Reflections on recent events, plus the occasional fact
free rant unfiltered by rational argument.
Workplace violence is unacceptable. Except when a male politician attacks a female civil servant in our parliament. That’s the tacit line taken by politicians Claudia Mo and Audrey Yu, who seek to defend an attacker. Their assertions beggar belief.
I’ve written before about the loutish behaviour of Hong Kong’s democrat community. Just when you think they’ve learnt a lesson, along comes the next clown to prove these people are clueless. The democrats claim that Beijing is working to undermine them at every turn. Well, Beijing doesn’t need to disrupt their standing. They are capable of that without any help or cajoling from anyone.
In the past, they’ve thrown things at officials, threatened harm, and created a scene to garner attention. The LegCo chamber looks like a circus rather than a place of honest debate. Hiding behind their status, they evoke privileges to do things that would earn criminal charges for ordinary folk.
In the latest episode, Democratic Legislator Ted Hui attacked a female civil servant. He snatched her phone and papers, then ran into a toilet. He then appears to have accessed the phone’s contents. I don’t use the word ‘allegedly’ because Hui has admitted most of this in a series of cringe-worthy apologies. This repeated genuflecting has taken on a farcical tone. Standing like a silly schoolboy, head bowed, chastened; he refused to answer questions.
And the best bit. Mr Hui is a solicitor. He’s not some unknowing dilettante or street-thug with no understanding of the law. He’s a member of Hong Kong’s legal fraternity. A fact that speaks volumes about the quality of that profession.
According to reports, Hui now faces possible charges for his disgusting actions. Robbery, theft and indecent assault may be suitable depending on the evidence. Even his party has turned against him, although they are wobbling on what to do next.
Meanwhile, Claudia Mo has declined to stand with her sisters to decry this attack on a woman. Instead, she makes mealy-mouthed excuses, folding the truth in a contortion of spitefulness. Mo and her cohort don’t wish to see Hui censured. In other words, they give an endorsement to an attack on a female.
Even the strident Emily Lau, former head of the Democrats, and not above creating scene, has condemned Hui. She has not chosen to sanction violence against women, something Claudia Mo appears willing to do.
But why has this sort of thing developed? For too long the lunatic fringe in the democratic movement has held sway. Staging stunts to create publicity they've pushed the boundaries. All this lowers the bar on acceptable behaviour. Norms of civilised conduct eroded as Long Hair threw bananas, while Claudia Mo yelled like a banshee. Aggression, threats and violence is the new benchmark.
These antics then spill over to the streets. Young protesters took their cue from these legislators. Some believed it’s acceptable to assault security guards and police officers. When the courts finally get involved, after lengthy delays, it comes as a shock to face jail. Without a hint of shame, the democrats, who fostered this environment, lay the blame on the government. ‘Alice in Wonderland’ twisting of the truth fills their speech. Words such as ‘crack-down’ and ‘suppression’ weaponised to undermine legitimate legal processes.
Hui joins a steady line of democrats facing legal proceedings. In most cases, their arrogance and sheer foolishness brought the downfall. Before Hui, we had Sixtus Baggio Leung Chung-hang (his real name) and Yau Wai-ching. Both won stunning election victories in 2016. Then they threw it away with childish stunts during their oath taking. Next, we have Leung Kwok-hung, Lau Siu-lai, Yiu Chung-yim and Nathan Law. All disqualified for failing to make their vows correctly.
Topping this list is prize clown Howard Lam. He’s pending trial for allegedly faking his kidnapping and assault. You can’t make this up.
The democrats appear to be on a suicide mission. It would be entertaining, except it undermines our governance. However, we’ve learnt a valuable lesson from this episode, the likes of Claudia Mo and Audrey Yu are willing to sacrifice their sisters for cheap political gain.
The shocking treatment of the Windrush generation by the UK scratched an old sore of mine. The whole saga is no surprise. It avows my view that you need to hold officials, and their mealy-mouthed political masters, to account. I realise this is not a unique opinion, but experiencing it first-hand is affirming.
In the late 1940s and 1950s, a struggling UK sought people from the colonies to rebuild a nation broken by war. Cheap labour from the West Indies arrived on the first ship ‘Empire Windrush’. Hence a generational name. On arrival simple ‘landing cards’ recorded personal details. This process was the only documentation of new arrivals for many years to come.
Move forward many decades. The Windrush folks have toiled in hospitals, kept public transport running, paid their taxes, raised families.
