CrimeDeep StateEnvironmentPolicePolitics

Why aren’t the police on trial along with Carl Beech?

You will have noticed that Carl Beech, aka ‘Nick’, the fantasist whose lies caused so much trouble for a lot of innocent men, has gone on trial for perverting the course of justice.

What is incredible – absolutely incredible – about this case is that the police believed the most arrant nonsense from a man who’s about as believable as a British Remainer MP.

Would you stake the credibility of your career on this man?

Of course many police forces have a long line of believing the most fantastic rubbish, such as all the ridiculous satanic abuse cases from the 80s in the UK and the US. You’d think they would have learned from those. Maybe they did. But then along came the modern ‘Believe all victims’ mantra, and whatever they learned about how to separate good and bad evidence in such cases went out the window.

Carl Beech will be played by Peter Griffin in the movie about the case.

I’m not going to go into the completely unbelievable stories that he so obviously made up, because you’ll have read those yourself (and you’ll have seen the testimony video if you’re unlucky), and you will have already wondered ‘How could anybody be so stupid as to believe the shit this guy was spinning? How could they not have done even the most basic checks on his story?’ All I can say is, how can we trust the police after yet another appalling disaster of their own making has occurred? It is not fit for purpose.

Carl’s the guy from accounts that nobody ever wanted to go for a drink with. That’s why he had to start imagining that Ted Heath and twelve aliens had cut off his arms for degraded sexual purposes.

And here’s some more garbage from the police:

Britain’s “slow and cumbersome” laws on policing protests need to be updated after the Extinction Rebellion demonstrations that cost £7.5 million in extra police costs, the country’s most senior officer has said.

 

Cressida Dick, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, said the “ancient” public order laws needed to be “looked at” because they prevented the police from acting “swiftly and purposefully” to tackle the protests which brought parts of London to a standstill.

To see that this is self-justifying bollocks, ask yourself this: do you think that if UKIP types had pulled this stunt they’d have gotten the same kid-gloves treatment as the Extinction Rebellion protestors got? Do you think there would have been the same small number of arrests? Do you think it would have carried on for so long? Do you think there would have been police officers dancing and skateboarding in the street with the protestors?

Update: It’s also looking like the whole Tommy Robinson debacle was a frame-up.

Social media

3 thoughts on “Why aren’t the police on trial along with Carl Beech?

  1. The problem, is that instead of working with thoroughly researched data, the Police run with an idea and do everything in their power to prove someone guilty. They don’t take the data (evidence) first and work from that, as any academic or scientist does, to follow the lead of that evidence. They make up their mind who is quilty first (be it Ted Heath or Cliff Richard for example) and create the evidence in order to prove themselves right.
    The whole mindset is wrong. They need higher educational standards for entry in order to cope with a job, the results of which, which can ruin people’s lives.
    There seems to be a tabloid press approach, not factual at all.
    Training in research is essential, which includes recording and handling data, together with degree level understanding of psychology and human behaviour. Its unfair and unacceptable to expect people who are not qualified to handle such sensitive information.
    A Police Officer’s ‘gut instinct’ is a thing of the past and shouldn’t be their first port of call no matter how long-serving.
    This would prevent the pendulum swing from ignoring complaints completely, to believing every accusation which crosses their path without question.

  2. Sue, I agree to some extent, and the pendulum analogy is a good one, and research and training is important, but I don’t think requiring higher educational standards for entry provides any simple solution. Remember that many of the horror stories from the past concerning false accusations came from theories that originated in academia, or from people with degrees. And there are some Universities that are full of semi-conspiracy theorists and postmodern idiots who wouldn’t know evidence if it bit them on the bum.

    >A Police Officer’s ‘gut instinct’ is a thing of the past and shouldn’t be their first port of call no matter how long-serving.

    It’s fine having gut instinct in there, and early on, as long as it isn’t given too much credence.

  3. “take the data (evidence) first and work from that, as any academic or scientist does,”

    No they don’t, they start with a hypothesis, which is not much more that ‘gut instinct’ albeit inspired by some observation and data. Good academic research (there’s not a lot of it about) requires above all scepticism and the ability to stand back and knock down one’s own castles in the sand.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *