Murdered by the police: This Site put out the infographic above after the kidnap, rape and murder of Sarah Everard by Metropolitan Police officer Wayne Couzens. Now a damning report has confirmed that criminals and sexual predators are being allowed into police services across England and Wales. But are we seeing a change in attitude that means these creatures will no longer be protected?
Criminals and sexual predators who should never have been allowed through the vetting process are now acting as police officers in England and Wales, according to a damning report.
His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary, Fire and Rescue Services (HMICFRS) announced the finding after a review of eight police services in the wake of the abduction, rape and murder of Sarah Everard by a Metropolitan Police officer.
Of 725 sample cases closely examined in the review, there were concerns about 131 officers cleared to serve in police forces – but the watchdog said the true total could be much higher.
The authors questioned 11,000 officers and staff – and of the women who responded, “an alarming number alleged appalling behaviour by male colleagues”, raising concerns about risks to people outside the police.
“Almost without exception, they’d been on the receiving end of behaviour which absolutely has no place in the modern workplace,” [Inspector of Constabulary and report author Matt Parr] added.
The report adds: “We found a culture where misogyny, sexism and predatory behaviour towards female police officers and staff and members of the public still exists.”
In the first part of this interview, Transport Secretary Mark Harper said every police force must review their recruitment and disciplinary process:
But the government is currently trying to recruit 20,000 new police officers – and has been since late 2019. Considering the difficulty it is having, can there be any faith that corners aren’t being cut and more “bad apples” are being allowed in?
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Brace yourself, because this won’t be easy to watch or read.
Last night (September 29), on Late Night Mash, comedian Shaparak (Shappi) Khorsandi delivered an impassioned attack on the so-called morality police in her homeland of Iran.
These are people who murder women for failing to cover their hair completely. Watch:
For more context on this, here’s another comedian from Iran, Omid Djalili:
2/. Ghazale Chelavi, a 32 year old mountaineer shot in the head in Amol city after chanting “we are all Masha Amini” pic.twitter.com/mIQB6bnAn5
6/. Use hashtag #Mahsa_Amini not #Masha her name was MAHSA. A real chance to get awareness out about this urgent issue. Tho it’s Iran 🇮🇷 it’s not just a Middle Eastern issue it’s a global human rights issue so like @yungblud & @DUALIPA feel free to share your own posts & thoughts
Bear in mind that he said 41 people had died four days ago. By yesterday that death toll had more than doubled:
Protests continue in a number of cities across Iran over the death of 22-year-old Mahsa Amini in the custody of the so-called ‘morality’ police. 83 people including children have been killed. ‘Morality’ seems to mean what clothes you wear, not how you treat kids and young women.
Thousands of Iranians are protesting – and risking their lives to do so – but people across the world are taking action as well.
Here in the UK, Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, who was imprisoned in Iran for six years, cut her hair in a gesture of solidarity with women in and from Iran who have thrown away their hijabs to do the same:
"For my mother, for my daughter, for the fear of solitary confinement, for the women of my country, for freedom." https://t.co/NKittaZeLL
What a remarkable image. The daughter of Minoo Majidi–a mother of two who was killed by the Iranian regime while protesting for #MahsaAmini–stands at her mother's gravesite. She is defiantly unveiled, and in her left hand she holds the hair she cut from her head. pic.twitter.com/QPqHGk4MDy
n memory of Mahsa Amini 🖤 I wrote her name with my Fixie bike in Farsi using Persian Script. Her death, on September 16, 2022, at the hands of Iran's "morality" police, has sparked nationwide anti-government protest. #MahsaAmini#مهسا_امینی#FixieGPSArtByKubapic.twitter.com/TaJEBq3Drh
Iranian National Football(soccer) team wears all black to cover their country's colors in protest of the death of Mahsa Amini. pic.twitter.com/eicXK2pcJU
If people in Iran are risking their lives to make a stand against this, then people elsewhere can certainly do something in solidarity.