Then things start to go astray. With the 'landing cards' destroyed in 2009 or 2010 (depending who you believe) they can't prove they've landed legally. Meanwhile, an aggressive Home Office is pursuing them. Theresa May laid the foundations of this approach during her tenure as Home Secretary. As many have no documents, they're trapped. Denied access to medical care, some face deportation, as their lives get torn apart.
Meanwhile, the politicians are busy pointing fingers at each other as a human tragedy unfolds. The countries moral standing is in the toilet. The fact that the Windrush generation is black tinges the whole saga with a hint of racism.
Let's be clear, Britain has a record of double-dealing and insincerity in its immigration policies. In 1948, Clement Attlee, the Labour Prime Minister, sought to acknowledge the debt owed the Empire for helping win the war. He created ‘Citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies’. With this status came ‘right of abode’ in the UK. Since then it’s rolled back on those undertakings.
The 1981 British Nationality Act deprived Hong Kong citizens of those rights. Timing is everything. With 1997 negotiations looming, did the UK fear an influx of Hong Kong Chinese? Later in 1983, the UK receded the provisions applying to the Falkland Islanders. It granted them full British citizenship. Admittedly the number involved was small, yet a nasty taste remains in the mouth.
As a serving RHKP officer, these matters come into sharp focus for me in the mid- 1980's. Married to a Hong Kong lady, we had young kids and faced a dilemma. With the return of Hong Kong announced in 1984, I'm encouraged to stay on for continuity. The sudden departure of officers could disrupt policing. And yet the immigration status of my spouse and children remained uncertain.
As negotiations rumbled on between Britain and China, many of us couldn’t wait for answers. In an attempt to provide us reassurance, a series of chinless mandarins arrived from the UK. Politicians, accompanied by patronising officials, relayed the message ‘Britain would act with honour’. It didn’t help that officials couldn't hide their annoyance as we challenged them for details. We were a nuisance, who should shut up.
Some senior police officers were also unhelpful, suggesting we ‘shouldn't rock the boat’. As these men would be gone by 1997, their self-interest was ugly and contemptible.
And yet, the message of ‘honourable’ behaviour didn’t appear to have reached the Home Office. Officers who sought the Home Secretary’s discretion to wave UK residency requirements as members of a 'designated service’ met resistance and rejection. Applications disappeared into the system; then we heard nothing for years. One couple waited three years for a rejection.
Matters came to a head in June 1989. The events in Beijing shook Hong Kong’s confidence. The Foreign Secretary Geoffrey Howe heard it first hand on 4th July 1989. With nerves frayed, weeks after Tien An Mun, he met with the Hong Kong Police Staff Associations. He took robust views from officers frustrated at the UK's intransigence.
In an attempt to shore up confidence, the UK responded with a meagre offer of 50,000 passports for Hong Kong. The inequity of these arrangements didn't go unrecognised. In a June 1990 Parliamentary debate MP Steven Norris noted:
" ... the extraordinary proposition that if an ethnic Chinese obtains a passport under the scheme and his wife, who is a substantially better position than the ethnic Chinese wife of a British citizen... "
Still, Home Office officials refused to budge. Except that word leaked that officers in specific sensitive departments did get a concession. At the same time, local officers received reassurances in confidential briefings.
Faced with this situation, we opted to go to London. We wrote, visited and canvassed MPs across all parties. In October 1990, we gained a meeting with the cross-party British Hong Kong Parliamentary Group. There was instant understanding and support.
Suddenly, the Home Office awoke. As one MP told us, officials don’t like them prying and asking questions about process. The Home Secretary found himself able to grant an exemption.
The Hong Kong Immigration Department told to cooperate, expedited action. Acting as the UK's agent, it processed and verified applications. Things then got farcical. It was necessary that the wives undergo an English assessment. A Hong Kong official conducted the test, struggling with his pronunciation. Bemused ladies shrugged it off.
The inconvenience we went through was nothing compared to that inflicted on the Windrush generation. I do not suggest to equate the two. The comparison sits in the negative and hostile attitude of the Home Office. Even back in the 1980's, with an opportunity to resolve matters, officials refused to move. They ignored us, scorned us and then only deemed to act as political pressure mounted.
As a vocal, well-resourced group of insiders, we harnessed the media and politicians to campaign. We rejected unworthy voices that told us to keep quiet. Nor would we accept empty verbal assurances. How much more terrible it must be for people without the clout we wielded. It pleases that the Windrush generation's plight is now public. Besides, Mrs May needs to act to restore a sense of decency in the UK.
