's just another fucking hideously corrupt copper who happens to have been discovered, that's all.

Fucking hell, this country is such a fucking shithole. Oh, and for the enlightenment of any coppers reading this, here are the nine Peelian Principles of policing.
  1. The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.

  2. The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon the public approval of police actions.

  3. Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observation 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 favor 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 upon 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.

There, that's how you should be doing your job. The next copper to turn around and say that the corruption endemic in the police force is all the government's fault gets a prize of a punch in the fucking face.

34 comments:

knirirr said...

It's strange how people get so upset when they are caught acting boorishly. See what reaction you get if you complain at someone for jumping the queue at a bus stop, or similar.

Ed said...

I agree with Knirirr - I am loathe to ask my neighbours to stop waking me up at 5am with shagging or arguing because I know that the result will be more misery for me not less.

I would hope that the police officer involved in this has at the very least been required to resign. Like politicians, the police have to be clean and to be seen to be clean.

Anonymous said...

It would be nice to think that the old boy has some family who will make it their business to utterly destroy every possesion of these cunts.

Robert the Biker

Machiavelli's Understudy said...

I tried to talk to a copper once about 'Peelian Principles'. She said "what?".

David Davis said...

See my Samizdata comment on this, which point out the degradation caused by endemic socialism in the UK over the last 50 years.

I hope lots and lots of people note these unspeakable Forbes's, and shun them, refuse to let them buy petrol, refuse them banking facilities, refuse to service their flat-screen TV when it breaks, and refuse to sell stuff to them in shops etc.

John B said...

"It's strange how people get so upset when they are caught acting boorishly."

In this case, it was the old man who wwas 'caught acting boorishly' - he went road-rage-mental at Mrs Forbes for parking in a space that he'd thought about parking in.

None of that excuses the Forbes's (or the policeman's) subsequent actions, of course.

JuliaM said...

"In this case, it was the old man who wwas 'caught acting boorishly'.."

Good job you got your second para in there, or it'd be close to saying 'Old fucker had it comin'..'

But yeah, we can see your point - 79 year old has the temerity to raise his voice to your 14-year-junior trophy wife, what is there to do but phone your dodgy copper friend, get his home address, devote your free time to stalking him with an equally worthless sibling, brick his window and kill him in front of his wife of 55 years?

Story of modern life, eh..? Got to have 'respect', innit...

JuliaM said...

Tell me, 'john b', do you ever get tired of hopping round websites offering up ever more unlikely excuses for the scum of the world...?

I mean, next you'll be pointing out that, well, if Mark Dixie just happened upon a dying woman, whose to say he did her any more harm that the real killer, in raping her while she gasped her last breath..?

John B said...

Someone above completely misread the original story, so I corrected them. Yes, Mr Forbes is a scumbag (although quite what bearing the age difference between him and his wife has on the case is beyond me) and the policeman should be fired and jailed.

But it's also important to get across the point that Mr Gilbert is an *example* of yobbish society, as well as a victim of it - and equally, that not all bullying thugs are youths.

Not quite sure what your point about Dixie is, either. If his story that he raped a dying woman he found on the street is found to be true, then yes, he literally did less harm than the real killer. That doesn't stop him from needing locked up for a long time - nor does it absolve the real killer of blame, or mean we shouldn't lock the real killer up.

[note to legal/court types: my use of the phrase "the real killer" is in no sense intended to be evocative of OJ Simpson or to imply that Dixie's story is in any way implausible...]

JuliaM said...

"...it's also important to get across the point that Mr Gilbert is an *example* of yobbish society, as well as a victim of it..."

Christ, it's all moral relevance, isn't it?

The scumbag in the dock and his young bit of skirt claim they were provoked and all of a sudden, not only are they to be believed implicitly, but that can be used to cast a 79 year old man as equally at fault in the affair for a bit of verbal!

What's the matter, 'john b', were you beaten to a car park space by an elderly gent once, too..? Give you a bit of lip..? Make you feel like less of a man..?

