a Lynch mob in uniform

I believe firmly in law and order. I believe that the police play a vital role in protecting us. I believe that the police have an extremely difficult job to do in the context of today’s materialistic, humanistic society where the traditional Christian conception of our humanity has been replaced by the falsehood that human beings are fundamentally good. To make that worse, our economy, politics and society are now obsessed by consumption and production where ME and MY concerns are paramount .

In short, we are in the process of creating hell on earth in western society.  But the police have to pick up the pieces because politicians, academia, religion, and the legal system have all failed to recognise the fundamental necessity of the Christian culture which underpinned our freedoms and the good order of society.

I say this in order to put perspective on my coming comments about the police. We live in a Materialist culture which has reinvented our judicial culture and our laws. This ideological insult to the norms of our identity as human beings produces a society where, for example,  intelligent young people can commit conceptual and psychological treason with impunity. I refer to the Middle Common Room at Magdalen College, Oxford and their vote to remove the portrait of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II because they regard it as a symbol of “colonialism”. There is manifestly no account taken of Her Majesty’s personal biography, nor of the critical role played by the constitutional monarchy established in 1688/9. None of this counts in the world of political correctness.

I cite this incident at Oxford as evidence of the impunity with which our traditions and culture can be insulted and overturned by the ideological prejudices of people who don’t actually know and understand what they are talking about. This cancerous, contemptuous and crass culture has taken control over recent decades and is responsible for the climate in which the police operate. Indeed, the police themselves are now staffed by a generation force fed the simplistic and unrealistic psychology attendant on Materialism.

Ditto Usman Khan, the Islamist fundamentalist and terrorist shot dead by police on London Bridge after he had lethally attacked two people and injured at least 3 others on 29th November 2019. Khan had attended a meeting for the rehabilitation of offenders in Fishmongers Hall adjacent to  London Bridge. He had a conviction for violence related to his radical and extreme understanding of Islam, and was deemed a continuing risk by certain authorities but evidently not by others – the Security Service [MI5] did not put Khan under surveillance that day, despite having advance knowledge of his attendance.

With the sheer scale of Islamic fundamentalist suspects, the UK authorities  lack the resources to monitor them all adequately. The UK is not alone in this; France for example has exactly the same problem.   I suspect that all western, formerly “Christian” countries have the same problem.

That is because in those formerly Christian countries, there was once a strong climate and culture of respect both for authority and for individual liberty –  for our unique and valued religious and political culture; people policed themselves. People understood they had a responsibility to the wider society. The previously prevalent Christian culture taught people that God saw and judged all we think and do. We did not just account to the law of the land, but also to our Creator to whom we owe our continued existence and our safety; to whom we will one day account for our actions in this life, being judged as to whether we have done good or evil.

But what has the Materialist, individualist rights culture taught all our young people for at least the past 30 years ?

Well, Usman Khan was born and grew up in the West Midlands, England. He will have learned that he has every right to do just what he wants, and to believe just what he wants. He will have witnessed the hollow and crass culture of consumerism all around him – a culture which can hardly give the average human being a sense of pride and identity.

So, Khan evidently found identity and meaning in the puritanical extremes of Islamism, instead. He could find no meaning and identity in the globalised notions of the atheistic brotherhood of man with its bland universal identity and its universal Rights. Indeed he did not seek more personal liberty, but less. He chose to subject himself to a superior cause associated with the culture of his forefathers in Pakistan.

Why did he not find a sense of identity and meaning in 21st century Britain ?

Because there is none …. the Utopian world of woke has destroyed all sense of human identity with the place of one’s birth.  This brave new  world is fashioned by the culture and politics of the Human Rights Act of 1998, reinforced by the Equality Act of 2010. It is then safeguarded and interpreted according to the Ideals of the Enlightenment by the highly politicised and predisposed Supreme Court introduced into the UK in 2009.

