Promoting Christianity is now a hate crime

What is wrong with the West Midlands Police? Just last month they had to pay out £100,000 over their handling of the Undercover Mosque fiasco, and now they are being taken to court by two Christian evangelists who were threatened with arrest for handing out leaflets in a Muslim area of Birmingham.

Arthur Cunningham and Joseph Abraham, both of whom are American, were talking to a group of young men in the Alum Rock Road area of the city when they were approached by a PCSO, who began questioning them about their beliefs. When he discovered their nationality, he, displaying the professionalism for which PCSOs are justly renowned, favoured them with a lengthy diatribe against George Bush, before telling them that as the area was a Muslim one, they were not allowed to preach Christianity there, that doing so constituted a "hate crime", and that if they did not desist they would be arrested. He also told them not to return to the area, saying, "you have been warned. If you come back here and get beaten up, well you have been warned".

As I've remarked before, it seems that incidents like this are happening on a weekly basis, if not more frequently. The West Midlands force has a particularly poor record, but officers from all police forces seem quite happy to use threats and intimidation in order to silence politically-incorrect views, and prevent politically-incorrect behaviour, a category within which promulgating Christian doctrine apparently now falls. I particularly note that, rather than make an effort to ensure that all people are safe to go anywhere in the country without getting beaten up, the PCSO in this case evidently feels that if Messrs Cunningham and Abraham were to get attacked, it would be their own fault, and no concern of his. No wonder dissatisfaction with the police is at record levels!

The PCSO's comments also indicate that, when Michael Nazir-Ali made his famous remarks about "no go areas", he was absolutely right. After all, the PCSO - who I rather suspect may have been a Muslim himself (update: he was) - made no bones about telling the men that if they preached Christianity in a Muslim area they were at risk of being assaulted. If that doesn't make an area a "no go area", then what does?

This, then, is Britain in 2008: a country in which Muslim preachers can incite murder with impunity, while Christian preachers are threatened with arrest for peacefully handing out leaflets; a country in which free speech is stifled to appease favoured minorities; a country in which certain areas become unsafe for non-Muslims, and our political and religious leaders turn a blind eye. And liberals still can't understand why we don't all embrace multiculturalism and "diversity"!

Hat-tip: Anon, in the comments

Post-Colonial Hegemonic Tyranny Defeated!

I am pleased to report that the reign of the white male chauvinist oppressor, PCSO Steve, is at an end. PCSO Steve, readers may recall, was the unspeakably evil (i.e. white and male), symbol of neo-Colonialist hegemony, used to, as one Metropolitan Police sergeant put it, "isolate" women and non-whites within the police force. To be precise, he was an oversized costume, similar to the mascots commonly used by football clubs, which could be worn by a real-life PCSO for visits to schools and public events. A big waste of money, perhaps, but otherwise apparently harmless.

But, since the costume depicted a white man with blond hair and blue eyes, certain people, such as the police sergeant quoted above, seized on the opportunity to raise the cries of "racism" and "sexism". And I am sure that those people will have been delighted to read in yesterday morning's newspapers, that PCSO Steve will now be joined by three new friends, including PCSO Sunita, an Asian woman. And all at a bargain £15,000! The Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Ian Blair, who one might think would have rather more important matters to worry about right now, said:

These characters will be more representative of London's population and the diverse range of police personnel. The choice of characters will allow the concept of a Safer Neighbourhoods team to be presented to young children as well as delivering an important message about the different roles of PCSOs and constables.

Because, of course, that just couldn't happen if you only had a white male mascot.

Meanwhile Islington-based PC Geoff Parker said:

One of the things that is damaging our job and our relations with the community is this constant overbearing political correctness. We seem to be taking the issue to the extreme, and pandering to every whim and gripe. We need to take a sensible approach to this and stop over-reacting.

What a bigot! It's such a shame, isn't it, that, eight years after the Macpherson Report, the Met Police still employs officers who possess such antediluvian views as this?

Dressing up as policemen

The trade union Unison has called for PCSOs to be entitled to wear a uniform virtually identical to those worn by real police officers. According to Unison, the new uniform, which will differ from that worn by real policemen only in the colour of the tie and epaulettes, will make PCSOs feel that they are "part of the police family", and will also increase the respect with which they are regarded by the general public.

As to the former point: well, PCSOs are, for better or worse, "part of the police family", by virtue of the fact that they are employed by the police force. No matter what uniform they wear, this fact will remain unaltered. However, I suspect that the real issue is that some PCSOs don't like being seen as not being "real policemen". Sadly for those that do feel this way, the fact is that PCSOs are not real policemen. They don't have full police powers or training, and it is simply misleading to pretend otherwise. To dress them in a uniform which most members of the public would be unable to distinguish from that worn by full police officers would simply serve to deceive the public as to the true level of street policing. PCSOs may have a role to play (although for the life of me I can't guess what it is), but they are not policemen, and we, the public, should be able to work this out at a glance.

Neither will giving PCSOs a uniform more akin to that worn by fully-trained officers in any way enhance the respect, or, perhaps more accurately, reduce the disrespect, with which they are regarded by the public at large. That lack of respect does not stem from the fact that PCSOs have a different uniform, but from the fact that they are generally (and largely justifiably) seen as being totally ineffectual. You could dress PCSOs up as Attila the Hun, but so long as they were under orders to run away when confronted with anyone threatening violence, they'd still be widely regarded with something approaching contempt.

Do you feel safe?

Another classic example of joined-up thinking, courtesy of police chiefs:

The controversy over Police Community Support Officers deepened last night with the emergence of a leaked memo that "makes a mockery" of their ability to fight crime.

The memo states that PCSOs - dubbed Blunkett's Bobbies after the home secretary who created them - are not allowed to tackle violent yobs.

They are also barred from responding to any serious incident where there is not a fully-trained police officer already present.

The risk assessment compiled by Lancashire Police even forbids the PCSOs to issue fines, detain people or confiscate alcohol if any violence is threatened.

Instead, they are instructed to call for back-up or withdraw if they face confrontation by a member of the public.

I would have thought that situations where violence appears possible or likely are precisely the ones which most require the presence of qualified police officers. If PCSOs are going to be unable to deal with such situations, then there really is very little purpose behind their continued employment. As the Police Federation's Steve Edwards told the Daily Mail, it is surely going to be a more efficient use of resources to hire 60 fully-trained officers, who actually can take action in such circumstances, than to hire 100 PCSOs, who can't.

Meanwhile:

Police community support officers are to have more powers to investigate crime in an attempt to relieve work pressures on front-line officers.

Now, to me, this sounds rather like telling nurses that they are no longer allowed to take patients' temperatures, and then letting them carry out open heart surgery. How, precisely, are PCSOs going to be able to investigate crime, when they have absolutely no powers with which to back up their investigations? What will they do if the person they are investigating starts getting angry? Run away crying, presumably.