
Woke police chiefs whinge about underfunding when the real problem is their warped priorities
Monday's main Telegraph story, in advance of Wednesday's spending review by Rachel Reeves, which reported the concerns of senior officers that the police service is 'broken' and that underpaid and overworked personnel are leaving in droves because of funding cuts, attracted well over two thousand comments. They ranged from 'Diddums' to 'It's all your own stupid fault' with a good deal of colourful hostility in between. Honestly, you would struggle to find more derogatory remarks among the police's long-running foes at The Guardian.
I noticed a similarly unsympathetic reaction a week ago when Met chief Sir Mark Rowley protested that police would have to choose which crimes to investigate if they didn't get more cash. As if the public, until now, had enjoyed a superb and rapid response to its burglaries, muggings, car, bike and phone thefts and our town centres positively thrummed with the purposeful presence of bobbies on the beat.
'Yes, Sir Mark, times must really be hard if you can only send six officers to arrest a retired police volunteer over a single tweet,' sneered one disgruntled taxpayer, perfectly capturing the mood of seething resentment.
This collapse in trust is as precipitous as it is shocking. A widespread feeling has clearly taken hold that police are no longer doing the job we expect them to do, while interfering in things that are none of their damn business.
The story of the London couple who were obliged last week to 'steal back' their own car after being told by police they did not know when they would be able to investigate thieves who took the Jaguar away on a flat-bed truck (but do call 101 if you find it, they were told) presents a snapshot of a frustrated public having to take the law into their own hands like a group of extremely polite, Emma Bridgewater-owning vigilantes.
While many physical crimes go largely ignored, activist constabularies are doing a roaring trade in online offences. The preposterous yet sinister non-crime hate incidents (NCHIs), an Orwellian development of the College of Policing back in 2014, are frequently cited by police critics, as is the clampdown on free speech which is increasingly used to suppress popular discontent about things like the annual £4.7 billion bill to keep migrants in hotels and look after them.
Those of us who, for some strange reason, think it's outrageous to spend the equivalent of every single penny in tax paid by the population of Manchester on accommodating tens of thousands of young males who broke into our country, used to be called 'racists'. But I see we have got a promotion, ladies and gentlemen. According to Prevent [a counter-terrorism programme], we are no longer racists, we are 'terrorists'! If we dare to express doubts about uncontrolled immigration and lack of integration, that is.
That's the same Prevent which failed to prevent Axel Rudakubana slaughtering a dance class of little girls. And which, according to a 2023 report by Sir William Shawcross, concentrates too much on the largely mythical 'far Right' and not enough on Islamist terror.
The College of Policing, I am reliably informed, encourages the same delusional appeasement of the group which poses by far the biggest threat to our national security. The criminalising of the white indigenous population, running in parallel to the woke appeasement of actual criminals, goes some way to explaining this new cordial loathing of the police, I think. Unbelievably, over 60 of our fellow citizens are slapped with an NCHI every single day for 'hateful' thoughts or conduct, many of them Monty Pythonesque in their absurdity.
While senior police moan about Home Secretary Yvette Cooper not winning them a big enough payout in the spending review, there seem to be adequate funds to arrest and stigmatise law-abiding people. Only this week, I got a very worried email from a reader, Carolyn, who had complained to the police about a man who has been camping for several weeks in the park where her children play. The surrounding area stinks of urine and faeces and there are scattered remnants of drug use. When Carolyn and other mums walk past they have seen the man put his hand down his trousers to play with himself. The camper's appearance suggested to her that he was an African migrant. 'Using the term 'migrant' therefore did not strike me as anything other than a fair assumption,' says Carolyn.
Uh-oh. Obviously, in the bonkers world of PC policing it will now be the anxious lady who complained about a threat to her community who is warned about causing trouble. 'It would seem that any offence caused to me is secondary to the offence of Hate Crime,' Carolyn says. Correct.
An officer emailed Carolyn to say that police did not have the powers to remove the tent from the park. 'With regard to the hand down the trousers,' he said, 'Many people from all different backgrounds do this as a cultural/social trend and have done for a while, we often see members of the public doing this all around the city. We will speak with him about this though and advise him of the perception this could cause. I also suggest you reframe (sic) from referring to him as a 'migrant' and making comments about 'Are we paying him to take the proverbial out of us all?'… These can be seen as derogative (sic) terms and possibly a hate crime, especially when you probably know nothing about him.'
