An Englishman’s Home Is His Castle

Or is it?

I can’t begin to speak for the County Forces, I have absolutely no idea what their rules are or were. However, back in 1972 when I joined the Met I had no say in it, I simply HAD to live within a 25 mile radius of Central London.  I can’t remember now whether it was Hyde Park Corner or Charing Cross, but there isn’t much difference.

It didn’t end there either.  Once my family and I had found a house we would like to live in I had to submit a report to the Senior Management to obtain permission to live there.  Partly to ensure that my choice of abode was within the dreaded circle, but also in order that the neighbours could be vetted, to ensure that I would not be living next to a drug dealer, murderer or bank robber etc.  I understand why, I understand completely, but it completely rode roughshod over the rights and wishes of my wife and family.

Over the years the rules were relaxed and eventually officers were moving out of London for the more affordable accommdation available just a few miles outside, or maybe even as far away as the South Coast if you were really lucky.

Alongside the private sector there were alays Section Houses and a small number of flats for single officers, and a range of 2,3 or 4 bed Married Quarters for families.

Eventually, along came Boris, and to help the Met achieve its Austerity targets most, if not all, of the Section Houses and Married Quarters were sold off to property developers.

House prices in London, and private rentals, are now sky high, so now more than ever, officers are forced to live further and further away from London in order to find a reasonable house, at an affordable price, in a reasonable area.

Next hing we know we have Policy Exchange recommending that officers should live within the communities they Police. Forgetting the price of housing just for one second, why does the officer’s wife/husband/partner have no say in where they live? Why do their rights and expectations get absolutely squashed by the Police Service?

Police Officers and their families living on a Council Estate that they patrol during their working hours?  What could possibly go wrong?

Today we have the press running a total non-story about Met Officers living in Cornwall, or even the South of France.  So what?  They don’t commute that journey every day.

Officers could,and probably would, live much closer to Londn if they could afford it.  House prices have risen, officers’ take-home pay has decreased thanks to the May/Winsor coalition ‘Reforms’. Section Houses and Married Quarters are no longer an option.  They have been sold off to the highest bidder.

The basic reasons for all of this can be traced back to Central Government, Boris and no doubt Police and Crime Commissioners across the land.  Short-sighted, stupid, sucking up to May and Winsor?  Who knows, but a disastrous policy that would have prevented mischievous headlines lke we saw today.

Met terror warning as report reveals ‘commuter cops’ live as far away as Cornwall and the South of France

Police Officers’ partners, wives, husbands have rights. Ignore that at your peril

The BBC Is Spinning The News AGAIN

I am sorry folks, I don’t normally write about Immigration, Refugees and Asylum Seekers, but today has proved to be an exception, you can blame the BBC for that.

During an item on this morning’s Breakfast News programme Nagger Monchetti (sorry, have no idea how to spell it) was covering a news item about immigrants at Calais hiding in lorries, and other acts, in their attempts to reach a ‘safe’ country in order to seek Asylum.

Well, I’m sorry Auntie Beeb, but France IS a ‘safe’ country.

There is a convention that Asylum Seekers should claim Asylum in the first ‘safe’ country they enter, although this does not seem to be enshrined in statute.  Where those Asylum Seekers reside whilst their application is being considered is up to the member States of the EU to resolve, but it seems that even if an Asylum Seeker has entered the UK illegally, once they make their claim (if they ever do, and do not just stay here as Illegal Immigrants) then they become ‘Legal’ with the right to remain here (or wherever they are housed) until their claim has been resolved.

Whilst I have sympathy for them and the conditions they are fleeing, rules is rules, and the French traditionally don’t like rules.  Why are these Asylum Seekers not being processed in France (or Italy) and housed wherever the EU agrees whilst their claim is considered?  Instead we get the Mayor of Calais and other French politicians demanding that the UK does more about the situation in Calais and that we should provide more material assistance.  They certainly don’t need our TSG they’ve got their own CRS.

The Immigration system clearly needs to be shaken up and, dare I say, REFORMED, but in the meantime why not stick to the prevailing rules?

More importantly I do not need to be made to feel guilty by the likes of Nagger Manchetti because these immigrants are ‘only trying to reach a safe country’, they’re already in one, if they bring themselves to notice in France let them claim Asylum in France.

Maybe the answer has more to do with the fact that France is not as ‘soft’ as the UK.

Here Is Today’s News………

But probably not the News that Camoron and the BBC want us to read.

The BBC News website proudly carries a story this morning about a West Mercia Detective who got paid £20,000 in overtime in a year, so what?

They completely overlooked that ALL overtime has to be approved by a Supervising Officer and is therefore necessary presumably.  Overtime of that magnitude would certainly be questioned, even if it was justified and necessary.

However, try as I may, I could not find the ‘real’ main story on the BBC News site.

Britain is too tolerant and should interfere more in people’s lives, says David Cameron

Acting like a throwback to the Stasi, Camoron has come out with some brilliant one-liners such as;

“Britain is too “passively tolerant” and should not leave people to live their lives as they please just because they obey the law

“For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens ‘as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone’,”

“It’s often meant we have stood neutral between different values. And that’s helped foster a narrative of extremism and grievance.”

So where exactly does Camoron get off interfering with the lives of law-abiding citizens?  If people break the law then they should expect proportionate retribution, but I’m not at all comfortable with the State interfering with people who have done nothing illegal.

No wonder Camoron and his gang want to scrap the Human Rights Act.

Was it a total coincidence that we were all looking at a West Mercia tec’s overtime when it seems only the Indie has reported Camoron’s over-zealous ambitions?

Are we really in for another 5 years of this?