Who polices the police???

Who indeed.* Nobody in their right mind would expect Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary's review of the G20 policing - ordered by Paul Stephenson - to uncover anything resembling the truth. Heck, they've already attempted a cover up. But at least we can look forward to some of those 'bad' police taking early retirement as justice is corrupted and perverted in the manner we're accustomed to. I'm already looking forward to David Peace's novel on these unfurling and underhand events 30 years from now.

What the papers say...

*Bystanders with mobile phones and cameras. Surely a ban on the use of these devices is imminent?

Talkin' bloggin'...

Perhaps I should go through every entry and delete the expletives - tomorrow morning (at around 11.10am) I appear on Radio Humberside to talk about blogging and, who knows, maybe some of the nice listeners will come along and pay the blog a visit.

The taking of photographs and videography by the public in Hull's wind tunnel-cum-shopping mall St Stephen's has been banned on the advice of Humberside Police, on the grounds that such happy snapping could all pose a terrorist threat. You'd think that terrorists might work in a slightly more sophisticated manner than whipping out their low-res Motorolas, maybe choosing instead to look at widely available plans and elevations such as these or the ridiculous amount of images that have already been taken before planning their bombing campaigns. Apparently, photography will be allowed if the photographer in question has 'legitimate reasons'. Ask yourself "why do you take photographs?" and I'll bet the answers you come up with, for the most part, sound a bit silly and not in the least 'legitimate'. Yes, St Stephen's is private property and they can do whatever they want, but life just gets dafter, eh?

Reading: Yukio Mishima - Spring Snow

Missing presumed buried under a mound of media attention...

Am I wrong not to be getting heated under the collar about Canoe Man and his wife? If I were to take the police-orchestrated media coverage to heart, I should surely despise John and Anne Darwin, shouldn’t I? They have deceived people, they have defrauded, they have driven up insurance premiums. Why, then, am I feeling a tendency to side with the Darwins? Why do I wish them good luck? Why do I hope, against hope, that if it comes to the crunch, they get a fair trial?

Does the crime fit the media attention? I think not. There’s been something odd about this whole circus since the day John turned up and Anne withdrew a bit more coin from her under-scrutiny bulging Panamanian account. There are, are there not, ‘good’ crimes and ‘bad’ crimes? A bit of fraud never hurt anyone, did it? These people aren’t rapists, child murderers or gangsters. Yet they’re being portrayed as a 21^st century money-molesting version of Fred & Rose West (A Daily Mail report revealed that Darwin paved a concrete floor to muffle the creakings of the floorboards in the couple’s family home).

There are no greater criminals in the world than the insurance companies and mortgage lenders that want the Darwins hung, drawn and quartered for their need to get by in life by taking the extreme step of “doing a Reggie Perrin”. The insurance company and mortgage lender would sooner John had kept going through the motions of living his dull old fucking teacher’s life paying those regular instalments until the policy had reached its full term and they’d made a mint out of this couple. When the boot’s on the other foot, they don’t appreciate the big rip-off, do they? Yet my own experience of the insurance industry and financial sector would suggest that there’s only one bunch of serious, good for nuthin’ robbing bastards at work out there, and it ain’t Anne and John.

I jump the gun, though, don’t I? The Darwin’s have only been charged, not convicted. Although it’s impossible to see this through the treacle of media attention and the onslaught of self-righteous reporting by people who wish they’d had the guts to rip a corporation off for £162,000 (some of it, sadly, fuelled by Anne herself, but I think we can excuse her for not quite thinking straight, can’t we?). There doesn’t appear to be any concern that all of these splashes and repeated allegations and insights into the dull as ditchwater lives of the Darwins are, well, a tad prejudicial.

And the poor blighters can’t get bail. What, scared they’ll get through passport control using fraudulent documents, are you? The only danger these two pose is to themselves.

Fuck me, my levels of debt are heading towards the amount that these two didn’t, allegedly, get away with. And, hey, I can’t service the debts, so maybe I’ll end up ‘disappearing’. Is that the great fear, as consumerism and capitalism spiral towards an inevitable collapse, that we’ll all end up saying “fuck you” to those in control of the purse strings and try and snatch a few bob back? Is that why this couple of dullards are being made an example of? For heaven’s sake, Hitler’s had an easier ride over the last 62 years. When will it end? When they’ve actually gone and killed themselves? And then what? Will the insurance co just claw back their money? Of course they will. And watch for the “this policy does not cover canoeing in the North Sea” caveat appearing amid the many other clauses in the small print.

*I’ve not really thought any of this through. It may not make sense.

Tags: Darwin, fraud, Canoe Man, media, police