I can see four types of scum here we'd all be better off were they not in society at all:

a) some young tart married to an older man who thinks nothing of winding up her husband to mayhem because a near-octogenarian was rude to her in the car park,

b) a man with nothing between his legs but limp spaghetti who jumps to defend his female trophy against that deadliest of horrors, the lippy elderly gent (but has to get 'moral' support in the shape of his equally worthless brother, because, well, might turn out to be too much for him to handle on his own..),

c) the waste of space cop with scum for close friends who should, regardless of the outcome of the trial, be drawing a p45 right about now, and

d) the kind of sewer-dwelling morlock that cruises websites, finds stories like this that have normal people reaching for their best profanity to describe the perpetrators, and then seeks to claim moral relevance, in some twisted attempt to persuade himself that mankind is all equally horrible.

I'd start with removing a) - c), but I think we also need to start tolerating the views of d) a lot less before we can start to have the kind of society we deserve.

JuliaM said...

And before 'john b' whines about 'freedom of speech, 'tolerating the views of' doesn't mean we shut them up by law.

It means every time we see this kind of 'justification' used from now on, we point, laugh and ridicule the commenter to within an inch of his/her worthless life, until it starts to dawn on them that their outlook is no longer required by society, thanks very much.

John B said...

"The scumbag in the dock and his young bit of skirt claim they were provoked"

Again, what's the relevance of Mrs Forbes's age? It's almost as if you had some bizarre personal hangups... but let's leave that one there.

The point is not that the Forbes claim they were provoked - the point is that independent witnesses confirm, and the prosecution has stated as part of its case, that Mr Gilbert was vile to Mrs Forbes for no reason.

What's wrong with saying "Mr Gilbert acted like a boor and a bully, but that doesn't justify the actions of the people involved in his death"? Do you think that people magically reach a state of moral perfection on their 79th birthdays? Do you think there's a conspiracy by the CPS to tarnish his saintliness and hence sabotage their own trial...?

If some ageing geezer were to give you a tirade of foul abuse in the car park over nothing, I imagine it would upset you a bit, make you feel less happy about your day, and generally make the world a worse place. That doesn't give you the right to exact a twisted revenge - but it certainly gives you, and everyone else, the right to think that the man is a boor and a bully.

JuliaM said...

"Again, what's the relevance of Mrs Forbes's age?"

Are you so naive..? The age of the slapper (and the age of the husband) in this little vignette gives most normal people a pretty good idea of what type of 'people' one is dealing with here.

"What's wrong with saying "Mr Gilbert acted like a boor and a bully, but that doesn't justify the actions of the people involved in his death"?"

Because anyone normal won't think like that - 'ooh, there must be fault on both sides here...' - simply because it isn't true. He could have called her all the names under the sun and it does not place him on some kind of equal level with the perpetrators of a planned, calculated, assisted revenge attack.

I can see how someone keen to see no moral difference between two sides could want to try so hard to make it seem so. Up for a judgeship, are you? You'll be perfect material.

John B said...

Are you so naive..? The age of the slapper (and the age of the husband) in this little vignette gives most normal people a pretty good idea of what type of 'people' one is dealing with here.

Absolutely no idea which particular stereotype you're going for here, I'm afraid. Doley chavs? Mid-life-crisis divorcé and gold-digger? Lonely pathetic man and mail-order bride...?

He could have called her all the names under the sun and it does not place him on some kind of equal level with the perpetrators of a planned, calculated, assisted revenge attack.

And I agree with that wholeheartedly. The fact that the others were worse, however, doesn't stop him from being a petty bully who was old enough to know better...

JuliaM said...

"The fact that the others were worse, however, doesn't stop him from being a petty bully who was old enough to know better..."

