one of these days, i’m going to stop this thing where i bring up some old story from 2011 or so and treat it like current news people still care about. however, when i say “one of these days,” i don’t mean this week, because i am relying on at least one of those kinds of stories for a good portion of this week’s update. so it goes!
see, if you ask me, it’s the suspicious hats and gang-colored jackets that make them look like burglars
frankly, there isn’t really much way to put a positive spin on that title… so we’re just going to have to go right into making fun of British people:
“The junior officer, who has not been named, was monitoring an area hit by a series of burglaries in an unnamed market town in the country’s south. As the probationary officer from Sussex Police searched for suspects, the camera operator radioed that he had seen someone “acting suspiciously” in the area. But he failed to realise that it was actually the plain-clothed officer he was watching on the screen, according to details leaked to an industry magazine.”
but don’t worry, disarmed Britons: this is the crack force of men keeping you safe from British crime, which i largely believe to be composed of comical gangsters with fun accents and hooligans out knocking over dustbins in Shaftesbury. on the off-chance it’s not, i suppose you ought to be concerned. but alright, let’s get serious here: why did they not recognize the officer? or failing that, why did they not at least mention the DESCRIPTION of the suspect to the officer, so that he might recognize himself?
“The operator directed the officer, who was on foot patrol, as he followed the “suspect” on camera last month, telling his colleague on the ground that he was “hot on his heels”. The officer spent around 20 minutes giving chase before a sergeant came into the CCTV control room, recognised the “suspect” and laughed hysterically at the mistake.”
these things always work out best when the result is some salty old guy (and it’s always a sergeant or some similar “salty old guy” rank) laughing uproariously at the general foolishness of youth. if it was me, i might have been willing to to step it up a notch:
officer janklow: hey, what are you doing in here? (recognizes undercover officer) wait, he is following someone?
junior officer: yeah, see that guy acting suspiciously? i’m trying to lead our man on the ground to him!
officer janklow: wait… judging by the shadows, i bet he’s right behind our colleague! tell him to spin around as fast as he can and start shooting his gun as fast as possible!
this is probably why a) i am not a police officer in Britain and b) British cops don’t always carry guns. both of these things are really for the best, you see.
“The details of the operation blunder were leaked to Police magazine, which is published by the Police Federation, this week by a senior officer who witnessed the embarrassing incident. Sussex police were unable to provide further details of the incident, the officers involved or where it occurred.”
i think the word you’re looking for there is not unable, but “unwilling,” because i suspect Sussex police would be denying the story outright if there was no truth to it. maybe i’m wrong and/or desperate to mock British people on the internet, but that’s how i feel about it.
“The anonymous officer, believed to be the PC’s sergeant-“
WHO WOULD HAVE SUSPECTED
“-told the monthly magazine: “An officer who joined a team in Sussex as a new probationary officer was soon very keen to do any plain-clothes operations and be as proactive as possible. … On one such occasion in a little market town in Sussex which has suffered a spate of town centre shop break-ins, officers were on plain-clothed foot patrol when a report was received of a suspect male in one of the side roads. The CCTV operator soon had the suspect on camera and everywhere he saw the male the keen PC was on his heels â€“ radioing in to say he was in the same street … Every time the man darted in to another side alleyway, the PC was turning immediately into the same alleyway, but every time the CCTV operator asked what he could see there was no trace.””
so again, i understand the excitable of the young officer, and i understand the disconnect between what the scene looks like and what the video looks like … but doesn’t this depiction sound like a situation where after two or three alleyways, the officer on the scene should realize SOMETHING was going incredibly wrong with the hunt for crime? you’re rushing into street after street without catching the guy you’re RIGHT on top of? although i am now having a flashback to that article about “barring high IQs for cops”…
“On Tuesday night a spokesman for the force, which has about 3000 officers, could not provide any further details on the operation due to a lack of information. He added: “Policing is often a serious business, so we all enjoy moments of light relief.”
“he went on to add that “usually, we get our relief from beating suspects unmercifully, but in this case-” before being cut off by several officers who realized that, while beating an unarmed suspect is incredible fun, you’re still not supposed to talk about it in front of the media.” that said, i am glad the officers got their moments of light relief; hopefully it didn’t result it too many burglaries.
yes, we also keep it classy down in Tennessee
now, look, i am often counseling people not to take the internet so seriously. yes, yes, i know: it is the home of 100% SERIOUS BUSINESS. this, however, does not mean that you have to take your hurt feelings –or whatever other emotions the internet engenders in you, as i know people also use it for things like “watching ladies have sex with animals”– and take them off the internet with you. here we present a cautionary tale:
“A father who was upset after a Tennessee couple-“
oh, and did you think this was going to be another Kentucky story? i totally did. you know i love those things!
“-deleted his adult daughter as a friend on Facebook has been charged in the shooting deaths of the couple, authorities said Wednesday.”
you know, i’m trying to think of a way to sarcastically justify this… and i just can’t do it. they unfriended you… so you teach them this was a mistake by shooting them? if i was shot for such a reason, my dying words would be “this… totally justifies… removing you as an internet friend.”
