Olivia
Online
Jim
@cjim11703
Joined March 2023
37 Following
19 Followers
337 Posts
The Deputy Commissioner Says Policing Has No Side. His Own Sentence Proves Otherwise.
Matt Jukes, deputy commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, wrote in the Guardian this week that policing is "not woke or anti-woke," not fighting a culture war, simply striving to be fair. He wrote it in response to a leadership commission report finding standards inconsistent across England and Wales. The claim of neutrality sits at the centre of his argument. One sentence in his own piece dismantles it.
Jukes writes that police leaders have "not been sure-footed enough to convince the public that we have upheld vital principles of impartiality and legitimacy, rigorously understanding the case for inclusion and acting when trust is damaged, without being drawn into responses that are confusing or look ideological." Read it slowly, because it doesn't say what it first appears to say. Jukes isn't admitting policing has struggled to stay impartial. He's admitting policing has struggled to persuade the public that its inclusion agenda counts as impartiality. In plain terms, they have failed to convince the public of something that isn't true. The first admission would mean the force has fallen short of a shared standard. The second means the force has already redefined the standard, and is waiting for everyone else to accept the new definition.
That sentence is not a slip. It is the same substitution visible in every document governing British policing since Henry Nowak died on a Southampton street, the Hampshire Race Action Plan, the NPCC's guidance, the CPS's own amended code.
But the clearest evidence of that substitution predates all of them. Peel's nine principles are still taught to every recruit, but the oath that gave them legal force is not the one Peel's officers swore. The Police Reform Act 2002 replaced "without favour or affection, malice or ill will" with "upholding fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all people." The principles remained on the wall. The words that bound officers to them changed underneath. Jukes writes "the case for inclusion" the way that new oath writes "equal respect," as the fixed point everything else must be measured against. He has not abandoned neutrality by accident. He has simply relocated what counts as neutral, and asks the public to catch up to the relocation rather than admitting one occurred.
The rest of the piece obscures that substitution rather than examines it. It leans on a real finding, "nepotism and bias" in leadership selection, and uses it as cover for a defence of an inclusion framework the commission was never asked to investigate. Cite a real failure. Attach the doctrine. Let the first carry the second past scrutiny.
The proposed remedy repeats a familiar pattern too. A "national academy of police leadership." Centralised training and promotion to replace today's patchwork. Alone, that sounds like sensible reform. Alongside a defence of "the case for inclusion" as beyond argument, it becomes the mechanism by which that doctrine gets built into how every future chief constable is trained and promoted, regardless of what any force or community actually wants.
Jukes ends by insisting policing must "remain firmly focused on the public we serve," echoing Peel's seventh principle, the police are the public and the public are the police. But Peel drew no distinction between which part of the public deserved that focus, and Jukes's sentence already has. Policing did not drift from Peel by accident, through decades of good intentions gone astray. It was walked away from deliberately, replaced with a framework that keeps the old language, public trust, impartiality, legitimacy, while emptying each word of its meaning. Jukes's article is not evidence policing resisted that walk. It is evidence the walk is nearly complete, since even the officer denying it happened can no longer describe fairness without reaching for the doctrine that replaced it.
Matt Jukes
@SophieP25397 What definition of "poverty line" are you using?
The one used in India? - thought not.
What was it, specifically, in 1979? And what was it in 1990?
Did it include having:
A colour television?
A computer?
A roof over their head?
3 meals a day?
If you move the goalposts, no comp!
@supertanskiii Women voting for the import of more rapists is a problem. Seems self defeating to me.
As to the femi-commie's holler that men are oppressing them, well - meh! Good luck in your sixties & seventies, that'll be when cats are their best friends.
@soigomaa Expectations for the behaviour of guests are always high. Badly behaved guests are asked to leave and never invited back.
@Moazzam_Begg The ones living in the Gulf have private healthcare and private housing, etc. Not conflatable.
The Brits in Spain: are any in social housing, or are they all in privately owned properties? Does the Spanish Government provide "free" translation services? or do they do this private
12 immigrants brought 180 dependants
And someone in the home office stamped that
People need to go to jail
“It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre” is how Enoch Powell described immigration policy back in 1968. It was a prophetic warning of things to come, at a time when immigration was a mere fraction of what it is now.
British politicians ignored his warning back then, they have been ignoring it during the intervening 58 years and they are still ignoring it now. The funeral pyre he spoke of is now nearing completion.
We are told that in a country of 70 million, the demographic is 81% white. I have to say that neither of those figures ring true. UK border control is practically non-existent and by its own admission the Government doesn't know exactly how many people are in the UK. Whilst in our major cities and towns including the big three London, Manchester and Birmingham, white people are now in a minority. Those figures may have been true a few years ago and government figures are apt to be drawn from old data to be presented as present but they are undoubtedly not true of today.