Will you? Or do you think it’s all right because it isn’t happening to you?
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Shireen Abu Aqleh: it’s hard to see the justification for killing someone with the word “PRESS” emblazoned across their jacket.
The death of Shireen Abu Aqleh has been referred to the International Criminal Court as part of an investigation into whether Israeli security forces have been targeting Palestinian journalists in violation of humanitarian law:
The case originally submitted in April by Bindmans had focused on four Palestinian journalists wearing press helmets and vests, two of whom were maimed and two shot dead. It also covers alleged attacks on Gaza media infrastructure in May 2021.
Lawyers from Bindmans and Doughty Street Chambers announced the addition of the death on 11 May of Abu Aqleh to the existing claim at a press conference in London.
They said the case was vital owing to the repeated failure of the Israeli security forces to investigate such incidents and the inability of Palestinian reporters to secure reparations in Israeli domestic courts.
There will also be issues of jurisdiction… Israel itself is not a party to the ICC, raising issues of enforcement of any eventual ruling.
Why isn’t it? Why does Israel get away with this kind of unaccountability?
This comment from one of the solicitors involved is extremely telling:
Tayab Ali, the Bindmans solicitor in the case, said “evidence was not lacking, but the political will”, adding “Israel in the past has been gifted immunity”.
He said: “Israel has enjoyed a devastating impunity against accountability for the actions of its armed forces, and has repeatedly demonstrated that it is a bad faith investigator. It has not managed to hold anyone to account for the tens of Palestinian journalists that have been killed or maimed so far”.
The Palestinian Authority announced the results of an investigation into Abu Aqleh’s death, saying that it revealed Israeli forces deliberately shot and killed the reporter.
Israel’s defence minister, Benny Gantz, said, “Any claim that the IDF intentionally harmed journalists or noncombatants is a blatant lie.”
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Misguided: it seems Ali Harbi Ali murdered Sir David Amess because the MP had voted in favour of airstrikes on Syria – that had hardly any effect.
Ali Harbi Ali, the murderer of Sir David Amess, said the killing was a terrorist act of revenge because the late Southend MP voted for airstrikes against Islamic State in Syria.
Although, considering the fact that Ali was radicalised in 2019, This Writer wouldn’t have put it past him to have been motivated by the airstrikes against IS in Syria the previous year – when no Parliamentary vote took place at all. There’s nothing rational about these people.
But then, there was very little about the vote to bomb Syria that was rational, either.
For examples:
None of the arguments in their favour – by David Cameron or Labour turncoat Hilary Benn – made any sense. As opponents argued, previous interventions in Iraq and Libya had destabilised those nations, making them a home to terrorists – exactly the opposite of what we were told would happen. Innocents would be killed in huge numbers – even if we knew where the terrorists were hiding, it would probably be behind children or the sick, in schools or hospitals (as we had previously experienced). Dropping bombs on Syria would increase the outflow of refugees. Our bombing would have as little effect as that of the other countries. And when bombing Syria was previously debated in Parliament, it was against President Assad, and therefore on the same side as the terrorists, and if we had gone through with it, Daesh/IS would have controlled most of Syria by the time the 2015 vote took place; how could anyone possibly argue that the current plan would have a better result?
The BBC was so keen to make the UK public support the airstrikes that it lied about a demonstration against them, saying that a violent hard-left hate mob made a show of intimidation outside Labour MP Stella Creasy’s home in an attempt to bully her and other MPs against supporting the strikes – when in fact, a peaceful demonstration filed past her Walthamstow office at a time when nobody was there.
The BBC was also among a media coalition that tried to make the airstrikes Jeremy Corbyn’s responsibility after he allowed Labour MPs to have a free vote. The media mob wanted people to think Mr Corbyn had given his MPs free rein to support the Conservatives, when in fact he had put all the responsibility onto them; the blood would be on their hands, not his (he voted against airstrikes).
