I walked past the headquarters of the Metropolitan Police Service in Victoria Street yesterday and saw giant banners telling citizens not to call the emergency services number 999. The advice was that “unless a crime is being committed or a person is in immediate danger” one should call the local police station.
If I understand this notice correctly, if I should observe a murder being committed in the street outside my window, and I am quite sure the victim is dead (e.g. by being decapitated with a machete), and the murderer flees the scene of the crime, then I must not call the emergency services or risk being arrested for wasting valuable police time. Instead I should attempt to contact my local police station which is normally either shut, or the fearless crimefighters are hiding in back offices compiling hate crime statistics. As the typical response time for calling my local police station is never (at least on the three occasions in the past five years that I tried that route), this means that the police don’t want forensic evidence, and the corpse is presumably a problem for the road sweepers.
With the abolition of the right to silence, police licence to shoot people in the street for no good reason, and the removal of double jeopardy, there doesn’t seem to be much point in wasting time on detective work to actually try to find out who is really committing a crime.
Meanwhile hate crimes have their own hotline. This is useful. I’ve been bored with the usual tiresome ethnic jokes for some time. The fact that one can be arrested for telling a joke which someone finds offensive on the grounds of race, gender, and sexuality will obviously make London a safer place to live.
If the right to self-defense is out the window, with the right to trial by jury right behind it, one is really at the mercy of the “socially friendly elements.” That said, My opinion is that you could still use the police emergency number in your hypothetical. An act of felony includes the escape therefrom. Ergo, the crime is still being committed. Now here in the Uttermost West most jurisdictions allow a private citizen to use deadly force to defend himself, or another, from death or serious bodily injury at the hands of an unlawul attacker, so one who has not given up his right to keep and bear arms might be able to to more than merely ring up the police.
I walk past those every day I go to work. The ludicrous recruitment posters next to them are the most irritating. Once I’m on the circle line there are more posters from the British Transport Police depicting people chatting on their mobiles. The slogan is something like, ‘Hidden is Safer’, i.e. don’t use your mobile phone ’cause somebody might mug you. This may be good advice, but it would be clearer if it simply said:
‘The Metropolitan Police: We Can’t Protect You’
Brian Barger, an editor of the Washington Post, recently had a run-in with crime and called the police in Washington, DC. While DC doesn’t tell you not to call 911 at all, they might as well have in this case. It’s an interesting read.
The Washington Post article.
My [shameless self-plug] brief comment on it.
i live in the uk and a few years ago witnessed some youths setting fire to an old foundry opposite my house. as i am only a mile from the local police station i rang the local station on the local number. the policeman that answered the phone said “why are you ringing me? shouldn’t you ring the fire brigade?” upon telling him that i thought that arson was still a crime he replied “what do you want me to do about it? i am 20 miles away?” it seems that all the local numbers for local cop shops are diverted to a central call centre.
the arsonists got away.
if you see a crime happening it is easiest and best to ignore it. you are not allowed to protect yourself and the police are reluctant to act. save yourself the hassle.
Very interesting post