This is not a problem that can be left to develop and fixed at some point in the future, this is an existential threat that once realised will never be able to be rolled back on because once non-whites gain the majority they will start electing their own people and using government to gain advantage based on racial grounds.
You don’t have to take my word for it, just look around at how DEI has been used against the white majority, look at our two tier justice system, look at how ethnic migrants are placed ahead of our own people for housing and all this is being done by our own treacherous politicians. Just think how much worse it would be with politicians drawn from communities who already use race to gain unfair advantage.
But it gets worse because the biggest most influential non-white group is the Muslims and this group not only seeks to gain advantage but has as an article of its faith, the subjugation of non-Muslims. In other parts of the world where Islam has gained the ascendancy the methods of subjugation have been truly barbaric.
They use rape and torture, they lock people in buildings and set them alight, the make people dig their own graves and bury them alive and this happens with the full knowledge and cooperation of their politicians, police and military.
You may say to me, this cannot happen here, not in the civilised western world. My reply to you would be, it is already happening.
The criminals now flooding in across the Channel are not merely coming for the benefits, they are coming for the rape, perversion and brutality and you can already see it happening with the rape epidemic currently happening within our country. 30 years ago you would have said to me that the systematic rape, torture and murder of thousands of white children by Pakistani men could not happen here in the civilised west. Well it’s happened and all those other barbaric things can also happen here because bit by bit we are being led away from western civilization.
The funeral pyre is all but built, it is now imperative that we do not allow it to be finished and ignited, for if we do, then it is our funeral and no one comes back from the dead, not in this world.
@puert50160 @NormanBrennan Senior Police Officers cadre started being truly political appointees when?
When did the DEI crap (the source of the 2-tier sense) get ahold of policing?
Which specific legislative / structural governance/appointment changes need revamped?
Are we looking 1992 onwards?
@SadButMadLad @NormanBrennan Posts I've seen from former coppers would tend to support this. If they queried the central messaging (as a good copper would) off to the DEI retraining gulag they were sent. Hours of their time wasted on Politically Correct wrongthink over-write training.
The self respecting go.
@NormanBrennan If the police desisted from arresting people for mere insulting "posts" on social media, or any without first having investigated the "ananonymous till trial" complainant's credibility (ie. is the complaint a lefty activist/religio type?), they're not on our side! DEI is problem.
🚨ohhhh FFS ?…just 12 illegal migrant Cameroonians claimed asylum & then successfully applied for 180 FAMILY MEMBERS to join them
And 257 Ghanaian health workers brought 2,131 "dependants" to the UK in the same 12 months.
It doesn’t matter what you vote for. Can you see?
@RJGreen417 @PhilSanchezTV If your hope becomes reality, then I humbly submit the TV deals will unravel. The WNBA wage increase will vanish, or the league will be bankrupt. The players will revert to flying commercial and staying in budget Motels, with overseas in the off season.
Beware what you wish for.
@DBGyt_ This post is the Isolation phase.
https://t.co/VVeqIttOZI
The Caitlin Clark Isolation Phase Has Begun
We told you to watch it before tipoff.
Not after the game.
Not after the Fever beat the Sparks by 24.
Not after the box score looked clean.
Not after the broadcast had time to polish the story.
Before.
We said the Indiana Fever’s first game without Caitlin Clark was not just a basketball game.
It was a Caitlin Clark narrative test.
And now we are here.
The Fever won 111-87. The offense looked smooth. The whistle looked friendlier. The free throws tilted Indiana’s way. The guards were allowed to play. The rotations looked cleaner. The coach looked more comfortable. The broadcast had a pretty box score. The media got exactly what it needed.
One clean night without Caitlin Clark.
Now watch what happens next.
Because this was never going to end with one game.
This is the beginning of the next phase.
The Caitlin Clark isolation phase.
That does not mean everyone is sitting in a room plotting every word. That is not the point.
The point is that the incentives all lined up perfectly.
The WNBA needed the controversy around Caitlin to cool down.
The Fever needed to look functional.
Stephanie White needed a cleaner night.
The media needed a way to discuss Indiana without admitting how badly the league has mishandled Caitlin Clark.
And the Caitlin skeptics needed one game they could use to softly suggest what they have wanted to say all along:
Maybe the Fever are calmer without her.
Maybe the ball moves better without her.
Maybe the team is happier without her.
Maybe the coach can breathe without her.
Maybe Caitlin Clark is not the solution.
