More British troops deployed to guard Polish border amid Belarus migrant crisis
What the devil are British troops doing on the borders of Belarus in the heart of Europe? Can Europe not look after its own problems?
More British troops will be deployed to Poland's border with Belarus to help address the migrant crisis.
Thousands of migrants, mainly from the Middle East, have sought to cross into the European Union at the frontier between Poland and Belarus in recent weeks.
The UK and allies have accused Belarusian president Alexander Lukashenko of engineering the crisis, with defence secretary Ben Wallace saying the migrants were being used as “pawns”.
The Daily Telegraph reported that about 100 soldiers from the Royal Engineers will be sent to help physically reinforce the Polish border although details of the deployment are still being worked out.
Mr Wallace, who visited British troops training in Poland, told the newspaper: “Can you imagine going from Iraq, to here, onto a border, not much clothes, not much food, not much money, and then being a pawn in the Belarusian leader’s game? I think that’s heartless and I think it is cruel.”
Western governments have accused Mr Lukashenko, a close ally of Russian president Vladimir Putin, of deliberately encouraging the migrants to breach its borders in retaliation for sanctions the EU has imposed in response to his repressive rule.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/british-troops-belarus-poland-migrants-b1960514.html
*********************************************Britain outlaws Palestinian militant group Hamas, bringing UK stance in line with US, EU
Britain's interior minister Priti Patel has banned the Palestinian militant group Hamas in a move that brings the UK's stance on Gaza's rulers in line with the United States and the European Union.
"Hamas has significant terrorist capability, including access to extensive and sophisticated weaponry, as well as terrorist training facilities," Ms Patel said in a statement. "That is why today I have acted to proscribe Hamas in its entirety."
The organisation will be banned under the Terrorism Act.
Anyone expressing support for Hamas, flying its flag or arranging meetings for the organisation would be in breach of the law, the Interior Ministry confirmed.
Ms Patel is expected to present the change to parliament next week.
Hamas — full name the 'Islamic Resistance Movement' — has political and military wings.
Founded in 1987, it opposes the existence of Israel and peace talks, instead advocating "armed resistance" against Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories.
Hamas is on the US list of designated foreign terrorist organisations. The European Union also deems it a terrorist movement.
Based in Gaza, Hamas won the 2006 Palestinian parliamentary elections, defeating nationalist rival Fatah. It seized military control of Gaza the following year.
Hamas and Israel clashed most recently in a deadly 11-day conflict in May.
Until now Britain had banned only its military arm — the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades.
Hamas political official Sami Abu Zuhri said Britain's move showed "absolute bias toward the Israeli occupation and is a submission to Israeli blackmail and dictations".
In a separate statement, Hamas said: "Resisting occupation by all available means, including armed resistance, is a right granted to people under occupation as stated by the international law."
Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett welcomed the decision, saying in a Twitter post: "Hamas is a terrorist organization, simply put. The 'political arm' enables its military activity."
Ms Patel was forced to resign as Britain's international development secretary in 2017 after she failed to disclose meetings with senior Israeli officials during a private holiday to the country, including then-opposition leader Yair Lapid.
Mr Lapid, now Israel's Foreign Minister, hailed the decision on Hamas as "part of strengthening ties with Britain".
**********************************************
'This is treating trained officers like children': London Police's ABC handcuff guide
Crime and victim campaigners have savaged the Met Police's new 44-question handcuff policy, calling it 'embarrassing' and treating trained police officers like children'.
The Centre for Crime Prevention said crooks would not give PCc the luxury of the time to mull over the near-50 considerations in the guidance.
And it suggested the document would raise yet more of its own questions - but this time about the leadership of under-fire Commissioner Dame Cressida Dick.
David Spencer, research director at the centre, told MailOnline: 'Plenty of people are of the view that police priorities tend to be the wellbeing of criminals rather than the law abiding public and this will go some way to reinforce that perception.
'It is also quite simply treating trained police officers like children and is hugely patronising to the vast majority of police officers who are arresting potentially dangerous suspects every single day.
'Most arrests will not give police the luxury of considering 44 questions before apprehending a suspect. They are working on instinct and applying their training and this is where such questions should be, and are, drummed into them.