Then-prime minister David Cameron exhorted his MPs not to “sit on their hands” and side with Jeremy Corbyn and others he labelled “a bunch of terrorist sympathisers” – as usual, taking a leaf from the Nazi propaganda playbook. As Hermann Goering put it: “The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders… All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.”
Collateral damage caused by the bombings was huge. You may remember the image of a boy called Omran, sitting in an ambulance covered in blood, his face registering shock after he wiped it and his hand came away covered in blood. Hilary ‘Bomber’ Benn, who spoke eloquently in support of the airstrikes in December 2015, had nothing to say when challenged about it.
And the attacks caused huge numbers of people to become refugees – many of whom arrived in the UK to be greeted with sympathy by Tory and Labour MPs who had voted to cause their predicament.
Most pertinent to Ali Harbi Ali, though, is the fact that the airstrikes had little or no effect on IS. By February 19, 2016 – more than two and a half months after the December 2, 2015, vote – the total number of IS casualties achieved by the UK was seven.
Sure, IS was defeated in Syria and was driven out of that country in 2019 – but it seems likely to This Writer that this had more to do with the undemocratic decision to take further action in 2018, when MPs were not given a vote.
So this terrorist probably committed his murder on the basis of a misunderstanding about a massive Parliamentary mistake.
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Heavy-handed: after the Met Police said it would be illegal to stage a socially-distanced vigil under lockdown conditions, organised by Reclaim These Street, an impromptu event happened instead – leading to heavy criticism of the same force for the brutal way it was seen to put down protesters.
Decisions by the Metropolitan Police that discouraged organisers from holding a vigil for Sarah Everard were against the law, according to High Court judges.
Police statements that Covid-19 regulations at the time meant holding the vigil would be unlawful, and had a “chilling” effect, contributing to the decision to cancel the vigil (an impromptu event was then put down by police with what some have described as brutal force).
None of the force’s decisions was in accordance with the law; evidence showed that the force failed to perform its legal duty to consider whether the claimants might have a reasonable excuse for holding the gathering, or to conduct the fact-specific proportionality assessment required in order to perform that duty.
That’s a victory for justice. But the High Court had previously refused to declare that any ban on outdoor gatherings under the coronavirus regulations at the time was “subject to the right to protest” – or to declare that an alleged force policy of “prohibiting all protests, irrespective of the specific circumstances” was unlawful.
And Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services concluded the police “acted appropriately” when dealing with the event.
So this raises an obvious question:
Are the High Court and Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary fit for purpose if they can’t make a simple ruling in favour of the law?
In a ruling today (March 11), Lord Justice Warby and Mr Justice Holgate found that the Metropolitan Police breached the rights of Jessica Leigh, Anna Birley, Henna Shah and Jamie Klingler to freedom of speech and assembly, and did not assess the potential risk to public health:
Reclaim These Streets (RTS) proposed a socially-distanced vigil for the 33-year-old, who was murdered by former Met officer Wayne Couzens, near to where she went missing in Clapham, south London, in March last year.
The four women who founded RTS and planned the vigil brought a legal challenge against the force over its handling of the event, which was also intended to be a protest about violence against women.
They withdrew from organising the vigil after being told by the force they would face fines of £10,000 each and possible prosecution if the event went ahead, and a spontaneous vigil and protest took place instead.
The policing of the spontaneous vigil that took place drew criticism from across the political spectrum after women were handcuffed on the ground and led away by officers.
Summarising the decision, Lord Justice Warby said:
“The relevant decisions of the (Met) were to make statements at meetings, in letters, and in a press statement, to the effect that the Covid-19 regulations in force at the time meant that holding the vigil would be unlawful.
“Those statements interfered with the claimants’ rights because each had a ‘chilling effect’ and made at least some causal contribution to the decision to cancel the vigil.
