[awakened53]

Face-Nappies turn up with batons to get involved with the crowd at the end of London march when there was absolutely no need to do so and now they play the victim – PATHETIC

https://youtu.be/-UgGRjQumrY

https://youtu.be/1KX4YhCCIe4

[awakened53]

Revealed: police trainees’ violence and dishonesty (Exactly what they want)

The head of the Metropolitan police, Cressida Dick, has been forced to defend recruitment standards as leaked documents reveal cases of violent disorder, cheating and dishonesty among trainees at Britain’s biggest police force.
The incidents relate to recruits at the Met’s main training centre and will raise concerns about its ability to provide an effective service as sources within the force allege declining standards for trainees as recruitment has been ramped up.
One leaked document shows that, in July last year, a female recruit at the Met’s Hendon Police College was detained after punching and headbutting a police officer while allegedly under the influence of alcohol and drugs.
Other documents reveal instances of dishonesty amongst recruits and emerge weeks after the force was accused of “institutional corruption” following an inquiry into the unsolved murder of a private detective.
The revelations will place fresh pressure on the Met and its embattled chief after a week in which Dick was roundly criticised after ticketless supporters stormed the Euro 2020 final at Wembley, the latest in a litany of scandals to hit the force.
The documents reveal that during an internal question-and-answer session in July last year, Dick was forced to deny rumours that an entire intake of Hendon recruits had failed the initial selection process but were still given a start date because “the Met needed the numbers”.
Read more: Revealed: police trainees’ violence and dishonesty (Exactly what they want)

[awakened53]

The Thought Police can go Whistle

Whistling the Bob the Builder theme song can now get you a police record.
‘Bob and the gang have so much fun. Working together, they get the job done.’ The Bob the Builder theme song – ‘Can We Fix It?’ – is all about what humans can achieve when we work together. But Bedfordshire Police has a different interpretation. Its officers seem to believe the catchy tune should be taken as a warning that an appalling racist hate crime is about to be committed.
A man in Bedfordshire has been slapped with a police record for whistling the theme song at his neighbour. Few other details are known about this ‘non-crime hate incident’, other than the fact that the police considered the interaction to be racist.
So-called non-crime hate incidents have proliferated in recent years, with over 120,000 recorded in the past five years alone. Although they do not result in arrest, the ‘perpetrators’ of these non-crimes can end up with a police record. These incidents will show up on any enhanced DBS check. They are supposed to help the police deal with more serious hate crimes, but there is currently no evidence that a single crime has been solved as a result of police recording these incidents.
So what counts as a ‘non-crime hate incident’? Because there is no crime being committed, there is no threshold to determine whether an incident is serious enough to become a police matter. They are also based on the subjective notion of ‘hate’, which is decided according to the feelings of the ‘victim’ or any other person. This means that literally any interaction with another person, animal or inanimate object can now be recorded as a non-crime hate incident.
It’s not just whistling the Bob the Builder theme that can catch the attention of the cops. Other hate incidents recorded by police have included a drug dealer ripping off a gay man (allegedly for his sexuality), a dog pooing on someone’s lawn (apparently this was racially aggravated), and an elderly woman beeping her horn at a slow driver (also racist, allegedly). Even children’s playground insults have been investigated as non-crime hate incidents.

Read More – The Thought Police can go whistle…

[awakened53]

Police forces are told to treat reporters as ‘extremists’ and a ‘potential corrupting influence’ in latest advice

Secret police guidance has been discovered urging officers to treat journalists akin to criminals and ‘extremist groups’.
The alarming advice has been condemned by newspaper groups who fear it will undermine police-press relations and hinder the public’s right to know about crimes and how they are investigated.
Only last week, Merseyside Police held vital briefings with the media to galvanise the quest to find the killer of nine-year-old Olivia Pratt-Korbel.
Yet advice to police forces, not previously revealed, instructs them to regard professional journalists as a potential ‘corrupting’ influence.
The College of Policing, the umbrella group providing guidance for the forces of England and Wales, advises that officers must declare whether they have friendships or associations with people such as criminals.
While this advice is public, it has emerged that a secret annex listing the types of associations that must be declared includes journalists.
Earlier this year, HM Inspectorate of Constabulary recommended police officers disclose associations with ‘journalists and extremist groups’.
After complaints about lumping these two together as if they were equal, the inspectorate apologised and agreed to change the wording.

