Something Is Rotten In The State Of Britain

Nicked from Facebook, it is definitely not mine, but the ramifications of Craig Mackey’s actions, or lack of, just rumble on and on, and the smell is not very palatable.

Like many, I made a formal complaint against the behaviour of Craig Mackey. The Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. This individual locked himself in his car as Pc Keith Palmer was stabbed to death by the animal Masood at the gates of the Palace of Westminster. Like many I have just received a reply to that complaint. It has left me slightly uncomfortable.

Apparently according to the Police Reform Act 2002, I do not have standing to make a formal complaint about this matter and therefore they are not recording my correspondence as a complaint about the Acting Commissioner.

The Act specifies who can make a complaint and in what circumstances. Section 12(1) provides that a complaint may be made by the following people:

a. A member of the public who claims the conduct took place in relation to him/her;

b. A member of the public who claims to have been adversely affected by the conduct, even though it did not take place in relation to him/her;

c. A member of the public who claims to have witnessed the conduct;

d. A person acting on behalf of someone who falls within any of the three categories above.

In my opinion my complaint was justified under b and d above.

b. I have been adversely affected by the conduct of Mr Mackey. Also

d. The complaint was lodged on behalf of Pc Keith Palmer

I am also told:

Section 12(5) further provides that:

…a person shall be taken to have witnessed conduct, if, and only if–

(a) He/she acquired their knowledge of that conduct in a manner which would make them a competent witness capable of giving admissible evidence of that conduct in criminal proceedings; or

(b) He/she has in their possession or under their control anything, which would in any such proceedings constitute admissible evidence of that conduct.

In my case I based the reason for my complaint on the evidence, given on oath, by Mr Mackey to the Westminster Inquest. I can only assume that Mr Mackey was telling the truth during these proceedings. Therefore, in my opinion section (a) above is relevant to my complaint.

The truth is, whilst making the complaint, I fully expected it to be kicked into touch. Not because it was not warranted. But because it does not suit either the hierarchy of the Metropolitan Police or the Mayor of London’s Office. Imagine if you would, that instead of Keith it had been some member of some ‘special interest’ group who was chased and murdered whilst a police officer remained locked in his car………..

But the thing that really surprised me is the inclusion of the following:

‘Well, members of the jury, it’s clear from the evidence of Sir Craig that there was, as I say, nothing that he could have done to have stopped Masood. PC Palmer was under attack practically as soon as Sir Craig saw the attacker. What Sir Craig did was sensible and proper and was intended to protect others in the car with him. None of them, as I have said, had any means of protecting themselves or of resisting an attack, and even if he had got out of the car, it is clear from the CCTV evidence that he would not have reached PC Palmer before Masood had inflicted the fatal wound. Indeed, it’s very likely that Masood would have been past the car even if Sir Craig had got out of it. It’s also clear that after Masood had been shot, Sir Craig did not flee the scene: his first instinct was to get out in New Palace Yard, as we saw on the footage when he opened the car door. However, he was told by an officer to leave, and for good reason’.

This statement is the comment made by the Coroner during his summing up at the Inquest. At the time a great many people queried why the Coroner made such an overt defence of Mackey.

It should be remembered that the purpose of an inquest is to answer four questions:

1 Identity of the deceased

2.Place of death

3.Time of death

4. How the deceased came by his/her death

Evidence must be solely for the purpose of answering these questions and no other evidence is admitted. It is not for the inquest to ascertain “how the deceased died” or “in what broad circumstances”, but “how the deceased came by his death”, a more limited question.

The Coroner’s defence of Mackey had no place in the Inquest. There was never any doubt as to who caused it. The complaint against Mackey was in relation to his behaviour, or lack of behaviour, as a police officer at the time. The complaint was very much along the lines of that made in 2015, against several police officers who failed to get out of their patrol car to assist a Tesco security guard with a violent shoplifter. A complaint which led to the justified sacking of one police officer. I can see absolutely no difference between that incident and the issue around Mr Mackey’s behaviour.

But as out of place as the comment was at the Inquest, it is it’s regular appearance in the official responses from the likes of Cressida Dick (Commissioner of Police) and the Mayors Office for Policing and Crime that worries me. It appears that this statement was a deliberately structured ‘key’ designed to aid in the release of Mackey from his predicament. Prepared and pre-empted, in my opinion, even before the end of the Inquest.

The real cancer that is killing the police service resides in the top floors of the Yard and other Police HQs around the land. Yes, there are many Chief Constables and senior officers who still hold true to the traditional values of policing. But they are growing fewer in number. Seeing how the system has rallied around to protect one of its own, many genuinely good senior officers must be tempted to avail themselves of such patronage.

There is corruption in the police. It stinks of politics…….

That is all

Loading Likes...

Context

Context is everything. It can completely change one’s understanding of an event or comment.

Many things have been said over the past few days about the (in)actions of Acting Commissioner Sir Craig Mackey during and after the terrible events on Westminster Bridge and the Palace of Westminster.

Many commentators have called him “Coward”, indeed, initially, I had some sympathy with that argument. Having given it a great deal of thought over the past few days, and listened to the opinions of many others, I find that I have shifted my position somewhat.

The events of that awful day have been recounted many times, and I don’t need to go over them again, but certain actions, or inactions maybe do bear further scrutiny.

Sir Craig Mackey, the Acting Commissioner, was ‘out and about’ without his Personal Protective Equipment and no radio. Really? He may well not have had any PPE but no radio? Really? That must be the only car in the Met’s fleet that doesn’t have a radio hard-wired into it. I’m reasonably certain that he would have had a mobile phone with him too. He might not have been very far away from New Scotland Yard but I’m sure the Commissioner does not go out and is not contactable in case of emergency. That does not make sense.

Sir Craig Mackey was concerned for the well-being of the two other people in his car, both civilians it would seem. Maybe he was, but I’m not convinced that locking themselves in served any truly useful purpose. Why has the inquest not heard from these two persons? If Sir Craig was such a significant witness then surely one or both of them must have seen something? Why not give that evidence to the inquest?

Had Sir Craig Mackey actually got out of his car there was nothing he could have done? Possibly so, but that in itself is not a reason to stay in his car. The main reason that he should have got out of his car, in my humble opinion, is that he had just witnessed one of his officers being violently assaulted. It is entirely possible that Sir Craig was unaware that his officer was indeed mortally wounded. He should have had a First Aid Kit in his car. Human compassion for the fallen officer should have propelled him from the car to assess whether he could assist the officer, or whether he could comfort the officer.

He was told to sit in his car by a PC? No Commissioner in my experience has ever taken orders from a Constable. Had he wanted to get out of his car he could have done.

It was necessary for him to take command/control of events back at NSY? No Commissioner ever takes hands-on control of any incident or operation, they have people to do that for them.

In August 1976 the then Commissioner, Sir Robert Mark, appeared on the Front Line of the carnage following the Notting Hill Carnival. To take control? No, to show solidarity with his troops.

Cowardice? No, probably not. I have changed my opinion on that and the events outlined above probably don’t amount to cowardice. What they do add up to, again, in my humble opinion, is a monumental lack of LEADERSHIP. Sir Craig has only recently bern Knighted, what was that for? Leadership?

In a citation he is commended for reducing stop and search by 70 per cent while doubling the arrest rate and overseeing a dramatic improvement in the recruitment of officers from ethnic minority backgrounds.

Hardly for Leadership.

It could also be interpreted that he did not oppose the government’s cuts to Policing vehemently enough;

The MPS has already made £600 million in savings and faces another £400 million by 2020.

Deputy Commissioner Craig Mackey told the Budget and Performance Committee that although the MPS is currently sufficiently resourced, further assessment would be needed should present demand continue.