“None of the (force’s) decisions was in accordance with the law; the evidence showed that the (force) failed to perform its legal duty to consider whether the claimants might have a reasonable excuse for holding the gathering, or to conduct the fact-specific proportionality assessment required in order to perform that duty.”
If Lord Justice Warby and Mr Justice Holgate could see this evidence and act upon it, there’s no reason other High Court judges could not do the same – and certainly no reason Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary – which should specialise in the law as it applies to the police – couldn’t.
Why did they make the wrong call, then?
And what will be done to correct what are clearly faults in the attitude of the people who made the wrong decisions?
It costs a fortune to take a case to the High Court; these organisations have a duty to the public to get their decisions right first time.
Sadly, experience suggests to This Writer that the usual action will be taken: nothing at all.
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Arthur Labinjo-Hughes: if lesson’s had really been learned from the death of Peter Connelly – Baby P, Arthur would be alive today.
Did you hear Boris Johnson insincerely telling the nation, “What we’ve got to make sure now is that we learn the lessons” from the death of Arthur Labinjo-Hughes?
It’s what they always say after a tragedy like this. And they never honour the pledge.
We know this because of Baby P.
Remember Peter Connelly? His death happened in strikingly similar circumstances to that of Arthur Labinjo-Hughes.
He died after suffering more than 50 injuries inflicted by his mother, her partner and his brother over an eight-month period during which he had been repeatedly seen by children’s services officers from his local council and by NHS health professionals.
After the killers were convicted, then-children’s minister Tim Loughton said children were safer than before: “It would be in everyone’s interest – the families and the professionals involved – if we can learn lessons, find closure and move on.”
Arthur Labinjo-Hughes suffered multiple injuries inflicted by his father and his partner over a period of months during which he also had been visited by social services officers from his local council.
And now Boris Johnson rocks up to say we all need to “learn the lessons”:
We will leave absolutely no stone unturned to find out exactly what went wrong in the tragic and appalling case of Arthur Labinjo-Hughes. pic.twitter.com/v5AwHDy8Bw
Either it isn’t going to happen or it isn’t going to make any difference.
Baby P’s death triggered three inquiries and a nationwide review of social services care, all of which provided lengthy and detailed reports on how children could be better safeguarded.
But here we are, 14 years later – a long enough period of time for those changes to become ingrained into these services – and a child has died for almost exactly the same reasons as Baby P.
Nothing was learned at all.
Johnson has ordered an inquiry from which nothing will be learned at all.
Just think for a moment about what former Children’s Commissioner Anne Longfield had to say about it: “For anyone who looks at the serious case reviews, or hears about them, that come after a child’s death, you will see the same things coming up time and time again – missed opportunities, lack of co-ordination, lack of data-sharing – the things that professionals need to have at hand to be able to protect these children, which still aren’t in place.”
Why aren’t they in place?
This Writer has a feeling there’s a very simple answer: funding cuts.
The year after the last report on Baby P was published, the Conservatives came into government in coalition with the Liberal Democrats – and local authority budgets were slashed to the bone.
It must be extremely difficult for any social services department to integrate complicated new procedures into its staff when bosses don’t know how many staff members they’re likely to have from one year to the next, or personnel quit because they can’t make ends meet, or they are deprived of the tools they need to do the job – or because of other reasons This Writer is unlikely to know.
So I reckon Johnson must have been happy he was speaking behind a mask, so none of us could see his forked tongue.
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Cressida Dick: “Lessons will be learned”. It’s a nice promise but we’ve heard it too many times before. She has had plenty of time to devise a plan for restoring trust and she should have laid it out – but she didn’t, and she hasn’t.
I called it right, didn’t I?
Here’s Metropolitan Police Commissioner Cressida Dick’s statement after former officer Wayne Couzens was sentenced to spend the rest of his life in prison for the kidnap, rape and murder of Sarah Everard. It’s more than five minutes long but you need to hear it before reading on:
Wayne Couzens has been sentenced to a whole-life prison term today for the kidnap, rape and murder of Sarah Everard.