'It is difficult to imagine how Cressida Dick’s time as Commissioner could get much more embarrassing for the Met, but this policy is certainly doing its best.
'There are already serious question marks about whether Cressida Dick is the right person to be leading the Met and proclamations like this are only going to undermine her authority still further.'
The policy on handcuffing tells officers to ask themselves 44 questions before arresting a suspect and details the procedure in a child-style ABC guide.
Its mammoth decision process is laid out in full in the new 25-page document published by Scotland Yard.
It puts into official policy nearly 50 questions officers should consider when they are using the police-issue restraints.
The questions include, 'What could go wrong (and what could go well)?', 'What is happening?', and, 'What do I not know?'. Other advice to mull over also includes, 'Do I need to take action immediately?' and 'What would the victim or community affected expect of me in this situation?'
Most are from the College of Policing's National Decision Model but are now enshrined in the official equipment policy.
It is not clear what the Met's previous policy on the police restraint tactic had been. But the new rules have been drawn up after complaints from the black community they had been disproportionately targeted in stop and search.
The 44 questions police should consider in Met handcuff policy:
1. Is what I am considering consistent with the Code of Ethics?
2. What would the victim or community affected expect of me in this situation?
3. What does the police service expect of me in this situation?
4. Is this action or decision likely to reflect positively on my professionalism and policing generally?
5. Could I explain my action or decision in public?
6. What is happening?
7. What do I know so far?
8. What do I not know?
9. What further information (or intelligence) do I want/need at this moment?
10. Do I need to take action immediately?
11. Do I need to seek more information?
12. What could go wrong (and what could go well)?
13. What is causing the situation?
14. How probable is the risk of harm?
15. How serious would it be?
16. Is that level of risk acceptable?
17. Is this a situation for the police alone to deal with?
18. Am I the appropriate person to deal with this?
19. What am I trying to achieve?
20. Will my action resolve the situation?
21. What police powers might be required?
22. Is there any national guidance covering this type of situation?
23. Do any local organisational policies or guidelines apply?
24. What legislation might apply?
25. Is there any research evidence?
26. If decision makers have to account for their decisions, will they be able to say they were proportionate, legitimate, necessary and ethical?
27. Reasonable in the circumstances facing them at the time?
28. Does anyone else need to know what you have decided?
29. What happened as a result of your decision?
30. Was it what you wanted or expected to happen?
31. How were the principles and standards of professional behaviour demonstrated during the situation?
32. What information or intelligence was available?
33. What factors (potential benefits and harms) were assessed?
34. What threat and risk assessment methods were used (if any)?
35. Was a working strategy developed and was it appropriate?
36. Were there any powers, policies and legislation that should have been considered?
37. If policy was not followed, was this reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances?
38. How were feasible options identified and assessed?
39. Were decisions proportionate, legitimate, necessary and ethical?
40. Were decisions reasonable in the circumstances facing the decision maker?
41. Were decisions communicated effectively?
42. Were decisions and the rationale for them recorded as appropriate?
43. Were decisions monitored and reassessed where necessary?
44. What lessons can be learnt from the outcomes and how the decisions were made?
Also featured is an alphabet-themed guide to handcuffing that warns to, 'Always ask the suspect if the cuffs are too tight'.
It includes the advice to 'always double-lock the handcuffs'.
The Met publicised the new policy yesterday morning, which came after a review by Deputy Assistant Commissioner Matt Twist.
Industry insiders and former police officers have slammed the alphabet-style guide, with former Detective Chief Superintendent Kevin Hurley warning it was indicative of the 'weakness of senior police leadership'.
He told GB News: 'Frankly, it's an example of the ineptitude, the pusillanimous, the weakness of decision-making that we now see with senior police leadership.
'Police officers, when they decide to use force or apply handcuffs, need to run through in their mind a lot of different things which comes down to: "Is this the right thing to be doing, and can I defend my options?"
'What we've now see happen is something that's going to affect three groups of people.
'First, it is going to put off the cops using force or arresting people. There's nothing more difficult than trying to get some officers to deal with confrontation.
'It's very easy to back down. The hard thing is to motivate a police officer to be nosy.
'The second thing is, the public are going to think: "What on earth is going on here?"