That’s not Leadership in my book. He could have opposed the cuts, but in my eyes he just rolled over and accepted their inevitability, saying that the Met currently had sufficient resources. Really? I, and the people I talk to, am not seeing that.

The worst example of Leadership since the Charge of the Light Brigade. Well, maybe not exactly, but it’s up there.

Loading Likes...

#MackeyGate Rumbles On

Just a quick one today, but I’m still Apoplectic, Incandescent and any other crap descriptions I can think of.

Scotland Yard have now issued a statement on the (in)actions of ‘Sir’ Craig Mackey, Acting Commissionaire.

It reads:-

“Neither he [Mackey] nor the two civilian members of police staff he was in the car with during the time of the attack had any protective equipment with them … His initial reaction as a police officer was to get out of the vehicle. However, an operational decision was made with a police officer at the scene that the then acting commissioner should not get out and that he and the two police staff should leave New Palace Yard immediately.

“It was evident that there were officers already present with the necessary skills to neutralise the threat and to administer advanced first aid. At this stage, the full extent of the threat was still unknown.

“Mr Mackey then returned immediately to New Scotland Yard, where he carried out his responsibilities as acting commissioner; namely to lead and coordinate the strategic response across the Metropolitan police to protect London during what was an ongoing terrorist incident.”

My initial reactions to this statement are

When was any Commissioner ever needed to run any operation personally?  I don’t care what it was (and it was serious obviously) the Commissioner was not needed in person, although it would have been helpful if he had his official-issue mobile phone with him.

Swear Alert

Why the fuck could he not remain on scene and as a warm, loving human being (OK I made that bit up) have comforted a dying officer?  He was THERE For Fucks Sake.  One of his officers had just been savagely attacked and was dead or dying, with a Tory MP of all people trying to save his life.  Did Mackey go out without his First Aid Certificate and humanity as well?

For those of you who have not seen it and have suggested that maybe the Press reports were biased or exaggerated, here is a link to the official transcript of Mackey’s evidence to the Inquest.  It seems to me that Media Reports were not biased or exaggerated and, in fact, could have been worse.

I really need to take a couple of Aspirin and study the transcript armed with my trusty quill and papyrus, but I’m not quite sure how well his recollections fit with the accepted timeline of events, but then I am pretty angry at the moment so my judgement might be clouded.

 

Off to lie down in a darkened room now.

 

ADDENDUM

It has been brought to my notice that many posts and comments regarding Mackey have ‘disappeared’ from Farcebook overnight, so if you have posted or commented you may wish to check it’s still there

 

Loading Likes...

I Am Actually Ashamed

It’s not often you will hear me say that (OK, I know you’re reading it)

Today’s headlines have just stunned me into (almost) silence and left me ashamed that I was ever a member of the same organisation

I locked myself in car as Westminster bridge attacker struck, says Met chief

I could easily swear here, but I won’t.  What made it worse was this one from last year though,

New Year Honours: Officer who witnessed Westminster attack among police recognised

It doesn’t even stop there, whilst one MP, Tobias Ellwood,  was trying in vain to save PC Keith Palmer’s life, another one, Mike Fabricant, had locked himself in his office drinking whisky

MP Tobias Ellwood who tried to save Keith Palmer in Westminster terror attack says murdered Pc ‘was the hero… not me’

I fully accept that it’s a long time since I retired from the Met, and that almost everything has changed, but where has the loyalty to your comrades gone.  If one of our PCs needed help the canteen would empty in an effort to assist.  The Inspector and Sergeants would go and I have even witnessed a Commander administer the Attitude Test.  There is no excuse for an officer of any rank (in my opinion) to lock himself in his car and not assist a man who subsequently died.

Sir Craig, then the Met’s acting commissioner, said his first instinct was to secure his chauffeur-driven car. “I was sitting in the car with two other people, one colleague had clearly seen what was going on,” he told Masood’s inquest at the Old Bailey. “I locked the doors — we had no protective equipment, no radios, we had been in a ministerial meeting and literally came out of that.”