Read more: Police forces are told to treat reporters as ‘extremists’ and a ‘potential corrupting influence’ in latest advice

[awakened53]

UK Police Prepare For “Breakdown in Public Order” Caused by Cost of Living Crisis

Police in the UK are preparing for a widespread “breakdown in public order” caused by the cost of living crisis if new Prime Minister Liz Truss doesn’t authorize a big enough government handout.
After a huge spike next month, energy bills are set to soar to around £6,522 a year by next April, a level that threatens to push a third of the country into poverty.
A leaked national strategy paper obtained by the Times reveals that police chiefs fear “economic turmoil and financial instability” has the “potential to drive increases in particular crime types.”
Shoplifting, burglary and vehicle theft, as well as online fraud and blackmail are all expected to soar as people desperately try to make ends meet, with criminal opportunists also eager to justify their actions.
Having already noticed an increase in some offences, the National Police Chiefs’ Council report cautions that “a more complex and unpredictable risk is the chance of greater civil unrest, as a response to prolonged and painful economic pressure.”
One MP briefed by local police said if the new Prime Minister, almost certain to be Liz Truss, doesn’t introduce a big enough government hand out, it would “push more people towards crime and lead to public unrest.”
“If the support doesn’t meet expectations, they would be expecting similar scenes to 2011,” said the MP, referring to the London riots which also spread to other parts of the country.
“A senior officer at one force in the north of England told a local MP that without significant government intervention they feared a return to the febrile conditions that led to the London riots in 2011,” states the article.

Read More: UK Police Prepare For “Breakdown in Public Order” Caused by Cost of Living Crisis

[awakened53]

America’s Death Squads: When Police Become Judge, Jury and Executioner

“You know, when police start becoming their own executioners, where’s it gonna end? Pretty soon, you’ll start executing people for jaywalking, and executing people for traffic violations. Then you end up executing your neighbour ‘cause his dog pisses on your lawn.”—“Dirty Harry” Callahan, Magnum Force