Well, I have to admire the way you stick to your guns. Of course, you have had practice in attempting a defence of the indefensible:

http://pubphilosopher.blogs.com/pub_philosopher/2008/01/running-away-fr.html#comment-97533500

After all, if you can deploy the 'let's not be hasty, she might've had it coming' argument about a young girl raped and burned with acid to remove DNA evidence, then I guess a lippy pensioner is quite an easy target.

The Kusabi said...

If John B's postings here and at Pub Philosopher demonstrate anything, it's that he definitely has more sympathy for genuine hardcore yobs over and above ordinary people that they're liable to assault and bully. Here he's arguing that a bunch of scum going after someone for shouting at someone is perfectly understandable. In this link - http://pubphilosopher.blogs.com/pub_philosopher/2007/08/no-way-to-run-a.html#comment-80884431 - he's asserting that people who tackle yobs, who've been rampaging around menacing bystanders and making clear threats of violence, are the moral equivalent of N.I. paramilitaries going around doling out punishment beatings. Language that he does not use to describe the pack of animals who, um, carried out a revenge attack. No, he's rather more blase about their actions.

JuliaM said...

Yes, and for someone so free with his viewpoint, he doesn't seem to like to see it drawn to any other's attention. Particularly when it shows his true leanings.

He's over at Samizdata now, whining about how unfair it was for me to bring to that topic his own words on another thread.. ;)

Poor little dear, he doesn't really understand how this blogging thingie is supposed to work, does he?

John B said...

He's over at Samizdata now, whining about how unfair it was for me to bring to that topic his own words on another thread.. ;)

See this comment on Samizdata - some idiot has been faking comments again. How grown-up and mature of them. I backed off on SD because Natalie, who isn't a fuckwit, suggested the discussion was going in an inappropriate direction. Apparently somebody wanted to continue the argument without me...

Here he's arguing that a bunch of scum going after someone for shouting at someone is perfectly understandable

I wondered how long it'd be before the Wasabi showed up. What part of "the others are worse", "they should go to jail", "they are scumbags" don't you understand? Just because one side of a dispute is made out of bad people, doesn't automatically make the other side good...

JuliaM said...

"...some idiot has been faking comments again. How grown-up and mature of them."

Yes, and you implied I was the one doing the faking. Sadly, you are wrong (again - becoming a habit!), as a check of the IP address will quickly show the blog owners.

You might want to ask yourself why anyone would need to embellish false comments attributed to you, when your own, admitted, words are all that's needed to cast a bright light on you and the positions you take...?

For that alone, I'd echo your call for whoever it is to cease and desist. When your enemy is destroying himself, you just need to get out of his way.

The Kusabi said...

What part of "the others are worse", "they should go to jail", "they are scumbags" don't you understand?

Um, why would you be telling us that the old man who died must be a nasty person who incited his killers, if not to mitigate their actions?

And again, do you deny that you're more condemnatory of violence used when the circumstances actually call for it, as with the train guard who had to face - and mix it with - a violent yob? Going so far as to say the guard headbutted the yob - which you were wrong about - and equating his actions to a punishment beating?

Simple question - do you think the parking space gang are worse than the train guard? simple question two - if you think yes, they are worse, how come your own words do not reflect this?

John B said...

"do you think the parking space gang are worse than the train guard?"

Yes.

"simple question two - if you think yes, they are worse, how come your own words do not reflect this?"

They do reflect this. I've repeatedly said that the revenge-attackers in this case are scumbags who should be in jail. I accused the train guard of dishing out punishment beatings *to* scumbags, and suggested he shouldn't be treated as a hero.

The Kusabi said...

Don't be disingenuous John, you know as well as I do that when you use phrases like 'punishment beating' in the case of one but not the other, that suggests that you believe force used against thugs to be worse than force used against elederly men and women.

You attack the old man for allegedly bullying the poor young lassie (who got her mates to sort him out) but you do not similarly condemn a thug threatening passengers at a train station. Instead, you loudly wonder why thugs threatening people can possibly be met with violence, whereas in the other case you're all too understanding of the need of thugs to respond to someone raising their voice to one of their mates.