If you seek a perfect illustration of why the police service is 'broken' and officers are deserting in droves, look no further than this jaw-dropping inversion of good and bad guys. Intimidating man from alien culture seemingly exposing himself in public and peeing, crapping and doing drugs where your kids play? Completely fine, culturally appropriate, nothing to be done about it. Englishwoman suggests the man is a 'migrant' who is taking advantage of our absurdly generous system? Oh dear, oh dear – your hurty words will be taken down, Madam, and used in evidence against you.
Now, it's a fair bet that many of the public-spirited young people who aspire to become police officers still think it is Carolyn's side they should be on. A rookie error, I'm afraid. 'Recruits who join the force don't realise the police are so captured,' a senior source tells me.
Officers now lack maturity and experience
Police retention has been a problem for a long time. It's got much worse since the higher echelons subscribed to the anti-white Critical Race Theory and adopted a witless, Leftist ideology that would have been abhorrent to their predecessors. The number of resignations in the police started to exceed the number of retirements nationally around 2023.
What this means in practice, as I was told after Essex Police came to my own door on Remembrance Sunday, is that many officers now lack the experience and maturity to make common-sense decisions and bin spurious allegations of racial hatred that flatter the identity-politics obsessions of their superiors.
'It's not uncommon for uniform shifts to be about 50 per cent probationers, and they might be running with an acting sergeant barely out of his probationary period (two years) in some cases,' warns my source. The Conservatives' decision, in 2020, to lower the application age to 17 (to join at 18) as part of their training means that a lot of young people without much life experience, who don't know what they're letting themselves in for, find policing a nasty shock to the system. Once they're in, probationers have to cope with complicated, badly-designed computer systems that add hours to already heavy workloads. They have very little time to conduct inquiries and pick up more and more stressful cases, meanwhile having to deal with the aggressive, ever-more-volubly-entitled, human-rights-aware dregs of our society.
After all that, if you can still muster the courage to be a first-class constable who fiercely defends the public against wrong 'uns but swears a bit and leaves violent offenders feeling they weren't treated with enough dignity then expect your Pontius Pilate of a chief constable to throw you under the Hurty Feelings bus. That is exactly what happened to Lorne Castle, a Dorset officer who has twice won a national bravery award, including one for rescuing an elderly woman from a swollen river in 2023.
A shameful betrayal
The 46-year-old father of three was dismissed without notice for gross misconduct after bodycam footage captured him trying to arrest a teenager who was believed to have assaulted an elderly man (the boy, who later turned out to be carrying a knife). If you watch the footage, you can experience the frightening, febrile atmosphere in which Lorne Castle was trying to carry out his thankless task. He shouted and swore, telling the lad: 'Stop resisting or I'm going to smash you.'
A veteran officer tells me that 'it looked like a good arrest'. But a panel found PC Castle did not treat the teenager with 'courtesy' or 'respect', and Dorset Police said 'his shouting, swearing, finger pointing, taking hold of the boy's face and throat and suggested use of leg restraints was not necessary, reasonable or proportionate'. The force said no further action was taken against the teenager – of course it wasn't! – but he was issued with an out of court disposal for possessing the knife.
I ask you, why would anybody risk phone seizures, suspensions and months of stress over complaints that usually turn out to be baseless but which see them treated like criminals? While clueless top brass in their woke ivory towers put saving their career before protecting their officers. In my book, a man of the calibre of Lorne Castle is worth more to the people of this country than every chief constable put together.