📺 | Watch Metropolitan Police Commissioner Cressida Dick's statement in full 🔽
Where was the contrition? This was a member of her organisation, who had been vetted and found fit to represent it despite numerous reports of behaviour that should have caused serious concern in the past. His nickname at the Civil Nuclear Constabulary was “The Rapist”, for crying out loud!
And where was the plan to make the police safe again and restore confidence? On its Twitter feed yesterday, the Met promised “we’ll comment further when hearing is complete”. Well, it is complete and all we’ve had from Commissioner Dick is the hackneyed old assurance that “lessons will be learned”.
And that’s what I called yesterday. I said
They’re likely to say that lessons have been learned – but nobody will act upon them.
I was right on the first part of that, and you can bet I’ll be right on the second.
Others certainly seem to think so. One of the earliest responses to Commissioner Dick’s statement came from a Twitter user who stated: “As a result of this case, I clearly need to advise my daughter how to act/respond to male police officers until such time it’s possible again to have any trust in your organisation.”
I’m willing to wager that’s the majority view.
The judge in the case said there was no evidence that the Met closed ranks to protect one of its officers…
… and I have no doubt that he was right. That is not the issue here.
The issue is the fact that we are seeing no effort to change the structural problems within the Metropolitan Police that allowed a man like Wayne Couzens to be put in a position where he could prey upon women.
Allow me to reiterate what I stated previously about the result of this case: women will be left in greater fear of violence against them than ever – not because of men, as some in politics and the media are signalling, but because of the police.
Cressida Dick had an opportunity to reassure us all that her organisation would take specific steps to restore trust. She has made a conscious decision not to.
Are we really going to just lie back and accept that?
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Why are the UK’s news media avoiding any mention of the Metropolitan Police Service’s collusion in the kidnap, rape and murder of Sarah Everard?
Commissioner Cressida Dick was well aware of concerns about Wayne Couzens, long before he planned and executed his crimes against Ms Everard.
He had been nicknamed ‘The Rapist’ by colleagues at the Civil Nuclear Constabulary, which he joined in 2011, because he made some female colleagues feel uncomfortable, according to the Evening Standard.
The paper also reported that Kent Police took no action in 2015 after it was alleged that he had been seen driving around Dover, naked from the waist down.
And the Met – which he joined in 2018 – received further accusations of indecent exposure by Couzens on two further occasions. Neither of them were investigated properly in the days before he kidnapped, raped and murdered Ms Everard.
The BBC reported in July that the Independent Office for Police Conduct said a total of 12 gross misconduct or misconduct notices had so far been served on police officers from multiple forces in relation to the Couzens case, including about the handling of two separate claims that Couzens had indecently exposed himself.
And other recent cases show that police turning a blind eye to the crimes of fellow officers is at epidemic levels.
In this context, the Met put out a statement that its members were “sickened, angered and devastated” by Couzens’s crimes. Maybe they are – but is it only because he was caught?
“They betray everything we stand for,” the statement continues. But Met police officers betray everything they stand for on a daily basis.
Look at the Daniel Morgan case, in which the Met was found to be “institutionally corrupt” and Commissioner Dick herself was found to have obstructed access to vital information without reason.
And what punishment did she receive for this corrupt behaviour?
None. Instead she was rewarded for it with a two-year extension of her job.
Real people are disgusted…
Not sickened enough to prevent you from attacking the Sarah Everard vigil, and trampling their flowers into the ground, were you?
… but does that really matter when the media – and the politicians – are backing these corrupt cops to the hilt?
Look at Labour leader Keir Starmer. In his speech at the party conference – on the day we learned Couzens had abused his police powers to arrest Ms Everard before abducting, raping and murdering her – he used rape victims as a tool of emotional blackmail to push for more police powers.
