Walter's Blog |
|
Reflections on recent events, plus the occasional fact free rant unfiltered by rational argument.
|
|
"If you want to read a blog to get a sense of what is going on in Hong Kong these days or a blog that would tell you what life was like living in colonial Hong Kong, this blog, WALTER'S BLOG, fits the bill." Hong Kong Blog Review
|
 “The promise of a multicultural Britain, first conjured up by Tony Blair, has largely remained unfulfilled. Indeed, it's failed.” The accepted narrative is that Great Britain is no longer great. This is not just a matter of opinion but a pressing reality that demands immediate attention, as the national mood remains pessimistic. The nomenclature sums it up: we've moved from Great Britain to the United Kingdom to the Yookay. And for sure, there is much to bemoan. A quick tally of evident failings is listed below:
The decline of the country is most visible in the city centres. As a visitor, the changes are stark. Charity shop after charity shop, an abundance of Turkish barbers (what's that all about?) and shuttered premises tell a tale. Even the shopping centres (malls to the American) have abandoned upper floors, with only the food court seeing a steady trickle of business. Groups of sullen young migrant men hang around the public spaces, waiting. But, waiting for what? As evening falls, they wander back to their government-appointed hotels to wait more as beleaguered locals look on, baffled and suspicious. It's a recipe for disaster. Meanwhile, garden centres on the outskirts of the city offer a complete dining experience, with comfortable pensioners filling the cafes. The Balkanisation of society is clear. The promise of a multicultural Britain, first conjured up and implemented quietly by Tony Blair, has largely remained unfulfilled. Indeed, it's failed. So, what's the vision for the future? It's not just a question; it's a call to action. It's time to ask this question of the incumbent PM, Sir Kier Rodney Starmer. Unfortunately, he is a man who has repeatedly demonstrated a unique ability to be under-whelming. And yet, I observed nothing but good-natured people. From Hull, London and across the countryside, this nation remains underpinned by common decency and politeness. When I spotted an elderly lady struggling with her mobility scooter beside a dual carriageway, I stopped to offer assistance. At the same time, three others followed suit. She was soon on her way, accompanied by a slow-moving convoy guiding her home. These small acts of kindness revealed much about the British character. People still hold the door open for each other, queue up and rarely mutter a complaint about slow or poor service, like the crap weather; it's tolerated. Don't make a fuss. With public finances strained to breaking point, the governing Labour Party is already at war with itself. It can't afford to spend on welfare while also meeting the need to boost the military. With 1000 people a day going onto disability benefits -an extraordinary number - something needs to give, and that may yet derail Starmer's premiership. Meanwhile, Professor David Betz has stated that the Yookay is heading for civil strife. If his assessment is reliable, the disorder of last summer and the recent violent protests in Northern Ireland are just a foretaste of what is to come. And that isn't reassuring. This all brings me back to the question: where is the unifying leadership, and what is the vision for the Yookay? Or is it relentless decline? Only a factory reset will change anything, except that the Brits don't go for revolutions; instead, they have a cup of tea and moan before switching the discourse to the latest episode of Strictly or Love Island. After all, the latest inane antics of the trout-pout tarts and tattooed plastic men hold more traction.
2 Comments
18/6/2025 0 Comments The Truth Captures Starmer “With Starmer's defences collapsing, the stench of collusion hung over his previous announcements” In a stunning U-turn, Sir Kier Rodney Starmer, the British PM, has reversed his position and ordered a full national enquiry into the rape gangs. This dramatic change follows a report by Baroness Louise Casey, which slams the British establishment's past denials. This marks a pivotal moment. A national enquiry has been forced upon Starmer because the awfulness of the crimes and complicity of local and national politicians is now gaining recognition. This is despite, in recent weeks, Starmer accusing anyone who raised the issue of being 'far right' and racist. These are the very sentiments that allowed the rape gangs to operate unimpeded for decades. With Starmer's defences collapsing, the stench of collusion hung over his previous announcements. Only weeks ago, Starmer was blocking a full inquiry, instead ordering piecemeal local inquiries. These local inquiries allowed the councils that perpetrated these massive injustices to investigate themselves. So naturally many saw this as a cover-up. Then, it emerged that only Rochdale council agreed to undertake the work. Baroness Casey concluded that a culture of 'blindness, ignorance and prejudice' resulted in decades of inaction. This disregard, fuelled by misplaced fears of racism, saw many police forces decline to gather data on the ethnicity of suspects. In turn, this approach led to a failure to deter the vile culprits, protect victims, and prosecute offenders. None of this is news to those of us who bothered to research this topic. For years there was ample evidence in the public domain to support the view that the rape of mostly white young girls by men from the Pakistani community was ignored. One victim was a 10 year old girl. Yet, anyone who dared to point this out faced a deluge of vile criticism. In 2017, Sarah Champion was forced out by then party leader Jeremy Corbin for saying in a newspaper article, “Britain has a problem with British Pakistani men raping and exploiting white girls". She was right. And even my inconsequential efforts drew criticism from those who couldn't see the facts staring them in the face. One interlocutor accused me of sounding like a 'Russian bot.' These defenders of the rape gangs should hang their heads in shame. What is surprising