On Monday a man didn’t get shot and die on a Toronto street. Despite the fact he drove through pedestrians, killing ten innocent people. He lived.
As a single police officer moved in to deal with the culprit, Alek Minassian, he claimed to have a gun. Demanding "Shoot me in the head" Minassian is brandishing something in his hand. He points it at the officer. Still, the bad guy doesn’t go down in a hail of gunfire.
"Get down”, officer Ken Lam shouts again and again, as he moves in to restrain Minassian. Lam switches to his baton, holstering his pistol before he applies the handcuffs.
It's not gone unnoticed that this scenario would have played different some 20 miles away in the USA. In all probability, the culprit would have received a single verbal warning before the shooting started. He'd likely be dead.
Some have argued this incident gives weight to the view that the US police are using excessive force. I'm not so sure. Comparisons are fraught with contradictions when so many variables come into play.
During my police career, I was never a ‘gun-guy’. Many of my colleagues took the same view as me; the gun was a tool you'd rather not deploy. While I enjoyed the range courses, the day-to-day carriage of a firearm could prove a nuisance. I can only recall drawing the gun from its holster twice for an operational reason. I never fired it except at the range.
In the early days of my career, the under-powered Colt 38 was secured by a lanyard in a flimsy leather holster. The lanyard was a sensible move. Chasing a pickpocket down Jordan Road, my revolver clattered along behind. Not a good look.
In the 1980s our revolver training consisted of firing at paper targets. You’d be either static standing or kneeling behind a barrier. You fired a single shot, re-assessed and fired again. The target didn’t move except to swivel into view. None of this simulated the distractions we’d face on the streets; traffic noise, people in the way and mayhem.
Later came the video ranges. These proved a vast improvement with evolving stories and real human shapes. Things moved, the lighting changed, and noises acted to distract. The video range put you in the scene to test that you used the appropriate ‘degree of force’. As events unfolded, you’d switch to baton, pepper-spray or revolver. And yet, we never fired multiple-rounds in rapid succession. It was either single shot or two at most. Once hit, the culprit went down. The lights came on as you breathed a sigh of relief.
In 2010, I tasted a different approach to gun training. As 'active shooter’ incidents escalated worldwide, we needed to understand the best international practices. As part of a fact-finding exercise, I found myself undergoing training with a US Police Force. Other officers went elsewhere.
I received a warm welcome. A Brit serving in the Hong Kong Police is an exotic creature to our American cousins. With cultural reference being Jackie Chan and Bruce Lee, it took some time to disavow them of my Kung Fu skills. They qualified me on the Glock pistol. Then my actions somewhat perplexed the instructors.
Put through a scenario in the 'combat house' with an actor firing paintball rounds back at me; I soon discovered my single shot approach didn’t work. With a moving culprit in cover, he kept coming back at me.
Covered in bruises, I soon learnt to multi-fire. Double-tap, keep going until he was down and out. Then quick reload. Put through the drill again and again; car stops, room clearing and always rapid fire. The thing with training is that it works. You revert to things practised as muscle memory kicks in.
You can argue that the US police approach is aggressive, that it will result in deaths. This assessment is a misreading not only of the training but the logic behind the drills.
In the US, because of the prevalence of guns, officers face a significant threat at each encounter. Moreover, events have shown that when they don't act the consequences can be tragic. Officer survival is paramount, it forms the basis of training and shapes policy. Some are on edge with disproportionate responses. Thus the deaths of young black men encountering US Police remains an issue of grave concern.
Officer Lam of Toronto deserves recognition for his cool and well-executed capture of Minassian. But to extrapolate that to cover all incidents is wrong. Every event a police officer encounters is different. He or she doesn't have the luxury of time or the ability to consult before making fatal decisions. For that reason, I'm reluctant to be judgmental of the officer who opts to fire.
Personally speaking, respect belongs to the officer who is actually in the arena, who faces a threat with adrenaline pumping. Striving valiantly to do the right thing, some will err, some come up short or adjudged incorrect. Still, they deserve credit. Even failing merits acclaim over those cold and timid souls who are critical but neither know victory or defeat for fear.
If any lessons or comparisons are to be drawn, it may be worth assessing the training and coaching given officers. Escalating to firearms can become a reflex action if the threat is the only issue in an officer's mind. The quality of training must have an impact on the outcome of incidents. In the US training is far from consistent, with smaller police forces struggling to provide standardised regular coaching.
