Egon Von Bulow

A question for readers of this Blog.

In 1974 two police officers, PC's John Schofield and Ray Fullalove were on a night shift patrolling Caterham, Surrey in their car. They were later joined by their sergeant Jim Findlay. In the early hours of the morning, they saw a man walking down the road carrying a holdall. This was unusual and they stopped to speak to the man.

Without any warning, as Ray Fullalove, the front seat passenger got out of the car, he was shot in the stomach with a handgun by the man. The man then walked to the drivers side of the car and shot John Schofield as he was still sat in the driving seat. Jim Findlay got out of the rear of the car and was also shot. The man ran off persued by Jim Findlay but he escaped. John Schofield died of his wounds. The other two officers survived.

A week later Egon Von Bulow was arrested and charged with murder and attempted murder. He was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment in 1975 with a recommendation that he served at least 20 years.

Since 1975 Von Bulow has protested his innocence. He has never engaged in any rehabilitation while in prison. He has never shown any remorse for his crimes. His latest psychiatric assessment described him as suffering from a severe personality disorder.

Despite this, he is still being released from prison. Over the last few years he has been allowed out for periods of time to reside in Probation Hostels and to integrate him back into society. The proposal now is to release him permanently under licence.

There are those that believe that anyone who murders a police officer should die in gaol. Others would be willing to tolerate their release after 35 years if there was some reassurance that he was rehabilitated, expressed remorse and was no longer a threat to society.

I fail to see how a man who committed this cold blooded murder and attempted murders and is still suffering from severe personality disorder, is safe to be released and he should remain in custody. What are your views?

Murder of Gurmail Singh

This is the man who stood up to some of the feral yobs we have been discussing recently and got beaten to death for his trouble.

Anyone like to take a bet with me that when these yobs get caught (and they will very soon) they will be well known to Childrens Services, Youth Offending Team etc. who will have been 'working' with them and their families for some years.

If only they had been told no a few years ago, Mr Singh might still be alive.

Consequences

I have touched on this subject before and it links very much to the Edlington case and other similar cases.

I am convinced that the major factor in the breakdown of our society and recidivism rates in this country is the woolly liberals, (small l) who cannot seem to grasp the fact that poor behaviour MUST result in negative consequences. If you have not read the Winston Smith Blog, I commend it to you. The blog vividly portrays life in children’s services and young peoples care homes. This in one area where the liberals have been allowed to take over, unimpeded by the press and public opinion. Once you have read a few of Winston Smith’s accounts, ask yourself; is it any wonder that two thirds of children in the social care system are involved in drugs, have serious criminal records and nearly half of those end up in prison?

The liberals have almost taken over the education system and likewise we have a huge swathe of young people in various ineffective projects outside of school or in school dragging it down to the detriment of those that wish to learn. The present Government has great difficulty understanding the differences and the perceived inequalities of private and state education. We are constantly being told that it is unfair that some can pay to get a better education than others. The reason most people send their children to private school is to get them away from the poor influences that infest the state sector and lower the educational achievement of most pupils. Private schools do not tolerate poor behaviour and address it far more effectively than the state sector. The liberals have ensured that there are only ineffective consequences in the state sector and so this spiral continues.

The liberals have taken over a large section of law and order and the same applies here. The murderous James Moore received numerous Court Orders and I know from my own experience that he will have had lots of nice chats about his behaviour and how he needs to change. But not one of those chats would have said you must not do this or if you do something bad will happen. That would be far too oppressive and so his poor behaviour NEVER resulted in negative consequences and he went on to murder an innocent young boy.

I am a great believer in the Supernanny school of life. If you have ever watched one of those programmes you will have seen that there are badly behaved children and there are always reasons why. Usually it is because the parents are ineffective. There are often other factors involved that need to be addressed. The first thing that Supernanny does is set the rules. If the rules are broken there are negative consequences. The work to address parenting or other issues then starts but always, always, the rules are set first and if they are broken there are consequences.

I am not suggesting that children or offenders are flogged or imprisoned at the drop of a hat. I totally accept that work needs to take place to address the problems of the individual or family but this must always follow the negative consequences. If we ignore consequences we are wasting our time with the good work and reinforcing a society where people feel they can behave as they wish regardless of others.

We have got to win back this argument and ensure that the woolly liberals infesting education, children’s services, the Youth Offending Team and Probation are thrown out or re-educated. Their behaviour is also appalling and they need to understand that consequences exist and apply to them also. We are all guilty of allowing this to happen.

Thank God!

I wrote last month about that charlatan Ali Dizaei and hoped to God he would at last be seen for what he is. The trouble with jury's is, you never know which way they may go, especially when the likes of Michael Mansfield are throwing up smokescreens of epic proportions. I hope he was working on a no win, no fee basis.