is that Starmer fought a rear guard action against a full enquiry, knowing full well the scope of the crimes committed and the complete failure of the authorities to act. I can only speculate he was motivated by a desire to protect the Labour councils who bear the lion's share of responsibility for this massive decades-long miscarriage of justice. Still, even now, Labour apparatchiks are working hard to deflect criticism by suggesting that public outrage has nothing to do with seeking justice for the white working-class girl victims but is xenophobic in origins. Others are hinting at hidden white-run rape gangs without providing any substantial evidence. One former chief constable, who had responsibility for child protection nationally, is busy distracting by pointing to children raping other children as a bigger issue. Again, where is the evidence? Why does he suddenly now raise this matter? It all stinks. And still, the MSM and commentators massage their output by using the term ‘grooming gangs’. This ‘softer’ language tells you that many still are unable to face the dreadful truth. Stepping back and looking at the big picture, this is not simply about the rape gangs. It is an inescapable fact that Starmer is unpopular. Last summer’s riots after the slaughter of young girls in Southport and the ongoing riots in Northern Ireland underscore that the public is no longer prepared to accept his two-tier law enforcement. And as the pressure builds in working-class communities — largely ignored by those in the Westminster bubble — the potential for social unrest is just a spark away. Two decades of stagnation, a sense of hopelessness and fear grips the Balkanised communities mostly in post-industrial northern towns. With the NHS in crisis and cuts in funding to many social programmes, people are exasperated that each day, a thousand economic migrants, mostly young men, arrive from across the Channel unimpeded. And while Starmer talks of putting the country on a 'war footing', the laughter can be heard across the shires. "We cannot even stop small boats in the channel: how can we be expected to fight a war?" is the reasonable retort. With his personal opinion polls in the toilet, a failing economy, anticipated higher taxes, and a general erosion in public services, Starmer is busy reversing policies in a scramble to retain the impression of being in control. The whole rape gang saga and Starmer's response to building community tensions point towards a man with his back to the wall. Well, he put himself there and must now deal with the consequences. Meanwhile, this episode remains a terrible indictment of the British establishment, which is captured by a flawed culture that will sacrifice young girls to maintain good relations with a minority ethnic community. If this new inquiry is allowed to go where the evidence takes it, then justice may finally be served on those who facilitated these crimes. Although, I fear that a protracted inquiry will, like the Post scandal inquiry, take too long and fail the victims 
5/6/2025 0 Comments Mr Burgess - was he a threat? “ Protocols and process-mapped decision-making models. ‘Accredited professional practice’ in action ... The slow, strangulated death of commonsense.” Dominic Adler. Last week, two British police officers were cleared of assaulting a wheelchair-bound, one-legged, 92-year-old man holding a cheese knife. They'd discharged pepper spray in his face. They’d hit him with a baton. They’d fired a taser at him.
He died 22 days later in the hospital, although this appears to be unrelated, or so we are told. No matter how you look at it, the optics are terrible. Although they have avoided criminal convictions, I suspect that the police careers of PC Rachel Comotto and PC Stephen Smith are effectively over. Both are facing internal disciplinary procedures. The incident, captured on video, lasted under two minutes and understandably sparked widespread outrage in 2022. Initially, I aimed to write a humorous article referencing the infamous Monty Python self-defence sketch. However, this case raises significant questions that are not the most obvious ones regarding the use of force and proportionality. Furthermore, I do not approach this subject as an armchair critic. I have disarmed knife-wielding individuals under challenging circumstances, including a man who killed his child and attempted suicide. As I will discuss later, training has its limitations as it cannot adequately prepare one for the confusion of an incident. Moreover, I feel uneasy about second-guessing the actions of these officers based on video evidence without considering the on-ground pressures they faced. Nevertheless, I must step beyond that hesitation to analyse this event. Having established that caveat, let us delve in. The background: Two officers were called to a care home after a Mr Burgess, who has dementia, allegedly threatened the staff, claiming that he would kill them. Before proceeding, I urge you to watch the video and consider the arguments I will present below. Caution: it is not a pleasant watch. At first glance, most people would likely assert that the officers overreacted by using force recklessly, which was disproportionate to the threat. This stance would be further compounded by what happened next: the officers evidently made joking comments. I fully understand such public reactions. My initial reaction was one of shock and dismay at the officers' actions. However, after stepping back and taking a broader view of the situation, my position changed slightly. This is not to suggest that the officers acted without fault; far from it. Allow me to explain. Police officers, when called to a scene, react according to their training and utilise the tools that society provides them. In this instance, the two officers responded to a report of a man brandishing a knife and threatening staff. By the time they arrived, the man was confined to a wheelchair, though he still held the knife. What can be observed in the video? There is a distance between the officers and Mr Burgess, who is seated in a wheelchair with the cheese knife in his right hand. Maintaining distance is crucial in knife incidents. I did not notice