US Police academies spend on average about 110 hours training recruits on firearms skills and self-defence. Conflict management, mediation and appreciation of situations are covered in eight hours. Meanwhile, the Canadian Police training places a high emphasis on de-escalating situations. Canada’s far lower rate of gun crime certainly plays a role in shaping their approach. Yet it’s something the US needs to consider in the long-term if its to reduce the average 980 people killed each year by police shooting.
A side-note: Officer Ken Lam’s father served in the Royal Hong Kong Police Force.
The evidence is stark and clear. Societies that empower women flourish. Across cultures, across continents, the effect is pronounced and almost immediate. Moreover, women who gain control of their reproductive cycle bring compounded gains. No longer broodmares, these ladies excel. And we all benefit, men included.
But there is a price to pay. As society prospers and becomes affluent, then child-care and education become more expensive. Ultimately, this means only the well-off folks can marry given the costs of raising kids. Financial expenses, emotional investment and the sheer hardship of the process deter many.
Thus, you see in countries like Japan a huge one-third plunge in population predicted by 2060. Surveys suggest that as many as half of Japanese young women are not interested in raising a family. These ladies exist for their jobs, a consumer lifestyle and having fun. The same is happening in Hong Kong, where young women have pets instead of babies.
Meanwhile, in the West, the radical feminists assert that women have everything stacked against them. Pay is not equal, while for women opportunities are cut off. The evidence suggests otherwise. Nonetheless, that’s their mantra.
This simple assertion does not stand up to critical analysis. Ultimately women shape their futures by personal decisions. Mythical conspiring male-dominated structures have no role. Thus, to blame ‘white male patriarchy’ is palpable nonsense. It’s also a lazy analysis of a complex situation. Of course, as a white male, I’m risking life and limb pointing out these facts.
Worldwide, female literacy rates now equal or exceed males. The disparity in education has evaporated in the face of determined action. And educated girls are healthier, more productive and have far fewer children. The only exception is Afghanistan, where the appalling Taliban closed schools to girls.
Women are doing much better than men in education. With a superior academic performance, the numbers going through colleges are higher. And this then leads to career opportunities. As such, there is no end to the possibilities opening up.
We know that women are entering such professions as a lawyer in higher numbers than ever before. They then rocket up the career ladder, working 80-hour weeks to make partner in their early 30s. In the process, they’ve out-performed the majority of their male colleagues. Then a good portion leave.
It's believed that as women reach the upper echelon's of organisations, the reality dawns on them. A future of long-working weeks, the endless chasing of deadlines. Either the desire for a family gets shunted aside as you keep at the top of your game or something gives. If you relax or divert your energies, someone will forge forward to take your hard-won position. Men face the same challenge. But for men, there is one distinct and subtle difference. Men are not evolved to give birth to children.
An added complication for women is bearing most of the risks in opting to have a child. Potential medical issues are apparent; then there is insecurity brought about by a partner’s action. In general, it's the women who struggle to raise a child as a single parent.
Some argue that’s the reason we have marriage. It bounds the couple together in the interests of the child and the broader community. No matter how you cut it, a growing child needs Mum and Dad. The outcomes for single parent kids, in the main, are not favourable.
Evolution has factored this into human behaviour. When selecting partners, women opt for men who are older and of higher income. Women are 93 percent more likely to marry men with a higher salary than themselves. They do this to ensure that resources are available for the care of the child. Again, all cultures have this phenomenon.
For the high-flying woman, there are a unique set of challenges. Based on the high-income criteria, she is seeking a partner in a smaller pool of eligible candidates. Further, she is competing for that elusive man with ladies in lower income earning groups. Also, men hesitate to form marital relationships with women who have both more education and higher salaries than they do.
Research from Canada tracks high-flying ladies who opt out in their early 30s. It’s a complicated dynamic, with some evidence suggesting having a family is more important than a hard-driving job that consumes all your energy. They then return to work-force later, often in less-demanding jobs.
I’m sorry, but in the end, it's a rigged game. Biology and evolution have conspired to put ladies at a disadvantage when it comes to childbirth. And that’s not the fault of men. The feminist may as well blame the sun for rising in the East.
Nature balances the equation by having men face their own set of risks and challenges. Males do the vast majority of dangerous and outside jobs. If guys weren’t prepared to work on oil rigs or above the arctic circle, then oil and gas wouldn’t be available to keep us all warm and on the move. These professions have a higher death rate. Women are capable of doing these jobs but don’t.