I hope his conviction marks a turning point where there will be less use of the race card and spineless managers will grow a backbone and stand up to egotistical, bullying, incompetent thugs like Dizaei.

I am disappointed to hear that some of the Black Police Association are still maintaining that Dizaei was a victim of a race hate campaign. I am pleased to hear that others have acknowledged that he is a crook and disgrace to the BPA.

This is a good day for British justice. Make the most of it, it does not happen very often!

Does Civilianisation Really Save Money?

Althea Loderick.........................Mark Rowley

Mark Rowley, Chief Constable of Surrey has recently taken over as the ACPO Lead for Futures. This appears to be fitting as Surrey like to believe they lead the way with regard to innovation and changing the way we police this country. Together with Althea Loderick of the National Police Improvement Agency a report has been produced suggesting that police Forces throughout the country should reduce the number of officers by around 28,000 and replace these officers with cheaper police staff. Mr Rowley believes that all forces should aim for a 50/50 balance of police officers and police staff. Surrey has more police staff than police officers!

At the same time the Home Office have announced that they want to see a £70 million reduction in the police overtime bill. The police may have to face cuts as the public spending axe starts swinging, but is this a sensible way to do it?

Mark Rowley joined Surrey Police in 2000. Referring to Police Authority reports, at this time Surrey had 2100 police officers and 760 police staff. Looking at the latest Police Authority report Surrey has 1845 police officers and 2335 police staff. So, over the last ten years Surrey has lost 255 police officers and gained 1575 police staff. Now, I don't have a Cambridge degree like Mr Rowley, but my 'O' level maths tells me that 1575 police staff cost an awful lot more than 255 police officers.

Mr Rowley would undoubtedly point out that Surrey has invested in new police staff such as PCSO's, Contact Centre staff etc. Being very generous this is still less than 500 staff. So even allowing for this 255 police officers have been replaced by over 1000 police staff. Police staff cost around two thirds of a police officer not a quarter and so Mr Rowley's argument does not hold up. If all Forces follow the Surrey model spending will increase.

In my own Force I have seen police staff replace police officers for the last 25 years. Initially this is on a one for one basis. Invariably though, I have then seen the police staff doubled or even whole departments spring up with supervisors and deputy supervisors etc. doing the job one or two police officers used to do. Why is this? My own view is that most of the 'desk jobs' were carried out by the longer serving officers. They knew the job and organisation inside out, knew how everything worked and were incredibly efficient. A member of police staff was brought in, they didn't know the organisation or how to get things done. Nor were they prepared to fore go breaks and work on if required. Invariably they went under with the workload and more staff had to be put in.

Another factor that seems to have escaped this report is that some long serving police officers have picked up injuries, disabilities or illnesses and are unable to undertake fully operational duties. Placing them in key roles that help the organisation function has been beneficial to the efficient running of the Force. Many Forces, including my own have 'civilianised' all these roles. The average Force has about 8% of officers who cannot perform fully operational duties. Forces are now at a loss as to what they are going to do with these officers. This is a tragic waste and is costing Forces dearly. They must either employ these officers effectively or ill health retire them, which will be very expensive.

Finally, if you pare your police officers to the bone you have no resilience in the force. When a number of unexpected murders occur or you have to police a number of critical incidents such as the flooding and foot and mouth outbreak in 2007, where do you draw in your extra police officers from? There will be none left.

Regarding overtime, I am sure that with prudence and budgeting some overtime spending can be cut. What people need to realise though is that most overtime is spent on proactive policing. Reductions in overtime spending will see a reduction in performance.

My message to Mark Rowley and Althea Loderick is this. Our job is policing. The focus should be on police officers. It cannot be right that we need one member of staff for every police officer. This is like saying the National Health Service needs a member of support staff for every doctor and nurse. Try reducing your police staff and increasing your police officer numbers back to 2100 Mr Rowley. That is how you will save money and get more policing done.

Edlington has repeated itself.

James Moore Murderer ..................Joseph Lappin Victim

When I wrote the below article I was not aware of this story. Another feral yob subject of an ASBO and arrested dozens of times and put before the Courts. This murderous little bastard was repeatedly let off with warnings and ineffective supervision orders. It would appear that he was repeatedly treated with amazing leniency because he allegedly helped care for his brother who has cerebal palsy.

Do we really believe that this murdering piece of scum helped look after his brother? I cannot see how anyone with any such compassion can stick a knife in another human being.

Thanks to the total ineffectiveness of our courts a young man, who appears to be a completely decent and law abiding citizen, is dead.