I’ll hand you back to Another Angry Voice for an opinion more succinct than any I could add:
It was only last year that Keir Starmer forced his Labour MPs to abstain on legislation designed to allow undercover cops to get away with raping women!
Yet today he's pretending that he cares about rape victims.
The Met’s comment says staff recognise the concerns raised by Couzens’s actions and will comment further after he has been sentenced for his crimes – but I have no hope that anything useful will be said.
We’ll probably hear that new measures will be put in place to prevent such crimes in the future – that will not be enforced.
They’re likely to say that lessons have been learned – but nobody will act upon them.
The end result is that women will be left in greater fear of violence against them than ever – not because of men, as some in politics and the media are signalling, but because of the police.
You can bet the Met won’t do anything to change that.
If you want proof, all you have to do is wait for the reports of the next crimes committed by officers of the Metropolitan Police.
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Jake Davison: from the state of him – both mental and physical, the reason he couldnt get a girl seems clear.
What are the facts?
We know that 22-year-old Jake Davison took a gun (of some kind) and murdered his 51-year-old mother Maxine at their home in Biddick Drive, Keyham, Plymouth, last Thursday.
He then moved out into the street where he murdered three-year-old Sophie Martyn and her father Lee, 43.
Finally, he shot dead 59-year-old Stephen Washington and Kate Shepherd, 66, before turning his weapon on himself.
Also shot were a 53 year-old woman and a 33-year-old man who were sent to hospital with injuries that were not thought life-threatening.
Why?
It seems the authorities don’t know Davison’s stated reasons for the rampage – the worst mass killing on UK soil since 2010.
But he has left behind information about his political beliefs that provide us with a workable theory: he reckoned he was an “Incel”.
What on Earth is an Incel?
It’s a term apparently coined in the early part of this century to denote men who believe they are “INvoluntarily CELibate” because women are unfairly withholding sex from them.
Looking at their other beliefs, it becomes apparent that anybody withdrawing from contact with these crazies is likely to have had extremely good reasons for it!
Dr Louise Raw described the Incel philosophy in an article way back in 2018:
They specifically feel entitled to sex with women they perceive as the most attractive — “Stacys” — and resent both them and the “Chads” — romantically successful men — they date. When these are men of colour, the hatred steps up a gear.
This all seemed pitiful until it turned deadly.
Pitiful is right!
The fact is that pretty much every man on the planet might describe himself as “involuntarily celibate” at one time or another.
But – as a rule – we don’t blame women – as a group – for “withholding” sexual contact that we feel we have a right to have. It doesn’t work like that. Sex is the most intimate thing that two people can do, and that’s why most women won’t do it with any Tom, Harry or Dick that turns up. It is perfectly reasonable for them to want a little security in their choice first.
Nobody is “entitled” to it. In fact, if you believe in Darwin’s laws of natural selection, procreation is a privilege that should be awarded only to those who are most fit for the job. There’s evidence for that in the mating displays carried out by the males of other animal species in order to impress the females.
So, as an attitude to relationships, we can safely say that anybody holding this view is a wretched sexual and social inadequate who is just looking for a shortcut to sex that will hide their interpersonal failings.
But there’s another aspect to this: politics.
Incels, it seems, ally themselves with opposition to feminism. The idea is that an improvement in the lives of women must bring with it a worsening of men’s position, and this leads to hatred of women – also known as misogyny.
And misogyny has long been a pathway into support for fascism – in the same way that racism has been.
Incels are therefore most likely to be white men who are misogynistic racists; if they see women they consider attractive with men of colour, then the hatred steps up a notch.
This makes them easy to recruit into far-right organisations, and there is evidence that American alt-right groups have been doing just that.
Davison was certainly prime material for radicalisation of this kind. According to the Daily Beast,
Davison expressed his admiration for Donald Trump on Facebook and posted multiple self-pitying YouTube videos in which he identified himself as part of the incel community.