Thus each sex has to deal with fairness and unfairness. None of this is a result of social structures, nor was put in place by a group of conniving men. The machinations of men and women’s status down the ages is an extremely complicated thing. Unfortunately, that complexity evades the most strident feminists. They adopt a simple viewpoint to demonise men.
I want a fair game for my daughters. What I’m not prepared to accept are idle, unsustainable and non-sensical arguments. I suspect radical feminists perpetuate the patriarchy argument because it's simple. It's an easy victimhood sell, ideal soundbite material. It doesn’t make it right. The reasoning starts to disintegrate when you throw the plight of poor, underprivileged white males into the equation.
All I know is that as a white male, a hate figure in the minds of some, I’m fighting for my daughters to do well. So, that makes me a feminist.
The old days are gone. In my callow youth, we had ‘Kai Tak Rules'. Boy’s trips to the Philippines for some R&R, away from the tensions of policing Hong Kong, passed without selfies. No social media record nor GPS tracking our movements. In those days what took place after wheels-up at Kai Tak remained under wraps. It was our ‘What happened in Vegas, stays in Vegas’ pledge.
These days the indiscreet enjoy no such shield. With every citizen a potential broadcaster, armed with the ability to reach the world, not much goes unnoticed. This new zeitgeist all came into sharp focus over the weekend, as I helped at the Hong Kong Rugby 7s.
My small role involved keeping the public safe in the South Stand. Thus, I spent hours observing the various ‘tribes of the terrace' interacting. Ribbing each other, posturing, challenging other groups, but mostly enjoying themselves.
The South Stand has a reputation for hard partying. As the alcohol kicks-in and the day lengthens, some of the behaviour borders on the outrageous. The lack of sleep, jet-lag and heat further impair judgement. 99.9% of the people are laughing, singing, letting off steam with good-humoured banter. Also, in the main, the South Stand polices itself.
But it’s not a rule-free zone. A number of the wayward faced removal in the interests of safety. Unfortunately, a few let down their guard to behave in ways they’ll later regret. Social media feeds that guilt.
The streaker who vaults the fence, runs to the centre of the pitch and drops his trousers, gets a cheer. Then it’s over. What's coming next is not so fun. He’s about to experience Hong Kong’s judicial system. Detained, whisked to a police station, processed through charging, he then appears before a Magistrate. Reality sinks in, as those seconds of euphoria give way to apprehension, regret and remorse. That naked run no longer seems such a smart idea. A fine, a criminal record and your picture in the paper are the start. Social media is about to amplify your antics.
Bad behaviour tends to trend on the Internet. Employers are unlikely to take kindly to their staff appearing nude at a major public event. If your role involves dealing with customers, expect to move on. If you’re lucky, you don’t become a meme or gif. Then the interest may die down. After all, the Internet is a restless place, so the audience clicks-on when a new attraction arises.
In my day evidence of such indiscretions was in a smaller circle as idle talk carried the message. No pictures, no images for Mum, Dad and the relatives to view. Our past remained unseen, as we denied the story or suggested embellishment. No such luck these days.
This material is a bonanza for researchers, due-diligence folks and the intelligence community. One recorded moment of silliness and that job application is looking less promising. With hundreds chasing lucrative work, recruiters are looking for reasons to chop applicants. That 10-seconds of bum on the TV furnished the justification.
I’m not sure this is fair, given that we all make mistakes. Don't forget that people grow from these errors into well-rounded individuals. I know senior police officers, judges and several leading lawyers who are thankful their younger-self remains in the shadows. All these guys, and it's all men, now make a valuable contribution to society. Let's recognise that our social-media drenched world has unhealthy outcomes. And thus we need to balance our judgments of people with a broader view. Why? Because the loss of the old ways means folks often don’t have the space to make mistakes and learn.
Social media is a fantastic tool. It can bring families together, reunite old friends and provides us with fast communication to many. However, it can also be a liability. Just as social media has the power to strengthen a reputation, it also can tear one down. And, when you behave stupidly in public, you have no control of that process. Social media giveth, and social media taketh away.
Us Brits love lording it over the Americans with talk about how safe our country is. Comparisons with the United States are routine dinner party talk, as we sanctimoniously assert our superiority. Well, that smug attitude doesn’t match up with the data. London, the nation's capital, has suffered 31 deaths from knife-crime so far this year. That exceeds the murder rate of New York City, and they have guns.
