Skip to main content

May mugs Police Federation

IT’S at times like these that a political commentator, albeit an exceptionally jaded and cynical one such as your scribe, looks around and sees that the majority of the population are, if not in the same boat, then on the same downstream confluence that passes for a river.

Each day the political hack has to sit through interminable bullshit and — if they are given to do so — take a side. This week everybody is in the same situation — voting for a slightly less odious option while holding their nose and trying not to cry from sheer frustration.

As it may have mentioned before, this column is an adherent of the philosophy expounded by legendary parliamentary sketch writer Norman Shrapnel — crazy name, crazy guy — when it comes to politicos, that to meet them “could only serve to dull my hatred.”

No chance of that this year.

However, appropriate as it is in this week of post-prandial politicking, it is faced with not one but two major dilemmas.

The sensible approach would undoubtedly be to weigh up both sides and come to a reasoned assessment through a rigorous examination of the facts. But where’s the fun in that?

It also posits the metaphysical question: When a pair of bastards collide, what occurs? Scumbaggery squared?

First up is Theresa May versus the Police Federation. 

The cops of course are traditionally the army of the rich and the Tories ARE the rich so they usually get on in a more or less saprophytic fashion even if it is only based on mutual paranoia and hatred of everyone else. 

Not any more. 

This has been an ongoing rumble for some time now beginning with the Winsor review which recommended slashing officer numbers and privatising backroom services and reaching its acme, or nadir depending on our perspective, with Andrew Mitchell and Plebgate.

That is until this week when, to use the parlance of the Sweeney, May went into the cops’ manor and read the riot act.

Yes the Home Secretary turned up at the Police Federation conference and issued a bollocking of spectacular proportions to the rank and file.

Well, everyone else already hated her so she didn’t exactly have a lot to lose.

Showing those forensic levels of self-awareness we have come to expect from this current crop of rent-a-gobs, the coalition’s answer to Mrs Slocombe waded into battle condemning the rozzers for — and I really am not making this up, unlike her and that unfortunate incident regarding the asylum-seeker’s cat — displaying “contempt for the public.”

While this is undoubtedly true, much of the ongoing scandal the police are mired in — Orgreave, Hillsborough, the Stephen Lawrence investigation, dubious conduct by undercover officers — occurred on the Tories’ watch. And, in the case of Orgreave and Hillsborough, with their active connivance.

May is currently attempting to unilaterally strip suspects of their British citizenship on a whim, so if anyone would know it would be her. 

It’s a central plank of Tory policy to show contempt for the public. Every policy they’ve forced through since seizing power has done exactly that — thus Universal Credit will “help people back to work” by making them starve if they can’t get a job, NHS reforms will streamline the service with the “beneficent aid” of the private sector and health and safety regulations axed as an “intolerable burden” on business. If that’s not showing contempt for the electorate, I don’t know what is.

She also raised the issue of the federation’s alleged financial misconduct and culture of bullying — apparently they weren’t doing it right. For a senior Tory to pontificate on financial wrongdoing and bullying is like Gary Barlow lecturing people on tax avoidance.

And if that wasn’t enough of a quandary we then move on to Charlie Windsor versus Vladimir Putin. For lovers of irony this was a gold-plated doozie.

The air head apparent was reported to have opined that the Russian leader was akin to Hitler while on a state visit to Canada this week. 

Now, some might consider Putin a murderer and a fascist but that’s pretty dangerous ground for a Windsor to be straying onto. Some of his relatives happily met Hitler and at least one of the in-laws was in the SS.

This rumination from the bovine blue-blood sparked something of an international incident although God knows why anyone would care what he thinks. 

Decisive as ever, Ed Miliband leapt into the fray saying Charles “might have a point.”

Woah, steady on there, Ed! That’s dangerously close to forming an opinion.

I’m pretty sure Putin wasn’t overly bothered. After all Russia has history when it comes to dealing with uppity royals, although that didn’t stop them exploiting the situation for political gain. They have history doing that too.

What few seem to have considered is that, coming from Charlie Windsor, it might just have been a compliment.

OWNED BY OUR READERS

We're a reader-owned co-operative, which means you can become part of the paper too by buying shares in the People’s Press Printing Society.

 

 

Become a supporter

Fighting fund

You've Raised:£ 12,411
We need:£ 5,589
5 Days remaining
Donate today