In one post from 2018, Davison shared a Trump quote and, when his friends ridiculed him in the comments, the suspect hit back: “You may not agree with his political views (I do) but he is different from the scum like Hillary or the people running our country like the neo-con sellout that is [then-British Prime Minister] Theresa May.”
Davison’s Facebook likes suggest he was obsessed with conservative U.S. politics. He followed the pages of Trump, all of his children, and several Trump businesses, as well as pages for the NRA, Fox News, Breitbart, Ted Cruz, Ben Carson, and one called “Ted Nugent for President.” In one comment, he said it was his dream to move to the States.
It has been noted that these associations were suppressed by domestic news organisations like the BBC in their early reports:
BBC bias just confuses me. I watched coverage of the Plymouth terrorist attack on both the BBC and ITV lunch time news shows. Only ITV detailed what’s so far know about his politics: right wing, gun loving, Trump supporting. Why would the BBC not want to mention this? pic.twitter.com/bfFt6uvz1J
Tricky. And these waters were muddied by the BBC (et all) failing to identify his political leanings…
No white man is ever called a terrorist unless he’s a socialist.
— Kerry-Anne Mendoza 🏳️🌈 (@TheMendozaWoman) August 13, 2021
At first, Devon & Cornwall Police denied any link with terrorism:
I wrote 3 years ago about the danger of ‘Incels’. Many people have now died both sides of the Atlantic. But the police immediately said #Plymouth ‘wasn’t a terrorist incident’. Yes it was, & there will be more if these vicious radicalised misogynists aren’t stopped. https://t.co/srfDaIusAZ
UK law defines terrorism as: “Use or threat of action, both in and outside of the UK, designed to influence any international government organisation or to intimidate the public. It must also be for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.”
Personally, then, I don’t think Davison’s actions would constitute terrorism as defined here.
I don’t think he was trying to influence government or intimidate the public because firstly, he didn’t demand anything and secondly, he would need to be alive for any intimidation to work.
The idea of advancing Incel as a cause is self-defeating; even those who identify as members of that group don’t want to be in it!
And his lunatic right-wing ideology will have taken a public relations hammering as a result of his murders.
That being said, there is plenty of evidence to show that people who identify themselves as Incels need to be tracked down and challenged. Perhaps the easiest way to do this would be to accede to the wishes below, and define misogyny (and therefore also its counterpart, misandry) as a hate crime.
After the Plymouth Shooting & the shooters involvement with Incel will the government finally acknowledge misogyny as a hate crime?
We're way overdue a serious interrogation of how online-facilitated cultures which champion misogyny and masculine fantasies, to devastating effect, with loneliness and a loss of security. https://t.co/n93Z3tMcen
It seems to me that the expression of misogynistic opinions in the way carried out by the Incels indicates a desire to harm – and a lack of concern about the consequences – that crosses the line of acceptability.
It also seems reasonable to me that, if alerted to such expressions of opinion, police should challenge those responsible and, following on from that – if necessary – take appropriate steps to prevent acts of violence such as we saw last week in Plymouth.
It would be possible, also, to use such interviews as ways to research whether these people are indeed being radicalised by right-wing organisations for the purpose of committing terrorist crime – and to devise ways of combating such activity.
Connected with this, of course, is the fact that Davison owned a gun. His own social media posts and YouTube videos confessed that he was mentally unstable, and therefore it seems logical that he should not have been in possession of a firearm, yet his licence had been renewed only recently.
And it isn’t as though we haven’t been aware of the risks:
I've been calling for tighter gun controls for over 30 years.
* Ban storing guns at home * Renew gun licences annually * Mental health tests annually for gun owners * Public register of gun owners
Ah, but Chris Williamson is a socialist – and therefore might as well be a terrorist himself – right?
You see how these debates can be twisted by political dogma – especially when news organisations like the BBC distort or omit important facts?
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Cressida Dick: Platitudes outside a court must not save her from the consequences of her failure to root out corruption and crime among her officers.