In 2017, 80 people died in knife attacks in the capital. Four on New Year's Eve alone. The vast majority of the victims and culprits are black youth. Following a wave of stabbings London Mayor Sadiq Khan, said he was "desperately saddened”. His empty words display an indifference.
Eight Londoners, all under 30, murdered in the six days between 14th and 20th March. That’s the only detail you’ll get from the British media. No mention of the fact that a gang war is underway between black youth across whole swaths of London. These soaring levels of knife-crime are a national scandal. Meanwhile, the hapless Commissioner of Police, Cassandra Dick, blames social media.
How that works is beyond me. You read a post on Facebook, WhatsApp or Instagram, then elect to thrust a knife into another human being. I'm missing something.
A few weeks ago Dick was muttering about knife-crime being a public health issue. She is clutching at any excuse. Constrained by her fear of the racist taunt, she has limited options at hand. Robust policing by enforcement action is beyond her. Shut in a self-imposed silo of inaction; she has foresworn traditional policing. Meanwhile, police policy is driven by a shameless political agenda ignores evident truths.
There are some who stand passive, allowing the death of young black men rather than support police action through stop and search. Why? Because enforcement action offends their sensitivities. And don’t come at me with the argument that the application of stop and search is racist or ineffective. That false narrative is another trope of the metropolitan elite.
Humans use information to make decisions, that then lead to actions. Since the Enlightenment, we have sought to set aside wrong ideas that are not supported or indicated by data. That's evolutions great gift to us. It is thus profoundly troubling that the dogma of a few invades public policy without any factual support. Their perverse and lopsided ideas result in dangerous consequences.
The accepted narrative is one of stop and searches applied in a discriminatory manner by racist cops. This version of events is untrue.
In 2000, Home Office researchers went out and counted the population stopped and searched. They discovered no racial bias. In fact, the police questioned more white people than other groups based on who was available. The police targeted specific areas with the highest levels of street crime.
Further research is 2004 (Waddington, Stenson & Don) affirmed the case. Other studies have shown similar findings. Granted, being on the receiving end of a stop can be an unpleasant experience. Nobody likes its. Tension is bound to result. But the data is robust on the point that blacks or other ethnic groups are not targeted.
Even Teresa May, as Home Secretary, couldn’t be honest fearing a backlash. In 2014 she asserted that the police’s use of stop and search was “unfair, especially to young black men”. In this instance, there is a suggestion that the Home Office deployed misleading data to support her false assertion.
I’ll grant you cause and effect is a tricky issue. Statistics are open to interpretation, while deterrent effects are always hard to quantify. But consider this, an increase in knife attacks since reduced stop and search. That’s surely indicative. Simply put, as stop and search have fallen off, crime escalates. Then there is the inescapable point that a knife in the stomach is not a data-point, but a person dying.
It’s hard to see how things can improve without robust policing. Let's consider the many benefits of that approach. It would show that the police are pro-active, serious about the issue and not resorting to ‘youth club’ solutions. That, in turn, pushes up public confidence by demonstrating crime is not tolerated. This activity will gather intelligence, which drives targeted-policing based on a rational approach. That’s what police forces used to do.
Believe me, it works. I’ve applied it to issues in Hong Kong, and the results were immediate. I hear you shouting that London is different. And yes, you are right, London is very different. Fear of accusations of racism shapes everything in London. But blood will continue to flow as long as misguided sentiments shape enforcement action. Rotherham and Telford taught us that much.
How would the metropolitan elite react if white middle-class Hampstead boys faced similar threats? They'd be screaming for action. I can only conclude certain things. It’s not the stop and search that concerns them, nor that black youth are dying. It's their credentials as life-members of the liberal classes. They need to maintain their emotional comfort over rationality. Plus their physical separation from the suffering communities makes them unworthy advocates.
Rather than confronting the issue in an honest manner, Commissioner Dick and her friends will continue to have their judgment clouded by an engrained PC culture. Young black men are the ultimate victims. Nothing will be done as these victims are seen as cannon fodder in the war of political correctness.
Post Script - As I write this news comes in of a 17-year-old girl killed and a 16-year-old boy in a critical condition after two separate incidents in London. The statistical trend point to 180 young people murdered in London by the end of 2018.
Walter De Havilland was one of the last of the colonial coppers. He served 35 years in the Royal Hong Kong Police and Hong Kong Police Force. He's long retired.