When I say that warrior cops—hyped up on their own authority and the power of the badge—have not made America any safer or freer, I am not disrespecting any of the fine, decent, lawful police officers who take seriously their oath of office to serve and protect their fellow citizens, uphold the Constitution, and maintain the peace.
My concern rests with the cops who feel empowered to act as judge, jury and executioner.
These death squads believe they can kill, shoot, taser, abuse and steal from American citizens in the so-called name of law and order.
Just recently, in fact, a rookie cop opened fire on the occupants of a parked car in a McDonald’s parking loton a Sunday night in San Antonio, Texas.
The driver, 17-year-old Erik Cantu and his girlfriend, were eating burgers inside the car when the police officer—suspecting the car might have been one that fled an attempted traffic stop the night before—abruptly opened the driver side door, ordered the teenager to get out, and when he did not comply, shot tentimes at the car, hitting Cantu multiple times.
Mind you, this wasn’t a life-or-death situation.
It was two teenagers eating burgers in a parking lot, and a cop fresh out of the police academy taking justice into his own hands.
This wasn’t an isolated incident, either.
In Hugo, Oklahoma, plain clothes police officers opened fire on a pickup truck parked in front of a food bank, heedless of the damage such a hail of bullets—26 shots were fired—could have on those in the vicinity. Three of the four children inside the parked vehicle were shot: a 4-year-old girl was shot in the head and ended up with a bullet in the brain; a 5-year-old boy received a skull fracture; and a 1-year-old girl had deep cuts on her face from gunfire or shattered window glass. The reason for the use of such excessive force? Police were searching for a suspect in a weeks-old robbery of a pizza parlor that netted $400.
In Minnesota, a 4-year-old girl watched from the backseat of a car as cops shot and killed her mother’s boyfriend, Philando Castile, a school cafeteria supervisor, during a routine traffic stop merely because Castile disclosed that he had a gun in his possession, for which he had a lawful conceal-and-carry permit. That’s all it took for police to shoot Castile four times as he was reaching for his license and registration.
In Arizona, a 7-year-old girl watched panic-stricken as a state trooper pointed his gun at her and her father during a traffic stop and reportedly threated to shoot her father in the back (twice) based on the mistakenbelief that they were driving a stolen rental car.
This is how we have gone from a nation of laws—where the least among us had just as much right to be treated with dignity and respect as the next person (in principle, at least)—to a nation of law enforcers (revenue collectors with weapons) who treat the citizenry like suspects and criminals.
The lesson for all of us: at a time when police have almost absolute discretion to decide who is a threat, what constitutes resistance, and how harshly they can deal with the citizens they were appointed to “serve and protect”—and a “fear” for officer safety is used to justify all manner of police misconduct—“we the people” are at a severe disadvantage.
Add a traffic stop to the mix, and that disadvantage increases dramatically.
According to the Justice Department, the most common reason for a citizen to come into contact with the police is being a driver in a traffic stop.
On average, one in 10 Americans gets pulled over by police.
Of the roughly 1,100 people killed by police each year, 10% of those involve traffic stops.
Historically, police officers have been given free range to pull anyone over for a variety of reasons.
This free-handed approach to traffic stops has resulted in drivers being stopped for windows that are too heavily tinted, for driving too fast, driving too slow, failing to maintain speed, following too closely, improper lane changes, distracted driving, screeching a car’s tires, and leaving a parked car door open for too long.
Motorists can also be stopped by police for driving near a bar or on a road that has large amounts of drunk driving, driving a certain make of car (Mercedes, Grand Prix and Hummers are among the most ticketed vehicles), having anything dangling from the rearview mirror (air fresheners, handicap parking permits, toll transponders or rosaries), and displaying pro-police bumper stickers.
Incredibly, a federal appeals court actually ruled unanimously in 2014 that acne scars and driving with a stiff upright posture are reasonable grounds for being pulled over. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that driving a vehicle that has a couple air fresheners, rosaries and pro-police bumper stickers at 2 MPH over the speed limit is suspicious, meriting a traffic stop.
Equally appalling, in Heien v. North Carolina, the U.S. Supreme Court—which has largely paved the way for the police and other government agents to probe, poke, pinch, taser, search, seize, strip and generally manhandle anyone they see fit in almost any circumstance—allowed police officers to stop drivers who appear nervous, provided they provide a palatable pretext for doing so.
Black drivers are almost two times more likely than white drivers to be pulled over by police and three times more likely to have their vehicles searched. As the Washington Post concludes, “‘Driving while black’ is, indeed, a measurable phenomenon.”
In other words, drivers beware.
Traffic stops aren’t just dangerous. They can be downright deadly.
Patrick Lyoya was pulled over for having a mismatched license plate. The unarmed man was shot in the back of the head while on the ground during a subsequent struggle with a Michigan police officer.
Reportedly pulled over for a broken taillight, Walter Scott—unarmed—ran away from the police officer, who pursued and shot him from behind, first with a Taser, then with a gun. Scott was struck five times, “three times in the back, once in the upper buttocks and once in the ear — with at least one bullet entering his heart.”
Samuel Dubose, also unarmed, was pulled over for a missing front license plate. He was reportedly shot in the head after a brief struggle in which his car began rolling forward.
Levar Jones was stopped for a seatbelt offense, just as he was getting out of his car to enter a convenience store. Directed to show his license, Jones leaned into his car to get his wallet, only to be shot four times by the “fearful” officer. Jones was also unarmed.
Bobby Canipe was pulled over for having an expired registration. When the 70-year-old reached into the back of his truck for his walking cane, the officer fired several shots at him, hitting him once in the abdomen.
Dontrell Stevens was stopped “for not bicycling properly.” The officer pursuing him “thought the way Stephens rode his bike was suspicious. He thought the way Stephens got off his bike was suspicious.” Four seconds later, sheriff’s deputy Adams Lin shot Stephens four times as he pulled out a black object from his waistband. The object was his cell phone. Stephens was unarmed.
That police are choosing to fatally resolve these encounters by using their guns on fellow citizens speaks volumes about what is wrong with policing in America today, where police officers are being dressed in the trappings of war, drilled in the deadly art of combat, and trained to look upon “every individual they interact with as an armed threat and every situation as a deadly force encounter in the making.”
Keep in mind, from the moment those lights start flashing and that siren goes off, we’re all in the same boat. Yet it’s what happens after you’ve been pulled over that’s critical.
Trying to predict the outcome of any encounter with the police is a bit like playing Russian roulette: most of the time you will emerge relatively unscathed, although decidedly poorer and less secure about your rights, but there’s always the chance that an encounter will turn deadly.
Survival is key.
Technically, you have the right to remain silent (beyond the basic requirement to identify yourself and show your registration). You have the right to refuse to have your vehicle searched. You have the right to film your interaction with police. You have the right to ask to leave. You also have the right to resist an unlawful order such as a police officer directing you to extinguish your cigarette, put away your phone or stop recording them.
However, there is a price for asserting one’s rights. That price grows more costly with every passing day.
If you ask cops and their enablers what Americans should do to stay alive during encounters with police, they will tell you to comply, cooperate, obey, not resist, not argue, not make threatening gestures or statements, avoid sudden movements, and submit to a search of their person and belongings.
Unfortunately, in the American police state, compliance is no guarantee that you will survive an encounter with the police with your life and liberties intact.
Every day we hear about situations in which unarmed Americans complied and still died during an encounter with police simply because they appeared to be standing in a “shooting stance” or held a cell phone or a garden hose or carried around a baseball bat or answered the front door or held a spoon in a threatening manner or ran in an aggressive manner holding a tree branch or wandered around naked or hunched over in a defensive posture or made the mistake of wearing the same clothes as a carjacking suspect (dark pants and a basketball jersey) or dared to leave an area at the same time that a police officer showed up or had a car break down by the side of the road or were deaf or homeless or old.
More often than not, it seems as if all you have to do to be shot and killed by police is stand a certain way, or move a certain way, or hold something—anything—that police could misinterpret to be a gun, or ignite some trigger-centric fear in a police officer’s mind that has nothing to do with an actual threat to their safety.
Now politicians, police unions, law enforcement officials and individuals who are more than happy to march in lockstep with the police state make all kinds of excuses to justify these shootings.  However, to suggest that a good citizen is a compliant citizen and that obedience will save us from the police state is not only recklessly irresponsible, but it is also deluded.
To begin with, and most importantly, Americans need to know their rights when it comes to interactions with the police, bearing in mind that many law enforcement officials are largely ignorant of the law themselves.
A good resource is The Rutherford Institute’s “Constitutional Q&A: Rules of Engagement for Interacting with Police.”
In a nutshell, the following are your basic rights when it comes to interactions with the police as outlined in the Bill of Rights:
You have the right under the First Amendment to ask questions and express yourself. You have the right under the Fourth Amendment to not have your person or your property searched by police or any government agent unless they have a search warrant authorizing them to do so.  You have the right under the Fifth Amendment to remain silent, to not incriminate yourself and to request an attorney. Depending on which state you live in and whether your encounter with police is consensual as opposed to your being temporarily detained or arrested, you may have the right to refuse to identify yourself. Not all states require citizens to show their ID to an officer (although drivers in all states must do so).
As a rule of thumb, you should always be sure to clarify in any police encounter whether or not you are being detained, i.e., whether you have the right to walk away. That holds true whether it’s a casual “show your ID” request on a boardwalk, a stop-and-frisk search on a city street, or a traffic stop for speeding or just to check your insurance. If you feel like you can’t walk away from a police encounter of your own volition—and more often than not you can’t, especially when you’re being confronted by someone armed to the hilt with all manner of militarized weaponry and gear—then for all intents and purposes, you’re essentially under arrest from the moment a cop stops you. Still, it doesn’t hurt to clarify that distinction.
While technology is always going to be a double-edged sword, with the gadgets that are the most useful to us in our daily lives—GPS devices, cell phones, the internet—being the very tools used by the government to track us, monitor our activities, and generally spy on us, cell phones are particularly useful for recording encounters with the police and have proven to be increasingly powerful reminders to police that they are not all powerful.
Knowing your rights is only part of the battle, unfortunately.
As I point out in my book [i]Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, the danger arises when the burden of proof is reversed, “we the people” are assumed guilty, and we have to exercise our rights while simultaneously attempting to prove our innocence to trigger-happy cops with no understanding of the Bill of Rights.[/i]