His first instinct was to secure his chauffeur-driven car?  What kind of a moron puts steel and rubber before a human being?

No PPE?  No radio?  Welcome to the world of Policing.  I spent all of the years I patrolled the streets armed with a torch, a whistle and a trucnheon. with a radio to call for backup then hit someone with it.  Why were you on the streets of London without even a truncheon?  Is being a Senior Officer some reason not to carry one out on the streets?  Does it exempt you from Policing in some way?  We had to produce ours on Parade before we were allowed out.

Sorry Mr Mackie, your attitude stinks.  I hate to think what Keith Palmer’s widow will make of this revelation.  I certainly don’t think you deserve a Knightood, even it was for saving the Met £400 Million on paperclips or something.  You COULD have stood up to the government  and contested the cuts, but you chose not to.

I look forward to the days that will now follow to see what the public, the Federation and Keith Palmer’s widow have to say about today’s revelations.  If I were “Sir Craig” I honestly think that my resignation would be on the Commission’s desk first thing tomorrow.  The modern day Police Service needs Leaders not Bean Counters.

Dear Public, I feel I have to apologise for our Leadership, they’re not all the same, honestly.

Loading Likes...

Stop and Search – Bored With It Now

The arguments re Stop and Search continue to rumble on, stoked by the opinions of a few ‘Adademics’ most recently.

People continue to be stabbed and killed on the streets of our country, some VERY young children among them, but oh no we mustn’t conduct Stop and Search on these poor young things, it’s not right.  If they are old enough to carry weapons and get involved in knife fights, stabbings, robberies etc etc then they are old enough to be stopped and searched.

According to Theresa May when she was Home Secretary we should be drastically cutting back on Stop/Search Full Stop, or she will bring in legislation to make us stop doing was the threat I believe.

“I want to make myself absolutely clear: if the numbers do not come down, if stop and search does not become more targeted, if those stop-to-arrest ratios do not improve considerably, the government will return with primary legislation to make those things happen,”

She failed in her determination to introduce the relevant legislation due to, mainly, pressure from David Camoron. However she did succeed in obtaining a voluntary agreement;

Forces participating in the scheme must:

  • Record the outcome of stops in more detail to show the link – or lack of a link – between the object of the search and its outcome, allowing an assessment of how well forces interpret the “reasonable grounds for suspicion” they are supposed to have. They must also record a broader range of outcomes, such as penalty notices and cautions, so it can be understood how successful each stop and search is.
  • Allow members of the public to apply to accompany officers on patrol to help improve the community’s understanding of the police.
  • Introduce a stop and search complaints “community trigger” so forces must explain to the public how powers are used if they receive a large volume of complaints.
  • The Home Secretary said forces must make clear that they will respect law established in the recent Roberts case by only using the Section 60 “no suspicion” stop and search power when it is “necessary to prevent incidents involving serious violence” rather than just “expedient” to do so. For those participating in the Best Use of Stop and Search scheme, use of Section 60 must also be authorised by a chief officer who must reasonably believe that violence “will” take place rather than “may” take place, as it stands now. Forces must also limit its application to 15 hours and communicate with communities before and after, so residents can be kept informed of the purpose and success of the operation.

Back in the real world, crime in general and violent crime in particular, has rocketed since Theresa May’s interference in 2014.

For the ‘Academics’ amongst you the problems look like this

Stop/Search vs Crime England and Wales

Stop and Search in England and Wales

In the last 24 hours there has been much use of the word ‘Toxic‘ on Social Media, much of it aimed at former Police Officers who oppose the policies being introduced, unchecked it would appear, by the College of Policing, National Police Chiefs Council and Home Office.