Maybe she is the problem.
They will not say it that plainly.
They are too careful for that.
But listen to the language.
“They looked balanced.”
“They looked connected.”
“They played freer.”
“They trusted each other.”
“Stephanie White had them settled.”
“Tyasha Harris gave them poise.”
“The Fever showed they are more than Caitlin Clark.”
On the surface, all of that sounds harmless.
It is not.
That is how a narrative is built.
Not with one giant lie.
With a hundred little suggestions.
And last night gave them the perfect foundation.
Tyasha Harris started in Caitlin’s place and played well. Good for her. She deserves credit for being ready. She scored, she handled the moment, and she helped Indiana win.
But the way the moment is being framed matters.
After the game, Coach White’s tone around Harris was warm, proud, and trust-based. She talked about trusting her. She praised her readiness. She let the room celebrate her. The energy was relaxed, affirming, and emotionally open.
Again, that is fine.
Coaches should praise players who step up.
But Caitlin Clark fans are not crazy for noticing the contrast.
Because when Caitlin is discussed, the public tone too often feels different.
More correction.
More management.
More talk about what she needs to clean up.
More focus on control, decisions, pace, turnovers, emotions, learning, and maturity.
With Tyasha, the frame was simple:
We trusted you.
You were ready.
You delivered.
That is not a small difference.
Especially in this moment.
Because Caitlin Clark is not just out with an injury. She is out after one of the ugliest stretches of league failure we have seen around a star player.
She took dangerous contact to the throat area.
No foul was called live.
The league reviewed it after the fact, called it reckless, called it a non-basketball act, upgraded it to a Flagrant 2, and handed down one game and a $1,000 fine.
One game.
Then players defended the physicality.
Media voices minimized the outrage.
The commissioner said far too little.
The Phoenix Mercury posted a nasty graphic and deleted it after the backlash.
And Caitlin Clark, the player who has carried so much of the league’s growth, was left looking more isolated than protected.
That is the part people do not want to say out loud.
Caitlin looks like she is on an island.
Where is the loud, public support from the league?
Where is the clear line from the commissioner?
Where is the full-throated defense from the organization?
Where are the teammates saying enough is enough?
Sophie Cunningham has been one of the few willing to make it obvious.
Everyone else seems careful.
Quiet.
Managed.
Or missing.
And now, after all of that, Caitlin sits out and the Fever suddenly get the perfect “we are fine without her” game.
That is why this week matters.
Because this is going to get ugly.
The Caitlin Clark bashing session has already started online. It will get louder. The next few days will be filled with speculation about her injury, her future, her attitude, her fit, her coachability, her fans, and whether the Fever are secretly better when she is not on the floor.
They will pretend to care about her health while using her absence to build a case against her value.
They will say the team looks less chaotic.
They will say the vibes are better.
They will say the offense has more flow.
They will say Coach White can finally coach without everything being about Caitlin.
They will say Harris gave the Fever a steadier presence.
They will praise the locker-room energy.
They will frame the win as proof of growth.
And eventually, someone will get brave enough to say what the whole narrative has been nudging toward:
Maybe Caitlin Clark is too much.
Too much attention.
Too much pressure.
Too many fans.
Too much drama.
Too hard to coach.
Too big for the league.
No.
That is backwards.
Caitlin Clark did not make this league smaller.
She exposed how small it still is.
A serious league would have protected its star early.
A serious league would have controlled the physicality before it became a weekly debate.
A serious league would have demanded better officiating.
A serious organization would have built a stronger public wall around its franchise player.
A serious coach would understand that managing Caitlin Clark is not the same thing as empowering her.
And serious media would not use one clean game without her to pretend the last several weeks did not happen.
That is the danger now.
Not that Tyasha Harris played well.
Not that the Fever won.
Not that Stephanie White praised a player who deserved praise.
The danger is that all of it now becomes part of a larger effort to emotionally frame the Fever without Caitlin.
The game was not just played without her.
It was emotionally framed without her.
That is the line people need to understand.
The Fever did not just win a basketball game.
They got a version of the game Caitlin Clark rarely gets.
A friendlier whistle.
More breathing room.
Cleaner rotations.
Less defensive obsession.
A coach who looked relaxed.
A media environment ready to praise the calm.
And now the league gets to pretend that difference is about Caitlin’s absence, not the way everything around Caitlin changes when she is present.
That is the trick.
When Caitlin plays, she gets the pressure, the contact, the scrutiny, the weird whistle, the strange rotations, the lectures, the criticism, and the blame.
When she sits, everyone else gets space, praise, rhythm, and benefit of the doubt.