Oh and, here you go again, 'accusing the train guard of dishing out punishment beatings' even though you were wrong about the train guard headbutting the lout. Embarrass yourself a bit more, why don't you?

John B said...

The CCTV showed the headbutting. Yarwood accepted a caution as a result. This is an unusual definition of "me being wrong".

I've heard back from Perry at Samizdata about the person who's been impersonating me. Sorry, JuliaM - out of the two people slating me on this thread, you're the one who *doesn't* share an email address with the faker...

John B said...

[brainfart: I meant "IP address", obviously. And actually I only really meant IP block - Mr K and the faker certainly use the same ISP, but the absolute address the faker used to post on Samizdata isn't the same any of the addresses Mr K has used to post on Banditry.]

The Kusabi said...

Your link doesn't say the CCTV showed the headbutting, where did you get that from? from Yarwood accepting a caution? For you to say that that means they've got him bang to rights with CCTV is stretching it.

============

And WTF are you thinking? 'Oh hey, I'll accuse JuliaM of impersonating me. Oops, that didn't work out too well - it wasn't her. I know! I'll accuse the next guy who comes in of impersonating me! I are a genius!'

You're goddamned right about the absolute address not being the same as mine. Maybe you should edumacate yourself about IP addresses, you tit.

JuliaM said...

"And WTF are you thinking?"

Oh, I'd not dignify it with the term 'thinking', personally....

It's more like random stream of consciousness stuff. Hence he ends up tying himself in knots and writing things he really, really wishes he hadn't.

Because thanks to the Internet, they can come back out to play any time that's most inconvenient and embarassing, can't they...?

John B said...

Hmm. Perhaps you'd like to show me the article where someone refutes the claim that Yarwood headbutted the lout? Or perhaps you're just talking nonsense as usual.

And yes, I'm sure it's just coincidence that all the IPs you've used to comment on my blog fall within the same range as the fake commenter, and it's nothing to do with you being a crazy stalking loony. 100% accepted.

The Kusabi said...

Perhaps you'd like to show me the article where someone refutes the claim that Yarwood headbutted the lout?

Well, that's the thing, john - no-one is making that claim except you. And you're making it based on what evidence? Because there's nothing about Yarwood deliberately headbutting the lout in the link you posted. Nothing at all.

So your claim is refuted by the fact that you have no evidence to back you up. Silly boy. Take some logic classes.

Anonymous said...

An old git once offered to take me outside the local Sainsburys for a punch up because I requested that he take his arguement with the cashier about 2p off voucher or something to customer service rather than hold up the rest of the queue who had trivial things like jobs to get back too and kids to pick up from school.

The old boy must have been 70 if he was a day. I laughed my head off and told him I did not fancy my chances against him. Everyone else smirked and laughed and that was it.

The poor old sod probably thought he had made his point etc and proceeded to fuck around until the manager came and removed him.

Was he an obnoxious old cunt? Yes, would I go out of my way to 'get' him for being so? No as unlike most of the chav scum that beat and maim people for fuck all reason I have a brain and a life to get on with.

John B said...

@ Wasabi - my link showed that Yarwood subsequently admitted the offence. There's no evidence at all of the CPS or One Railway retracting their original story that Yarwood headbutted the yob, whereas there is evidence that Yarwood retracted his story of not being guilty. In the absence of other evidence, that lends weight to the CPS and One Railway's version of events.

@ anonymous - good story, and I'm sure 99% of us would react in the same way...

The Kusabi said...

I see, so your link did NOT show that the CCTV caught Yarwood headbutting the violent thug. Would that be, because it didn't...because he didn't? You're obviously hoping that Yarwood's taking the path of least resistance by pleading guilty means you can get away with [i]insinuating[/i] that he's as violent as the thug he reacted against, unfortunately the other explanation could be that he folded in the face of strong-arm tactics and deceit on the part of the parties interested in prosecuting him. You know, the sort of thing you yourself once posted a blog entry decrying...apparently you approve of vicious underhanded behaviour in this case though. Probably because it plays to your nasty, spiteful need to see heroes torn down. After all, Yarwood would be a hero, standing up for the safety of the passengers at that station. That in itself probably makes you want to attack him.