So let us hear no more whingeing about underfunding leading to reduced services and driving officers away. Blame a warped sense of priorities promoted by activist police chiefs, a shameful betrayal of the British bobby and the demonisation of ordinary people for expressing legitimate fears. If the police have lost the support of Telegraph readers, then they are lost indeed.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Independent
17 minutes ago
- The Independent
This weekend, 100,000 people stood up to fight against the demonisation of trans people
One hundred thousand people, let me repeat, 100,000 people joined Saturday's march for London Trans+ Pride. It broke 2024's record of 60,000 and extended the capital's reign as the largest trans rights protest in the world. But pride doesn't even begin to encompass the full breadth of emotion I feel: not only in making it happen, but in the tenacity of our community. This was my second year helping to organise the march – and I do apologise to any of those still hearing the echoes of my voice ringing out 'Claim your space, we have the whole of Whitehall!' through a megaphone. As a proud trans woman, working alongside the collective of 30 or so volunteers who put on this event every year is a privilege. I am by no means its voice, and there are many others more qualified to be the community's voice, such as artist Lewis G Burton, BBC presenter Dr Ronx and Heartstopper actor Yasmin Finney, who all made speeches in Parliament Square. But I am writing this as someone who found comfort and community here and wanted to give back. For me and for so many other people, Saturday's march represents the ultimate safe space. It is a day of protest and of joy, liberation and celebration. There wasn't anything like it when I started my transition some 15 years ago. I was lucky enough to know exactly who I was from a young age – just as my mother had known who she was, and my father had known who he was. My parents have been my most supportive allies, and I was so moved to see signs from other families along the march. I spent several years working as an organiser of large-scale events before joining London Trans+ Pride. And while my career may have been my foundation for this move into advocacy, nothing can prepare you for the energy of those marching. I'm not surprised that so many more people joined compared to 2024. It has come at a time when we need proactive activism and allyship more than ever. Following the explosion against trans+ rights in the last five years, from puberty blocker bans to the Supreme Court's contested ruling in April – that the legal definition of a woman is someone born biologically female – friends, family and total strangers have stepped up and demonstrated their support – and highlighted that most Britons have never, and will never, view trans people as a threat. Our team was supported by almost 600 volunteer stewards. These people come from all over the UK and give up their time to guide the march. We could not safely deliver an event of such magnitude every year without them, and we owe them so much. They, and the additional 35,000 marchers we saw yesterday, have stepped up at a time when visible support is so needed. We tend to see significant mainstream coverage about small protests against immigration, but little about the thousands of people supporting trans rights. We heard the author Caroline Litman speaking about her late daughter, Alice, and initiatives highlighted from ally support groups such as the Trans Solidarity Alliance and Not in Our Name, and the enviable strength and determination of Trans Kids Deserve Better. When I had time to look up from my work as a pink blur of headsets and event management forms, I could soak in the phenomenon engulfing me. I spent all day being moved by the placards, banners, flags, and by the humour. The progressive spins on viral trends were a favourite: 'Nothing beats a Jet2 Holiday; except top surgery.' British irony combined with the joy of medical autonomy: something I see regularly in my new career in gender-affirming healthcare – an area persistently targeted in the tirade against our community. In my role, I get to float between marchers, volunteers and community workers throughout the march and see all the variety of support there. And while my bones may be a little worse for wear after what can only be described as the job of a lifetime – and thank goodness for comfy shoes – I couldn't imagine anything better. But this lovely day is counterbalanced by the continued demonisation of women like me, people like this and communities like ours. Our rights appear to be being used as pawns on the world's political stage to distract from larger issues. London Trans+ Pride was, is and will always remain a testament to joy. It confirms us as human by showing up for each other and everyone else through the intersectionality of systemic oppression. 2025 continues to be a horrific year for human rights. But, thanks to everyone who marched and made history, today, the future for trans people feels a little brighter.


Daily Mail
17 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Apple and Google face calls to install 'kill switches' in mobile phones stolen by moped gangs to end resale market
Pressure is mounting on big tech companies to install remote 'kill switches' in mobile phones amid ongoing phone-theft epidemic. Senior Conservative politicians have urged the Labour Government to 'force' Apple and Google to end the criminal phone trade once and for all by rendering all stolen phones useless. Kill switches work by severing smartphones from the cloud once the devices have been reported to police as stolen. James Conway, who oversees Scotland Yard's phone-theft investigations, believes this will slash their market value on the black market, massively disincentivizing criminals from snatching them. This call to action comes after a Daily Mail investigation revealed that vulnerable youngsters are being groomed into stealing phones by county-lines gangs, which are then shipped abroad in bulk and sold around the world. Last night Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp told the Daily Mail: 'The Labour Government is presiding over a crime epidemic - with phone theft rife. 'Mobile phone companies should urgently implement 'Kill Switches' which prevent stolen phones from accessing the cloud globally. 'Google and Apple claim to have antitheft measures but these are clearly completely ineffective. This call to action comes after a Daily Mail investigation revealed that vulnerable youngsters are being groomed into stealing phones by county-lines gangs, which are then shipped abroad in bulk and sold around the world. 'If companies like Apple continue to refuse to do this voluntarily then the Government must urgently legislate to force them, by amending the Crime and Policing bill. 'Implementing a 'Kill Switch' is vital and the Government should legislate to compel big tech companies to do this if they're not going to do it voluntarily.' Meanwhile, Shadow Minister for Home Affairs, Alicia Kearns added: 'A remote kill switch would reclaim our streets and better protect us all from the plague of phone thieves in our cities. 'This is the sort of initiative phone companies should be introducing to better protect their customers and help tackle organised crime.' Some 80,000 phones are stolen in London every year, with around 80 per cent of this bounty ending up abroad. Across the entire United Kingdom, around 230 mobile phones are stolen every single day. Speaking to the Daily Mail last week, Commander James Conway, who oversees Scotland Yard's phone-theft investigations, explained that a 'kill switch' would ensure that a 'the [stolen device] wouldn't operate as a smartphone any more and would have next to zero value in that market.' In response to the growing phone-theft crisis several cyber security companies such as Nuke From Orbit have been established to make it easier for users to safeguard their accounts. Nuke From Orbit allows users to block access to multiple services and accounts simultaneously after the user's phone has been stolen. James O'Sullivan, CEO and Founder of Nuke From Orbit explained: 'As our lives become more reliant on mobile phones, the need to be able to disavow that device when stolen increases exponentially.' A spokesperson for Google said: 'Google's top priority is the safety of its users, and we are proud to bring constantly evolving, industry-leading security technologies to Android. 'Our freely available anti-theft features help users to protect their devices before, during, and after a theft. 'Users in locations at risk of phone theft can simply switch them on and stay protected.'