Well, let me tell you, I think the attitude of some very senior Police Officers, aided and abetted by ‘Academics’ is ‘Toxic’.  The figures speak for themselves. In my very humble opinion, and what do I know about it, we should not be having any discussion about reducing Stop and Search at all.  We should, however, be having a very serious discussion about ensuring that our Police Officers are properly trained (not by e-learning) on HOW to lawfully conduct a Stop/Search procedure, what is required, grounds, properly recording the procedure and its outcome etc.

We can not justify cutting back on Stop and Search in the light of rising crime, weapons, killings etc on the streets of our country. EVERY ONE of those weapons is carried through the streets at some point by a real living person.  The responsibility of the Police is to intercept those weapons and prevent the ensuing crimes.

How can they do that whilst being told to cut back on the use of Stop/Search?  Senior Police Officers and ‘Academics’ are not doing anybody any favours highlighting the number of Stop/Searches carried out, they should merely concentrate on the quality of those Stop/Searches and ensure absolutely that they are carried out within the law.

Any criticism of properly conducted Stop/Searches is TOXIC nothing less.  Fnally, how many stabbings, robberies etc have been prevented by ‘Academics’?  Is there a database somewhere for those important figures?

 

Loading Likes...

Police League Tables

Not quite the League Tables you might have been expecting though.

Since 2010 it should be no surprise to anyone that approx 21,000 Police Officers have been culled from the overall strength of the Police Forces of England and Wales.

I shall leave it to others for today to determine how that has affected performance. My personal opinion is that “all you get for less is less”. All these “Work harder, work smarter” mantras are just so much rubbish. It is never my intention to play one Force off against another either.

These League Tables concern how British Policing compares with the Police Forces of other countries viz a viz the number of Police Officers per 100,000 head of population.

The version that the government actually publish is dated 2014 and includes a relatively small number of countries, mainly European.

At just over 200 officers per 100,000 in 2014, even in the government-published figures, we are considerably below the average of 353 officers per 100k.  Figures courtesy of Government Briefing Paper entitled Police Service Strength, published 23rd March 2018.

Out of 33 nations where data was available for 2015, England & Wales was ranked 28th for the number of police officers per 100,000 head of population. Northern Ireland was ranked 11th and Scotland 17th.

What kind of government could be happy with that?

However, I did find considerably more statistics out there, but unfortunately, they do not refer to a common year. However, it does give us an idea where British Policing sits in the greater picture.

 

I apologise for it being a bit clustereed and not showing the names of all of the countries clearly but there are 140 different countries in this comparison and England and Wales proudly rank at #120.

Is it just me that thinks that this is disgusting?

It has nothing to do with wanting a Police State, or a totalitarian regime.  It has everything to do with losing our status as #1 Police Service in the world.  It is totally impossible to provide a decent quality of sevice when the numbers are not there.

Remember someone once said “It’s not about the numbers of police; people often focus on the numbers of police”?  Well I think that this chart demonstrates that it is VERY MUCH about the numbers.

For anyone who is interested you can access the full data here

120th out of 140? Really?  It is absolutely shameful that Theresa May and her government have allowed this to happen.  Worse still, they have MADE IT HAPPEN.  Make no mistake, it is totally the actions of Theresa May, spurred on by her favourite right-wing Think Tanks such as Policy Exchange, that have brought us to where we are.  Police Reform.  Is this what you regard as Police Reform?

Police Forces across the country are finding it necessary to apologise for the quality of the service they provide. Police Officers everuywhere are left feeling burnt out and abandoned, ignored and neglected by ‘the party of Law and Order’ (that’s a laugh). Crime IS rising regardless of what the mandarins tell us, victims of crime are feeling let down, criminals are going unprosecuted due to the lack of officers available to arrest and charge them and put them before the courts, Knife Crime, Acid Attacks, Stabbings, Murders are going through the roof and what is the government response to that?