the wheelchair until it was pointed out to me. Looking at the situation, I conclude that Mr Burgess poses no immediate or serious threat to the officers. However, that was only after watching the video in the comfort of my home without the attendent lead-up. PC Smith engages with Mr Burgess and asks him to drop the knife. It is evident that Mr Burgess is confused — it is unclear whether he understands. PC Comotto has her taser drawn and also issues warnings. Now, at this stage, let us pause the scene. I would inquire whether the officers thoroughly assessed the situation they faced. Did they consider that the man was in a wheelchair and had only one leg? Or, as PC Smith stated in court, was he focused on the knife? Did they understand that Mr Burgess's dementia may limit his ability to grasp what was occurring? Still, based on what the officers were observing, they should have been able to determine that this man did not pose an immediate threat to them. Keep your distance, and you remain safe. That may have been an appropriate moment to pause, step back, and reassess. Indeed, had the officers withdrawn and locked the door, Mr Burgess was going nowhere. Instead, the officers acted. Other options that come to mind include grabbing a blanket to throw over Mr Burgess or using shields. However, in the heat of the moment and having been called, the officers seemed to be in a hurry to resolve the situation. PC Smith discharged pepper spray directly into Mr Burgess's face; then drew his baton and tried to strike the knife away, but he was unsuccessful. At this point, the female officer discharged her taser, yelling "taser taser taser" after she'd fired. The video ends. It is essential to remember that knives can be extremely dangerous, and officers are trained to maintain their distance from individuals wielding knives. Nevertheless, in this particular case, a calm assessment could likely determine that the cheese knife did not pose a substantial threat to the officers. Additionally, police training often includes scenarios that escalate, necessitating the use of non-lethal weapons to resolve the situation. As I mentioned earlier, officers react as they have been trained to do. Thus, I would like to ask whether de-escalation is taught or integrated into the process. If it is, it was not apparent that the officers applied de-escalation in this situation. We may gain some insights into the officers' attitudes from the light-hearted remarks they are reported to have made after the event. More details on this matter may emerge during the disciplinary hearings the officers are currently facing. However, this inappropriate banter may amount to a stress response following a challenging situation. It's difficult to say. I have experience in dealing with culprits wielding knives and threatening harm to themselves, others, and officers. In 2002, I spent over an hour negotiating with a distressed woman who brandished a chopper while holding her baby, as her drugged-up husband lay on an adjacent couch. She was standing in the doorway of her tiny flat as I led a group of officers who were blocking a very narrow corridor. It was hot, sweaty, and tense. The yelling child was distressing for all of us. At various points during the incident, the woman threatened to harm herself, the baby, and her husband. We'd barricaded ourselves behind large shields for protection. As she continued to speak, we gradually moved into the doorway, relaxing our posture. For a moment, the lady became distracted by the moans of her husband and turned away from us. At that point, I acted. I don't recall making a conscious decision; all I remember is seizing an opportunity. I lunged forward, slapped her across the side of the head, and she went down in shock. The chopper fell onto the couch as we pounced. Nothing about my approach is covered in training. However, my team and I resolved the situation without anyone being harmed. At times, one must be flexible and avoid being too rigid in one's actions. That is the reality of police work, centred around the overriding principle of protecting life. Anyway, had it gone wrong, no doubt I’d be in trouble. In endless nights of rumination, I am certain the two officers involved in Mr Burgess's case have reconsidered their actions. They have undoubtedly reflected on how events might have unfolded differently. There is some evidence of their confused approach in the testimony provided by PC Rachel Comotto. In court, she stated that she discharged her taser to save Mr Burgess from PC Stephen Smith's actions. That assertion is frankly preposterous. As the prosecutor pointed out, she could have asked her colleague to stop. Ultimately, the jury acquitted the officers. The jury heard evidence the officers acted in accordance with protocols. I feel a measure of sympathy for the officers. I would like to know whether they had adequate training and equipment for the role they encountered. Specifically, is de-escalation included in their training, and are shields available for use in such circumstances? Lastly, what pressure did they experience from the fact that the nursing staff called them in? As the agency of last resort, police officers can often find themselves in the invidious position of being the solution to all problems. Then you have the "hero complex”, which manifests as an officer's strong desire always to be the rescuer or saviour, even when it is not appropriate or necessary. This can lead to overzealous actions and risky behaviour. Commentor Domanic Adler, an ex-UK officer, believes the Burgess case reflects “ Protocols and process-mapped decision-making models. ‘Accredited professional practice’ in action, I suppose. The slow, strangulated death of commonsense.” I think he’s right. To further complicate matters, and at the other extreme, consider the case of PC Lorne Castle, a highly decorated officer who was dismissed for allegedly showing disrespect towards a knife-wielding culprit he had arrested. I understand he is now appealing the matter. Good luck, Sir. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
December 2025
CategoriesAll Festivals Hong Kong Hong Kong History Policing Politics Public Order UK USA |
||
RSS Feed