Then people compare the two environments and act like they are comparing the same thing.
They are not.
That is why our prediction matters.
We are not saying we know who planned what.
We are saying we told you exactly what to watch before tipoff, and the game unfolded almost perfectly along those pressure points.
The whistle changed.
The free throws changed.
The offensive rhythm changed.
The coaching optics changed.
The guard treatment changed.
The postgame tone changed.
The narrative door opened.
And now, the next phase begins.
This week will not be about basketball as much as it should be.
It will be about Caitlin Clark’s place in the league.
Her injury.
Her future.
Her attitude.
Her fanbase.
Her relationship with Stephanie White.
Her value to the Fever.
Her value to the WNBA.
Her willingness to keep absorbing a league culture that has taken everything she brought and still seems uncomfortable defending her.
And for the first time, I am not sure there is a clean path forward.
I used to believe the basketball people would eventually rise up.
The purists.
The coaches.
The former players who know what a generational guard looks like.
The analysts who understand spacing, gravity, pace, passing, shot creation, and the way one player can change the entire geometry of a floor.
I thought they would defend the game.
I thought they would defend the star who made more people care about it.
I thought they would eventually say enough.
But after the last several weeks, I am not so sure.
Because when Caitlin Clark was hit in the throat area, too many people looked for a way to minimize it.
When the league handed down a weak punishment, too many people shrugged.
When the Fever won without her, too many people immediately saw an opening.
And when Coach White praised the replacement guard with warmth and trust, it felt less like a normal locker-room moment and more like another piece of a larger emotional shift.
Maybe that is unfair.
Maybe it is all coincidence.
Maybe everyone is just doing their job.
Maybe Caitlin will return, the Fever will rally around her, the coach will empower her, the league will protect her, the officials will clean it up, and the media will stop pretending her greatness is an inconvenience.
Maybe.
But I would not bet on it.
Because the writing is starting to look pretty clear.
The next week is going to be brutal.
The Caitlin Clark era in the WNBA may not be ending tomorrow.
But the attempt to redefine it has already begun.
And if the people around her do not start defending her with the urgency this moment requires, then the question will no longer be whether Caitlin Clark can survive the WNBA.
The question will be whether she should keep trying.
We called the narrative test before the game was played.
Now we are calling the next phase before it gets fully underway.
The Caitlin Clark isolation phase has begun.
And everyone who cares about the future of women’s basketball should be paying attention.
This one journalist has done more for the BBC than anyone.
My entire highstreet, which until lockdown, was all greengrocers, pasty shops, little independent boutiques and bakeries is now entirely Turkish barbers, vape shops, sweet shops, mobile phone shops, kebab shops and international shops. 6 years. My beautiful little Cornish town is now like a totally different country.
@JChimirie66677 Thank you for this well reasoned reply. I'll simply note that it is in keeping with the thoughtful tenor of your posts. I'm not sure if he'll see it, would you mind if I copied it into the relevant thread? I think it helps the conversation he's seeking to commence.
@timwork16 @basedandbougie It is creepy, certainly. It is deception, and thus informed consent is absent, also true. That's not rape. Misrepresentation, a civil fraud, yes. Quite what it is in terms of criminal law, I'm not sure.
@MirabelTweets1 He's in jail for 13 year sentence. What's there to riot about? The system seems to have worked in this instance.
When they perpetrator is given only 2 years and released back into a non condemning community after serving only 1, then there is a problem!
@DavidVance How much ever gets to the "nominal" cause? Lots of skim taken no doubt.
Last Seen Users on Sotwe
Trends for you
Most Popular Users
Elon Musk 
@elonmusk
240.8M followers
Barack Obama
@barackobama
119.2M followers
Donald J. Trump
@realdonaldtrump
111.7M followers
Cristiano Ronaldo
@cristiano
111.1M followers
Narendra Modi
@narendramodi
107M followers
Rihanna
@rihanna
97.8M followers
NASA
@nasa
92.2M followers
Justin Bieber
@justinbieber
91M followers
KATY PERRY
@katyperry
87.9M followers
Taylor Swift
@taylorswift13
81.8M followers
Lady Gaga
@ladygaga
73.3M followers
Virat Kohli
@imvkohli
70.3M followers
Kim Kardashian
@kimkardashian
69.9M followers
YouTube
@youtube
68.7M followers
Bill Gates
@billgates
64M followers
Neymar Jr
@neymarjr
63.1M followers
The Ellen Show
@theellenshow
62.4M followers
CNN
@cnn
61.9M followers
Selena Gomez
@selenagomez
61M followers
X
@x
60.8M followers
✨
⭐
💫