The Police WANT to deal with these problems that is what every single one of them joined for. Now we have a situation where only Graduates or Apprentices (leading to a degree after 3 years) will be eligible to join the Force and, even better, if they don’t like it after a couple of years the Police will help them to leave and they can be Ambassadors for the Police in a different occupation. What kind of lunacy is this?

Every law-abiding citizen in this country has the absolute right to feel let down and abandoned by the governments since 2010.  All around us their policies are unfolding and shown to be the disasters that they truly are.  NHS, Prison Servvice, Criminal Justice etc etc. Where is their admission that they got it wrong with the Police Service though? There isn’t one. And that is how we ended up at #120 out of 140 in the Police League Table. They simply refuse to listen.

Loading Likes...

Taxi For Mrs May

Call me old-fashioned but it is clearly time for Theresa May to go. She has made a complete Horlicks (mustn’t swear apparently) of the Brexit negotiations. Her own party are turning against her in ever-increasing numbers, she has no credibility left in the eyes of many.

My own personal opinion is that she is determined to be the person who delivers Brexit, whatever the cost to the country. I suspect that she sees herself as a modern-day Maggie Thatcher, but she is anything but that.

Yesterday the Superintendents Association began their Annual Conference. The opening speech of their Chairman, Gavin Thomas, contained the following;

It comes rather late but must be seen by many as a damning indictment of ‘Police Reform’. Theresa May’s own personal crusade savaged in public by Gavin. Even the bosses have had enough and are beginning to speak out. Their voices are beginning to swell, soon we will have a choir all using the same hymn sheet.

In 2015 the National Audit Office first issued a report stating, quite clearly, that the Home Office did not understand the cuts it was making to the Police Service.

Home Office making police cuts without understanding, report says

The Home Office has been accused of making deep cuts in policing without understanding how it will affect the public in a highly critical official auditors’ report.

The National Audit Office has also concluded that civil servants as well as forces in England and Wales do not have a clear understanding of the demands placed on them or the factors that affect their costs.

The NAO’s findings come weeks after Theresa May, the home secretary, accused the Police Federation of crying wolf about the impact of austerity as she warned rank-and-file officers to brace themselves for fresh cuts.

Fast Forward to 2018 and this morning the headlines are

Home Office ignorant of strain on police after cuts, says watchdog

Whitehall’s spending watchdog has accused the Home Office of being ignorant of the strain that police officers are under after funding cuts led to 45,000 job losses.

The report from the National Audit Office comes as a debate rages over why crime is rising. Suppressed government research has suggested cuts have played a part though ministers deny this.

The NAO found there had been a 19% drop in funding for police since the Conservatives took power in 2010, and officers were struggling to maintain an effective service.

Suppressed government research? That’s an interesting phrase. Where have we found that before? Oh yes, the suppressed research into Stop and Search.

Your time is up Mrs May, you have had three years since the 2015 report to sort this shambles out but what have you actually done? Carried on with your discredited ‘Reforms’ and made things much, much worse.

Additionally Mrs May was only the second Home Secretary to possess a conviction for Contempt of Court, and, of course, now becomes the FIRST Prime Minister to be so encumbered. How does that look in the eyes of other countries?

Your time is up. Your stewardship of this country has been abysmal, a veritable balls-up, Taxi for Theresa May.

**Sorry, I forgot, we shouldn’t criticise the government**

Loading Likes...

❄️Evidence Based Whingeing ❄️

Late last night I came upon a spat between a retired detective and a serving DE Superintendent. They clearly fundamentally disagreed on the subject of criticising the government.

The Superintendent tweeted that the current trend for being irate and “lambasting” the government for DESTROYING the Police Service had the opposite effect than that intended and was “embarrassing”.