'The third point really is that those who are "baddies", it's going to give them an opportunity for an outer.'
Met Commissioner Cressida Dick said of the force's new policy: 'My number one priority remains tackling violent crime and keeping people safe from street crime – which is blighting the lives of too many young people.
'Alongside that, I have set out to increase the trust and confidence of communities in their police service.
'We know that not all communities have the same level of trust in us – I am determined to change that.
'The handcuffing review could not have taken place effectively without the input and contribution of many front line police officers and members of the public. I thank them all for their time, effort and valuable honesty.'
The policy follows a review commissioned by the Met Commissioner Cressida Dick in 2019 into the use of handcuffs before an arrest has taken place.
It came after complaints from black communities they were being disproportionately targeted.
The Met said the review would make sure the tactic, for which there is a sound legal basis in some circumstances, was justified and recorded on each occasion.
It fed in consultation responses from young black men aged between 16 to 25 years-old.
A Met spokeswoman said: 'The launch of the policy, which covers all aspects of the use of handcuffs, is the final recommendation from the 2020 review to be implemented.
'Officers are already receiving additional legal training, more public and personal safety training, with further emphasis on de-escalation; and more community input to understand the respective experiences of the public and police officers during encounters on the streets of London.'
Last October a highly criticial review of the Met's use of stop and search powers has revealed officers stopped two black men after they were seen 'fist bumping,'.
The review by the Independent Office for Police Conduct revealed the officers thought the pair had just completed a drug deal, in one of a number of issues raised by the watchdog.
It found handcuffs were used in nearly all instances where other tactics could have de-escalated an encounter, while officers also failed to use bodycam video from the outset of their interaction with some members of the public.
The IOPC said their review 'mirrors concerns,' already raised by communities in the Capital.
Regional director Sal Naseem said: 'We saw a lack of understanding from officers about why their actions were perceived to be discriminatory.'
************************************************
Now a ban on boiling live lobsters is a step closer as ministers recognise crustaceans as sentient beings
A ban on boiling lobsters alive came closer yesterday after the Government recognised crabs, octopus and lobsters as sentient beings. An amendment to the Animal Welfare Bill currently going through Parliament was tabled which makes it illegal to cause needless harm and suffering to invertebrate animals.
It came after a report for ministers by the London School of Economics confirmed there is strong scientific evidence of sentience in decapod crustaceans, such as crab and lobster, and cephalopod molluscs, octopus and squid.
It recommended that they should be included in animal protection legislation.
There had previously been much debate over whether lobsters and crabs have feelings similar to vertebrates – animals that have a backbone – as they have different nervous systems.
The amendment published on the Government’s website read: ‘This amendment adds cephalopod molluscs and decapod crustaceans to the definition of “animal” for the purposes of the Bill.’
This would make it an offence for any person who is responsible for a kept animal – including crabs and lobsters – to cause it unnecessary suffering or to fail to provide for the animal’s welfare needs.
Though the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) insists this will have no impact on restaurant kitchens, campaigners could use the new law to argue in court for a ban on boiling the animals alive in eateries as they say there are less painful ways to kill them.
It is currently illegal to do this in Switzerland, Norway and New Zealand.
Stunning lobsters with an electric gun or by chilling them in cold air or ice before boiling is a more humane method, according to animal welfare charities.
But restaurateurs are unlikely to be impressed by the new law, which may make them subject to checks by Defra and, if a ban does come into effect, could criminalise those who kill the lobsters in a traditional way.
The move has been pushed for by animal welfare minister Lord Goldsmith and the Prime Minister’s wife Carrie Johnson – who are patrons of the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation (CAWF).
Lord Goldsmith said: ‘The Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill provides a crucial assurance that animal wellbeing is rightly considered when developing new laws.
‘The science is now clear that crustaceans and molluscs can feel pain and therefore it is only right they are covered by this vital piece of legislation.’
****************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
*****************************************
/>
Kristina Pimenova, once said to be the most beautiful girl in the world. Note blue eyes and blonde hair
Bliss: What every woman wants: to feel safe and secure in the arms of her man. Robert Irwin and Rorie Buckey. See
No comments:
Post a Comment