When Mr McCourt, of Crawley, West Sussex, was confronted by youths hurling stones and threatening his wife, he thought he was within his rights to make a citizen's arrest. Instead, police arrested the 56-year-old on suspicion of kidnapping. They treated the youths as traumatised witnesses.
They put Mr McCourt in a cell and charged him with assault. They let him live for months with the threat of a jail sentence until—after the intervention of a local MP—the Crown Prosecution Service decided that taking Mr McCourt to trial was "not in the public interest".
Sitting in a front room full of family photographs and his wife's ceramic ornaments, Mr McCourt has his freedom but, he says, "a little bit of me has been destroyed forever – the bit that believed in British justice, that thought I would get help when I needed it, instead of being betrayed."
Please do go and read the whole article: it is a shameful tale. If I were the parents of the children involved, I would be ashamed to show my face in public; if I were the children themselves, I would go and drown myself in a fucking bucket before someone did it to me.
And if I were the police officers involved, I would go and hang myself in the public square with a big placard around my neck, saying...
"I am a total fucking cunt. Please throw dogshit at my hanging body and let the crows peck out my eyes. Then dismember my body and bury the various bits in unconsecrated ground near the crossroads. Then piss on the graves and take a dump in my skull. I am a total fucking shit and I don't deserve to live."
Tom Paine has a rather more reasonable take on the whole affair.
The linked story illustrates poignantly what has happened to our nation under Labour. There was a time when youths would have feared to act in such a way, because the local community would have dealt with them and the police would have exercised common sense. Common sense in this case would have rejected the allegation of kidnapping, which was clearly part of a malicious campaign. But "by the book" bureaucratic Britain requires that common sense is not applied. The allegation was made and must therefore be given credence. Worse, the bureaucracy incentivises the police to pick low-hanging fruit and win a quick statistic, rather than actually tackle the crime that makes many parts of the country unliveable.
Mr McCourt did his country as much service here as he did when he served as a soldier. He is patently a good man; the sort any country should be happy to have as a citizen. He is even - amazingly—still willing to fight, saying he would do the same thing again. His wife's reaction is more typical—and heart-rendingly sad"If I had to go through that again," says Mrs McCourt, "I would walk out. I back Frank, but I just couldn't face it again." Forlornly, she eyes her home. "We have been left defenceless."
Who can blame her? The state is not there to direct peoples' lives. It is there to provide a framework of law within which they can direct their own. It is also there to protect citizens from criminals who interfere with their ability to do so. In this story, as in so many, it has done precisely the opposite. It has done so under the direction, and with the approval, of the Labour government.
And let us be quite clear: the police have willingly colluded with this attitude. In return for a few more lots of silver pennies and more power to harass those whom they are supposed to protect, they have sold their soul to the politicians.
And since politicians are unredeemably evil, so they have corrupted the—hardly previously spotless—police. So, let me remind any officers, who might be reading this post, of your founder's vision for what you should be: I give you the Peelian Principles.
- The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.
- The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon the public approval of police actions.
- 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.
- The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.
- Police seek and preserve public favor not by catering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.
- 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.
- 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.
- Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions, and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.
- The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.
There are decent policemen out there (I know one or two) but the force as a whole has become corrupted—it has become a tool for politicians in a party political point-scoring process.
We must remove the police from political control: politicians seek power over their fellow man and are thus unsaveable from their quintessential evil. The police should serve the people and uphold the law: these two ideas are incompatible with being political stooges.
Unfortunately, the stupid and lazy who make up the majority of the denizens of this country—those who want security above freedom—continue either to elect authoritarian governments or to care nothing about the process. And the rest of us suffer as a result of their apathy and greed.
Who is John Galt?