I'm also suprised to see you making an allegation you hastened to [i]retract[/i] and explain how you'd got it wrong the first time you made it, presumably because you realised how stupid it made you look to have shot your mouth off [i]again[/i] after wrongfully accusing someone in the first place.

Oh wait, you [i]are[/i] that stupid.

John B said...

"I'm also suprised to see you making an allegation you hastened to retract and explain how you'd got it wrong the first time you made it"

Liar. I've never retracted the allegation that Yarwood was caught on CCTV headbutting the thug, as haven't One Railway or the CPS.

Now, this *could* be a massive bloody great conspiracy to screw over Yarwood because the kind of people who become private transport directors and prosecution lawyers are evil sinister liberals - or it could be that he did it and eventually accepted the consequences of his actions.

I'm going to go with the option which doesn't imply the person believing it is a gibberingly mad conspiracy theorist, I reckon. YMMV.

The Kusabi said...

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Confused much, John?

You've made baseless claims, backed up by no evidence, meaning no CCTV evidence, that Yarwood assaulted the thug. You've accused two people on the trot of posting under your name, the second time you did that, you later thought it would be fun to repeat the insinuation even though you already admitted that you can't tell IP addresses and ISP blocks apart. You've said that a rape victim who was further assaulted with acid to remove DNA evidence might possibly have been the author of her own misfortune because of the company she kept, and you've even said on this very blog that animal cruelty isn't.

I'm just going to start calling you 'Mr. Clusterfuck' now, would that be OK with you?

John B said...

Christ, it's like nailing jelly to a wall.

1) "You've made baseless claims, backed up by no evidence, meaning no CCTV evidence, that Yarwood assaulted the thug."

I'm viewing *Yarwood's admission of guilt* as evidence that he assaulted the thug, and as evidence that the CPS's and Yarwood's employers claims that there was CCTV footage were true. You seem to be taking the position that the CCTV footage was made up and Yarwood was lying about being guilty. Channelling William of Occam...

You've accused two people on the trot of posting under your name, the second time you did that, you later thought it would be fun to repeat the insinuation even though you already admitted that you can't tell IP addresses and ISP blocks apart.

I didn't accuse JM, I made an [I accept slightly sly] comment about *someone* posting under my name before I got the IP data.

I've not admitted I can't tell IP addresses and ISP blocks apart, although it's nice to know that no typo is safe from your rugged dissection and misinterpretation.

Your ISP dynamically allocates IP addresses from a pool. The IP addresses from which the fake comments were posted come from the same pool. No other comments left on my blog come from the same pool, even including some comments left by people with the same ISP.

Whatever. As I said, 100% accepted that it's just coincidence.

"You've said that a rape victim who was further assaulted with acid to remove DNA evidence"

No, hold it there: the whole point about that case is that the 'to remove DNA' story is crazy nonsense made up by the tabloids - she was very, very obviously assaulted with acid as a form of torture.

Raping someone and then using strong acid *to remove one's DNA* is not something which has happened anywhere ever, because it's an insane way of doubling one's sentence compared to, say, making them shower a lot. Raping someone and using strong acid *to mutilate them* is, sadly, something which has been known to happen in the past when evil bastards are out for revenge.

"You've even said on this very blog that animal cruelty isn't."

No, I've said that halal slaughter isn't cruel; the only people who disagree with me on that front are opportunistic militant vegetarians and people who'll seize any excuse to indulge in a bit of Muslim-hating.

"I'm just going to start calling you 'Mr. Clusterfuck' now, would that be OK with you?"

Knock yourself out.