“The victims had complained to police that Marvin’s Potter’s daughter was harassing them after they deleted her as a friend on the social networking site, Johnson County Sheriff Mike Reece said Wednesday.”
now, in fairness, i think i can see why the police did nothing about this: it’s completely fucking ridiculous to kill someone for such a reason. can you imagine someone coming into your office and, with a straight face, telling you that they’re being harassed because they unfriended someone on Facebook?
random sad civilian: yeah, we’re being harassed by this woman we know! she’s crazy!
officer janklow: okay, let me get out my serious police typewriter. so what’s the history between you guys?
random sad civilian: well, she’s furious with us because we deleted her as a friend on a social networking site!
officer janklow: …alright, get the fuck out of my office.
“Potter, 60, has been charged with two counts of first-degree murder in last week’s slayings of Billy Payne Jr. and his girlfriend, Billie Jean Hayworth. The couple was shot to death in their Mountain City home in the far northeast corner of the state. Their 8-month-old baby was found unharmed in Hayworth’s arms. “It’s a senseless thing,” the sheriff said.”
we won’t touch on the part where the girlfriend was shot WHILE HOLDING THE BABY because while i would hope that someone would think twice before shooting someone who was currently holding a baby… i would also hope people wouldn’t get shot for unfriending people on Facebook. so i think it’s fairly clear that scientists developed the internet in the 1960s (with help from Al Gore, of course) for the express purpose of crushing my hopes.
“Authorities have been involved other cases where Potter’s daughter, Jenelle Potter, believed she had been slighted by someone.”
okay, remember that part where i could understand why the police didn’t take this seriously? NEVER MIND. especially because i imagine this is not the first time it’s been for a nonsense reason. frankly, police officers, this is the reason you demand sweeping powers and access to all sorts of information: to prevent criminals who you expect to re-offend from said re-offending. well, it’s not really the REASON for said powers and access, but it’s what you guys told me.
finally, let me close out the week (or blatantly fill space, whatever), with a little gloating:
there’s a solid chance my sibling is going to punch my kidneys when she sees this part of the weekly update
like the Kim Jong-Il story, this is ancient news at this point, but i imagine not many people really care very much? reopening horse slaughterhouses? what does this mean?
“Horses can now legally be butchered for human consumption in the U.S. after Congress lifted a ban on funding horse processing inspections this month.”
or, in other words, finally i can have my revenge on those long-faced, metal-footed bastards who have been pushing me around for years! although i have to admit, it has been a very long time since a horse was actively giving me static. but i can hold a grudge!
“The likelihood of Americans dining on horses, however is slight since there is no culture of eating horse meat in this country, they are revered as pets and many states have strict controls on horse meat. California and Illinois have laws banning the consumption of horse meat.”
awww, man… also, i note that it is completely unsurprising that California and Illinois are among the champions of anti-horse-eating lameness. revered as pets? i mean, i know ladies think horses are great, but it’s not like a dog or a cat. there’s a sincerely higher level of care (and money) required.
“Animal welfare advocates pushed for the ban when it passed five years ago, but horse industry advocates and the Government Accountability Office say the ban had a slew of unintended consequences: More horses were left abandoned when owners could no longer afford to keep them or use them for work; owners who wanted to sell their horses for slaughter were forced to have them shipped to Canada or Mexico, where slaughtering is legal; and horse prices became depressed in the United States, according to a report released by the GOA in June.”
further evidence that Canada is awesome! i’m not entirely sure why horse prices were depressed, though, because you’d think that the ones keep the prices high would be high-end, well-bred animals not directly competing with the kind of horses you’d typically eat.
“The last horse slaughterhouse in America closed in 2007 in Illinois-“
which, after what i just read, is ironic.
“-just months before the economic recession hit the country, according to the Associated Press. In the years since, horse abandonment and export has grown significantly, according to the GAO report.”
so granted, i know they’re trying to claim that the recession has filled America with abandoned, starving horses just begging for death, but i choose to assume this writer is claiming the cessation of horse-eating is what crippled our economy. it’s what i personally believe, anyway.
“In Colorado, for example, data showed that investigations for horse neglect and abuse increased more than 60 percent, from 975 in 2005 to almost 1,600 in 2009, the report said.”
or, in other words, not only did the recession make it impossible to feed and care for all these horses, it also made us so furious that we had to beat the shit out of all the horses we could get our hands on!
“According to one advocate, the ban also forced the bottom to drop out of the horse industry entirely. “It’s basic economics,” said David Duquette, president of United Horsemen, which advocated for lifting the ban. â€œHorses used to be a $102 billion a year industry, with at least 500,000 direct jobs in horse industry. That’s been cut in half.””
okay, granted, i am not an expert in economics (or even basic economics), but if the recession filled the market with a glut of horses, then how does the BAN cause the bottom to drop out? i can see how horse-slaughtering would be good in general, as well as in response to a recession… but to claim the ban cost 250000 jobs while simultaneously claiming tons of damage from the recession? a little much.
“Now, advocates say that the $62 million-a-year slaughter industry could be back up and running in as little as 30 to 90 days.”
note: i am one of those advocates.
“Opponents of the measure say that they will fight any meat processing plants that open in the coming months. “If plants open up in Oklahoma or Nebraska, you’ll see controversy, litigation, legislative action and basically a very inhospitable environment to operate,” Wayne Pacelle, president and chief executive of The Humane Society of the United States, told the Associated Press. “Local opposition will emerge and you’ll have tremendous controversy over slaughtering Trigger and Mr. Ed.”
let me just say this in response: fuck Mr. Ed. i saw on television that he was a racist, anyway.