My decided view is that we should scrap the above legal and judicial innovations and restore the traditional English culture and practice. In our previous practice the law only regarded the facts of the matter according to law –  law framed on the basis of universal application, regardless of the identity of either perpetrator or victim. We once had true equality before the law.  But as we all know, now equality laws are used politically and partisanly by the politically trained to engineer a new world of equality.  In that world, people’s personal thoughts and inclinations are to be policed by the State to ensure equality is universally practised.

We now have a mentality of total control over everything deemed to be deviant and undesirable. This mindset feeds into the general culture of every institution, including of course the police. We now have a police service [not force]  which appears to have lost sight of the traditional culture and mindset of British policing. Indeed,  I can speak from experience of the cool calm professionalism with which the police in Britain used to operate.  But that was in the days before they were inundated with paperwork and constrained by over regulation – in the days when crime was not out of control because of the policies pursued by politically correct governments.

The radically altered nature of today’s policing is evident in their uniforms and their equipment. It is also on display at the inquest into the tragic events at Fishmongers Hall on 29th November 2019.

A recent report informs us that British police now exercise a shoot to kill policy. They did not use those words, but that is what the sanitised verbiage means. I refer to a report on Sky News online dated 8th June 2021 and titled “Fishmonger’s Hall inquest hears firearms officers trained to take ‘head shot’ in case suicide bomb was set off remotely.”

Now, if officers are faced with a person wearing a suicide vest and running amok lethally slashing out at people, then clearly police must be allowed the latitude to take sufficient measures to stop that threat to innocent life. A failure to comply with a constable’s clear command to surrender surely means that suspects lay themselves open to lethal consequences.

In a serious situation, officers must have the ability to resort to lethal force to prevent loss of innocent life at the hands of an armed person. That is what they are employed to do: protect us.

But that was not the situation in the case of Usman Khan’s death.

In Khan’s case, he had already been overwhelmed by civilians. The Sky news report already cited has these words reporting what happened next after the police arrived.

Khan lay on the ground for eight minutes after being shot twice in the shoulder at close range. He then sat up and was shot at another 18 times by five different officers.

A person who was already incapacitated, and who should have been taken into custody in order to be brought before a court of law, was instead shot at 18 times by five different officers.

The official reason given was that Khans suicide vest looked real. But it must surely have been clear by this point that the vest was fake. Nothing had happened. No explosion when Khan was tackled in various ways by bystanders. No explosion once he had been shot in the shoulder. And how on earth can a person who cannot even equip themselves with a firearm possibly have gained access to explosives ?

The police had at least 8 minutes to reflect on the facts of the situation, and yet they came up with the wrong answer, regardless of all the evidence up to the point at which they deliberately shot him dead.

The explanation for this situation lies in the number of shots taken and the number of officers shooting. Those facts match the scenario in a Hollywood movie where overwhelming firepower born of uncontrolled fear and righteous indignation is unleashed against the evil enemy.

The police lacked the appropriate sense of control on this occasion. Instead of bringing this individual into custody as is their bounden duty, they shot him dead.

In that moment when 5 officers shot 18 times, their behaviour reflected the mentality of a lynch mob – not the composed restraint once so typical of British policing. Those officers acted as Prosecution, Judge and Jury – and they imposed an illegal penalty. No amount of talk suggesting the vest could still be activated remotely by a co-conspirator can justify their mindset here.

Personally, I believe in the death penalty for murder. In Usman Khan’s case, it looks appopriate. I believe too that the application of any such penalty must be according to the established procedures of trial in a court of law.  But the death penalty for such a crime is not the law of the land  in the UK, and it is not the role of the police to adjudicate the evidence for such a crime and then to impose a sentence. This is retrogressive, not progressive. This is the upside down world we are forced to live in which insists on utopian perfection and thereby fails to ensure actual, proper justice in real situations with real people.

Usman Khan’s crime and his identity are not the issue here. The issue is our constitutional heritage from Magna Carta, Habeas Corpus and the Bill of Rights. The State is not above the law but subject to the law. And the religious heritage which informed our philosophical understanding, and all our political and social relations was Christian.

But the traditional English understanding and practice of both justice and liberty are being trashed by the 21st Century Woke Revolution.