[awakened53]

Fusion of police and military I have long predicted: Brand new training programme to turn military service leavers into police officers

Nottinghamshire Police will be the first force in the country to offer a brand-new training programme which will turn military service leavers into police officers.
The Military Service Leavers Pathway into Policing’ programme is open to anyone who is in their military resettlement period.
Nottinghamshire Police is committed to boosting the numbers of officers working for the force, which now sits at 2,408, as of October 2022.
The exciting new course, which has been validated by the University of Derby and supported by the Ministry of Defence, is for military personnel who would like to serve the local communities in Nottingham and Nottinghamshire.
PC Steven Van Der Bank, aged 37, served as a mechanical engineer in the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers and had completed a tour of Iraq before he decided to join Nottinghamshire Police.
Based in Kirkby-in-Ashfield, he works in response, meaning he can be sent across the county on a range of jobs including drug busts, traffic operations, and supporting vulnerable people.
He said: “The biggest thing that attracted me to the police was it is a uniform service just like the military. I felt like I was missing something in my life that the military gave me.
“I could survive in that environment and adapt very quickly. It still attracts me to this day. I have never got bored in policing because there are so many different departments.
“You can do three or four years in response than go into neighbourhood policing and then CID. The promotion opportunities are there. I am a single dad running my own home and it is very achievable, being a student, an officer and a family man all at the same time.”
Applicants will complete a four-week pre-learning course from November 21st, followed by a 12-week course through year one of the University of Derby approved Police Constable Degree Apprenticeship (PCDA), starting in January 2023.
Read More: Brand new training programme to turn military service leavers into police officers

[awakened53]

Cop Pulls Gun at High School, “Accidentally” Shoots an Innocent Kid and is NOT Arrested or Even Fired

Clinton, IN — Imagine for a moment that you were carrying a pistol in a public space, and all of a sudden you accidentally squeeze off a round. Now, imagine if this place was a school.
There are two possible scenarios that would take place; the first one is that police return fire and you are killed. The second, less lethal result would be your inevitable arrest and charges of public endangerment, unlawful discharge, illegal use of a firearm, assault with a deadly weapon, terrorism, or a myriad of other infractions associated with sending a deadly projectile hurling through a space occupied by innocent children. You would immediately be facing fines, jail time, probation, and firearms restrictions.
However, if you are a government agent who’s trusted with carrying a deadly weapon into places others cannot, you needn’t worry about any of those repercussions. The scenario below just so happens to prove it.
Vermillion County Deputy Tim DisPennett, identified as a 19-year veteran of the department, was giving instruction to vocational students at South Vermillion High School when he pulled his gun and “accidentally” shot a student.
The class was geared at teaching students how to be police officers, and participants in the drill were acting out a scenario with a “bad guy,” according to WTHI.
Hopefully, none of the students being taught by Deputy DisPennett were paying attention to his instruction — as his methods are clearly flawed.
“This morning at South Vermillion High School, there was an isolated incident in one of our vocational classrooms. The incident was an accidental discharge of a firearm by a law enforcement officer during a drill. One student was injured without life-threatening injuries and has been taken to the hospital. Only SVHS is currently on lockdown, due to the abundance of emergency personnel in the building,” read a statement sent out to parents after the shooting.
Luckily the student who was shot was not severely injured and will be okay. As for the deputy, he has not been arrested, nor fired, and has only been placed on paid leave. Detectives with the department are now investigating the shooting.
Aside from the above-the-law treatment of this officer, the excuse for the weapon accidentally discharging is nothing short of asinine.
Guns do not fire themselves.
Weapons companies spend a significant amount of time and money making sure their guns don’t simply “go off.” While it is entirely possible for older single-action revolvers, which required the hammer to be cocked, to go off when dropped, the idea of a modern pistol accidentally firing without someone pulling the trigger is simply absurd.
There are more guns than people in the United States. It is estimated that Americans own around 357 million firearms. If these weapons were so prone to accidentally firing, there would be a lot of dead Americans. However, that is clearly not the case.
The reality is that these cases of guns “accidentally firing” almost always involve police, who are entrusted by the public to responsibly carry weapons, failing miserably at their jobs. You could rest assured that if a mere citizen were to shoot their fellow citizen in their home “accidentally” they would be cast out by the anti-gun crowd and plastered across the mainstream media. They would also be in jail.

Read More: Cop Pulls Gun at High School, “Accidentally” Shoots an Innocent Kid

[awakened53]

Grayzone journalist detained by counter-terrorism police on arrival to London

A BRITISH national journalist was detained by counter-terrorism police when he landed in London’s Luton airport and interrogated over his work for independent news website The Grayzone, it has been revealed.
Kit Klarenberg arrived in London on May 17 from Belgrade, Serbia, where he lives and was detained by six plain-clothes counter-terrorism officers, according to the site.

The officers refused to tell him their names and offered call signs instead.

Mr Klarenberg, who has written multiple exposés on the British government and intelligence services, was taken to a room and interrogated for over five hours over his reports, his employment by The Grayzone and his personal political opinions including the current British leadership and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Police seized Mr Klarenberg’s electronic devices, bank cards and memory cards, fingerprinted him, took DNA swabs, and photographed him.

They threatened to arrest him if he did not comply, The Grayzone reported.

“They asked which publications I wrote for, and I told them I wrote for many,” Mr Klarenberg said.

“Their overwhelming, if not exclusive, interest was in The Grayzone.”
Mr Klarenberg remains under investigation.