How did a man who was nicknamed ‘The Rapist’ three years before joining the Metropolitan Police manage to pass its vetting process, let alone get into a position where he could kidnap, rape and murder Sarah Everard?
Those are the questions that should be forcing Met Commissioner Cressida Dick out of her job now, yet she seems secure in her post. For how long?
Wayne Couzens, who last week admitted raping and murdering Sarah Everard, was given the unsavoury nickname by colleagues at the Civil Nuclear Constabulary, which he joined in 2011, because he made some female colleagues feel uncomfortable, according to the Evening Standard.
The paper also reported that Kent Police took no action in 2015 after it was alleged that he had been seen driving around Dover, naked from the waist down.
And the Met – which he joined in 2018 – received further accusations of indecent exposure by Couzens on two further occasions. Neither of them were investigated properly in the days before he kidnapped, raped and murdered Ms Everard.
We’ve heard this story before: it isn’t such a long time since PC (yes, he’s still on the force) Oliver Banfield was convicted of assaulting a woman while she was walking home – just as Sarah Everard was when she was kidnapped, raped and murdered. His colleagues on the Warwickshire force had initially ignored the complaint and would have done nothing about it if the victim had not found CCTV footage that could be used as evidence.
The BBC has reported that the Independent Office for Police Conduct said a total of 12 gross misconduct or misconduct notices had so far been served on police officers from multiple forces in relation to the Couzens case, including about the handling of two separate claims that Couzens had indecently exposed himself; the Banfield case wasn’t a single instance of police turning a blind eye to the crimes of fellow officers – it is an epidemic.
Ms Everard’s murder sparked a wave of protest across the UK that was put down mercilessly by police forces – most notably the Met and Avon and Somerset Constabulary. An independent Parliamentary committee has found that both forces breached the fundamental rights of protesters but neither has accepted the finding and nothing will be done to improve procedures.
Indeed, women across the UK have cause to be even more concerned that the Tory government is bringing in a law to reform criminal investigations and justice – that will put women like Sarah Everard in even more danger.
Two-faced Cressida Dick, who presided over the Met Police throughout, and who supported police in their despicable mishandling of the Sarah Everard vigil, hypocritically voiced platitudes of regret over the murder and anger over the crimes of her now-former officer after attending court.
She said she felt “sickened, angered and devastated” by the crimes: “They are dreadful and everyone in policing feels betrayed.
“Sarah was a fantastic, talented young woman with her whole life ahead of her and that has been snatched away.”
But that hasn’t saved her from the court of public opinion:
I think that if a serving Met Police officer Wayne Couzens was known as 'The Rapist' by his colleagues, and then went on to commit the horrific murder of Sarah Everard, then Cressida Dick's position is now untenable. She's been far from faultless in other areas.
Since Sarah Everard was abducted 52 women have been killed where a man is the principal suspect, according to @K_IngalaSmith's Counting Dead Women. At least 83 women are suspected to have been killed by men since the start of 2021 https://t.co/sAPmDF2ZLT#femicide
It seems strange that Cressida Dick now expresses sadness, anger and regret at the sickening murder of Sarah Everard but only a few weeks ago when her officers behaved appallingly at the Vigil for Sarah Everard, she defended their behaviour unreservedly
This Writer is willing to suggest that public confidence in the Met – and in policing in general – has never fallen so low (although it will fall further if the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill is allowed to become law in its current form).
Dick has presided over a quantum plunge in the reputation of the police, ignoring one scandal after another and allowing her force to become a cesspit of corruption and crime.
Meanwhile, the successful investigation of crimes against the public has suffered. How can it not? We can’t trust the police to do their job and we’re living in fear that they will commit crimes against us themselves.
It is a poisonous situation and Cressida Dick has done much to create it.
How long are we going to allow her to continue worsening it?
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. This includes scrolling or continued navigation. more information
The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.