Telegraph
17 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Trans ruling means every lavatory user will need to be checked, museums claim
Staff will have to check the sex of visitors using lavatories after the Supreme Court's trans ruling, museum bosses have claimed. Museums Galleries Scotland, a national body that represents 455 non-national museums and receives £1.7 million a year in public funds, claims organisations will have to close while they reassess lavatory provisions. In April, the Supreme Court ruled that 'sex' in law is a person's biological sex, not gender identity. However, the Scottish Government has so far failed to produce guidance for public bodies on single-sex spaces such as lavatories. In its submission, the museums body says it has concerns the EHRC's initial guidance does not 'uphold the spirit of inclusion' and that the human rights body did not consult with trans people or trans organisations in its development. Policing of toilets is 'unfeasiable' The response goes on to say: 'When there is a need to 'prove' your sex, what proof will be acceptable given gender recognition certificates are not, nor are altered birth certificates – but how would you know? It is likely this role would fall on front-of-house staff, which we believe puts undue pressure on them to do this 'in a sensitive way which does not cause discrimination or harassment'. 'The practical application of policing toilets is unfeasible as, to avoid discrimination, it would require every single person using toilets to be checked adding substantial workload and staff costs to undertake this role.' Museums Galleries Scotland also raised concerns the interim guidance does not make reference to people with intersex conditions and states there are 1.1 million intersex people in the UK. Susan Smith, co-founder of For Women Scotland, said the Museums Galleries Scotland submission is 'a masterclass in legal idiocy and scientific illiteracy'. She said: 'The EHRC guidance aims to protect organisations and ensure they adhere to law: it is not supposed to set out the best way for public bodies to evade or trash their responsibility to protect the public from discrimination or harassment. ''Inclusion' covers all protected characteristics and rights have to be balanced. The time of prioritising the demands of trans-identifying men over the real needs of women and other groups is over.' Ms Smith said the assertion that staff would have to police toilets is 'wilfully misunderstanding' that having policies that align with the law 'does not mean they are required to vet every user'. MGS accused of 'scaremongering' Instead it means if women complain about a man being in the women's lavatories, it will be investigated. 'What is clear is that MGS have had unlawful policies for some time. All parties at the Supreme Court understood that self-identification has never been lawful, including the Scottish Government, which funds MGS,' Ms Smith said. 'Finally, it is outrageous that MGS are happy to spread debunked lies and attempt to scaremonger about serious medical conditions which they call 'intersex'. Last time we checked, museum staff were not endocrinologists. 'The status of people with Differences of Sex Development is not affected by the Supreme Court ruling and the wildly inflated numbers MSG cite should embarrass whoever submitted the report.' The museums body also states that members of the public have been 'policing toilets' at heritage sites by 'making assumptions based on stereotypes' and has created an 'environment of suspicion'. Dr Kath Murray, of the policy organisation Murray Blackburn Mackenzie, said: 'It is deeply concerning that a major national institution signed off and submitted such an ill-informed response to the EHRC consultation. 'The response fails to consider the needs of women and instead repeats trans activist talking points. The figures cited on the 'intersex' population have been widely debunked and bear no relevance to the implementation of the Supreme Court judgment.' The Nationalist government released its response to the consultation late on Friday night, claiming that services needed to justify why they were single-sex.