The traditional British bobby used to be a great source of quiet national pride: a country so peaceable and safe that all it needed to keep law and order were a few policemen armed with nothing but a truncheon, an avuncular demeanour and helmets like elongated tits on their head.
Not any more though. Especially not after the quite outrageous, ludicrous and nationally shaming incident this week in which British police actually investigated a journalist for “misgendering” a transsexual.
Misgendering is a word that barely deserves to be in the vocabulary, let alone on a police list of potentially criminal offences. It means using the wrong pronoun to refer to someone who has had a sex change. So, for example, if I decide to get the chop and call myself Jane Delingpole in order to enjoy the myriad advantages conferred these days on anyone claiming to be a member of the sisterhood, you’ll have to refer to me using the pronoun “she” – or you’ll face the full force of the law.
The mind boggles at how incredibly petty minded you’d have to be to report someone to the police for using an incorrect pronoun.
But the far bigger villains of this piece are the police themselves, in this case Surrey Police – allegedly acting on a complaint from Susie Green, mother of someone who used to be a boy called Jack but is now a girl called Jackie. It seems that Mrs Green may have been upset at something said by journalist Caroline Farrow.
That awful wailing noise you can hear, by the way, isn’t Susie or Jackie whining for attention. Rather it’s the ghostly shade of Sir Robert Peel lamenting from the grave the terrible and humiliating decline of the police force he founded in the 1820s. “Bobbies” – as they used affectionately to be known, but aren’t these days because the affection is all gone – are nicknamed after the diminutive of his Christian name.
Peel’s nine principles of policing established the key concept of “policing with consent.” That is, in order to have legitimacy in the eyes of the public, it is vital that the public approves the police’s existence, actions and behaviour.
So let’s have a guess now, shall we: how many people, apart from Susie Green, and a few ex-blokes in dresses think it’s a good use of police time to threaten members of the public for using the incorrect pronoun on someone who has had a sex change?
I’d guess, rounded to the nearest integer, that the figure is probably 0 per cent of the British population.
It goes without saying that the transgender lobby has got out of hand. But that’s the subject for another piece. (Several actually).
I just think we need to focus on this occasion on just how shamingly misguided and PC the British police has become, at least at the level of the senior officers making these stupid decisions (which I gather the rank and file find very embarrassing).
No doubt the furore surrounding this incident will prompt some hasty backtracking from the relevant idiots. Surrey police’s official line is that they have merely called Caroline Farrow in for a “voluntary interview.”
The force confirmed yesterday that it received an allegation over tweets by Miss Farrow on October 15.
A spokesman said: ‘A thorough investigation is being carried out to establish whether any criminal offences have taken place.
‘A 44-year-old woman has been asked to attend a voluntary interview in relation to the allegation as part of our ongoing investigation.
‘We have been made aware that a number of allegations have since been made on Twitter and we will be making contact with the person concerned in relation to these posts.’
And if Farrow refuses to go in for that “voluntary interview”, what then?
And, damn it, what in any case are they doing inviting her in for that “voluntary interview” in the first place?
What about all those “cuts” which the police so often claim mean they are unable to pursue “minor” crimes?
After all, as the Mail reports:
The tweet case was pursued by Surrey Police, whose former Chief Constable Lynne Owens said in 2015 that as a result of £25million in cuts and the loss of 250 officers, minor crimes would be ignored in favour of investigation of offences against vulnerable people.
In order to defend our civilisation and values, before it’s too late, we need to start taking a much more robust line on the low-grade attention seekers who have found that merely by undergoing reassignment surgery (or sometimes not even that) they can get themselves on TV an awful lot and start dictating government policy.
Julia Hartley-Brewer shows us the way with this magnificent condescension towards some person called “India Willoughby”:
Problem is, so long as the police continue to embrace the cultural Marxist agenda of “identity politics”, we’re going to do so at constant risk of investigation or even arrest.
It would be nice to hear from strong words of condemnation for this nonsense from the government. But since it’s currently led by a woman who was formerly Home Secretary – and on whose watch a lot of this PC nonsense became embedded in the justice system – I don’t suppose we should be holding our breath.
COMMENTS
Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.