My initial reaction was to think “what the hell is wrong with being irate at this government, and as for embarrassing, please, I have been far more embarrassed than that while I was serving. A large percentage of the general public still support the Police Service, so who is embarrassed? Retired officers aren’t embarrassed by it, why would we be. The general public aren’t embarrassed by it as many of them hold the same views. Front Line officers? I doubt very much that they would be embarrassed by it, they are the very ones suffering the most from government cuts but daren’t openly speak out due to the threat of disciplinary action if they do. That leaves the Superintendents Association and the Police Chiefs. They SHOULD be embarrassed because until today only a very small number of their members has spoken out against the government. They have either acquiesced by their silence or, worse, claimed that they had sufficient resources to get the job done.

Our retired detective had the temerity to challenge said Superintendent. IMHO there was nothing too aggressive about the challenge, robust but perfectly fair. The only sweary word was when retired detective said “are you going to bloody congratulate them for creating a #CrisisInPolicing?” Not exactly the language of the convent but I have heard much worse, occasionally.

Our intrepid Superintendent responded by assuming that there would now be a Twitter ‘pile on’, stated that in his view it was not his place to openly criticise the government and implied that our retired detective was swearing at him and trying to bully him. Apart from a solitary use of the bloody word I did not see any swearing and to be honest did not see any evidence of bullying or an attempt to do so.

Bullying – “use superior strength or influence to intimidate (someone), typically to force them to do something.”

Really? Can’t see it myself.

What concerns me more is the fact that a Superintendent of Police, using an official account, shows such a lack of fortitude. I have encountered far worse during my service, from my colleagues, from my supervisors and on the streets of the Metropolis. I can only imagine what the reaction of my battle-hardened Sergeant would have bern if I had related the experience to him. It’s part of what Policing is. It is also one of my reservations about Direct Entry Inspectors and Superintendents. Here we have one who feels that somebody might be trying to bully him because he has been challenged. No serving officer is ever going to make that challenge unless they are operating under an anonymous account, but nothing wrong with a retired officer launching a challenge surely?

It possibly wasn’t the most respectful challenge, but neither does it have to be. Respect is earned, not given away in a raffle.

If the government and Police Chiefs want to have Direct Entry Inspectors and Superintendents they should EXPECT those DE officers to be challenged until they earn their spurs’.

Needless to say the DE Superintendent was supported in his comments, but what kind of situation are we arriving at if it is ’embarrassing’ to challenge the government. Maggie would have p****d herself laughing. Theresa May might think she is Maggie II but she is not. We still live in a society where we CAN challenge, so nobody should complain or be embarrassed if/when we do.

Finally, if we accept that the Police are the Public and the Public are the Police then surely the Police have a perfect right to criticise the government?

Loading Likes...

Hello world! I’m Back 😇

I’ve had it with Twitter blocking my posts through no fault of my own. Norton relented and pronounced it Clean, and they’re particularly difficult to satisfy.

Here I am, reborn.

I have replicated the old Retired and Angry here, hopefully it all works. If you find anything that doesn’t please let me know.

Please let me know if anybody flags the blog up as Suspicious or Dangerous. Chrome is particularly likely to do this because I don’t have an SSL certificate. The fact is I don’t need one because I will NEVER ask you for any money, so I won’t be storing any personal or Financial information on this site. NEVER.

Illegitimi non carborundum

Onwards and upwards, let’s be ‘aving ’em.

STOP PRESS

I now have a basic SSL certificate

Loading Likes...

Norton SafeWeb Lists Me As Dangerous 😂

It has come to my notice that this site has been blacklisted by Norton and listed as ‘Dangerous’.

Whilst it’s quite good to be regarded as a little bit dangerous I can assure you that my site doesn’t phish, it doesn’t spam (to the best of my knowledge, I don’t Spam unless I’m hacked).

I am in negotiations with Norton to be re-evaluated but that takes time apparently.

In the meantime, just to reassure you, here’s the blacklist report for my site. You obviously don’t have to, but if you want to log my site as an Exception that should be fine. If you don’t want to take the risk, I do understand, and hopefully Norton will move their a***s soon and remove the Dangerous marker.

A very welcome Addendum

Loading Likes...