As someone who can now perhaps be regarded as the founding mother of modern cancel culture, Mary Whitehouse cast her net far and wide in the 1970s after springing to prominence as the high priestess of provincial opposition to the Swinging 60s. If what was known as The Establishment did its utmost to stem the tide of permissiveness and moral decay by using its in-bred influence to target pop aristocracy with drug busts that promised prison sentences, Whitehouse represented the middle-class, conservative voice of sanity for the W.I. backbone of traditional Great British values centred around deference, the Church of England and the Queen. Once established as a household name with clout, Whitehouse tackled pornography, X certificate cinema, the theatre, gay rights et al; anything she perceived as a threat to her worldview fell under her outraged gaze and she embarked on a fresh campaign to ban it. Either allied with fellow moral crusaders like Lord Longford and Malcolm Muggeridge under the Festival of Light banner or working as head of her National Viewers’ and Listeners’ Association, Mary Whitehouse’s ravenous appetite for stamping out liberal decadence eventually meant her disapproval became a badge of honour for those she pursued. One of the UK’s leading ‘girlie magazines’ was even amusingly named after her.
However, Mary Whitehouse’s first love was always the BBC. It’s interesting that the Whitehouse torch has today been picked up by the other side, so that the demographic she would have viewed as the enemy 50 years ago is now the one upholding her traditions; yet at the height of her powers, the Beeb – and particularly its television output – was at the vanguard of Britain’s Cultural Revolution. Yes, she was especially infuriated by the ‘Wednesday Play’ brand of gritty, groundbreaking drama, but she also found what she regarded as the increasing coarseness of sitcoms objectionable. ‘Till Death Us Do Part’ was a favourite target, though a memorable episode responded to her criticisms by making Alf Garnett a self-confessed supporter of the Whitehouse mission. By the early 70s, she even had a go at programmes produced for a family audience that could count the majority of the country’s children amongst their viewers. ‘Doctor Who’ attracted her attention during this period, though Whitehouse was not alone in feeling the show was taking the fear factor too far.
‘Terror of the Autons’ was a 1971 adventure for the Timelord in his Earth-exiled incarnation of Jon Pertwee. This story dealt with the invasion plans of an alien intelligence and centred on its ability to control plastic; it was able to breathe life into shop window mannequins as well as manufacturing ‘Autons’, humanoid figures it could animate to pose as the real thing. The scene that landed the series in hot water concerned two policemen the Doctor and his sidekick Jo had accepted a lift from; when the Doc became suspicious, he reached out to one of the coppers and ripped the rubber mask from his face to reveal the blank, featureless countenance of an Auton! The memorable scene that followed on a classic quarry location involved the fake policemen taking pot-shots at our heroes, emphasising nobody could be trusted in this scary new landscape, not even the humble Bobby on the beat. Mary Whitehouse was suitably outraged that the bedrock of her orderly society was being presented as a potential threat to the nation’s children, but the police authorities were equally furious that their attempts at convincing kids a policeman was the one grownup stranger they could trust were being undone.
Marianne Faithfull once reflected that the drugs bust she and the Stones were subjected to in 1967 trashed her naive faith in the police as the ultimate paragons of fair play, the line she’d been fed since childhood; but within a decade the dubious activities of coppers higher up the food chain had become headline news with exposures of across-the-board corruption at Scotland Yard. That a TV show such as ‘Doctor Who’ should even tap into this, albeit accidentally, is interesting, yet the slow erosion of trust in the police force that was once a given has never really gone away. If anything, it has continued apace with a succession of highly-publicised scandals, each one serving to erode that trust even further. The past decade has lifted the lid on the kind of corruption that often makes the bent bastards operating at the Yard in the 70s seem rather quaint by comparison, and the Met has remained the standard bearer, whether via its incestuous relationship with News International or its appalling collusion with the likes of the repugnant Carl Beech and its practice of fitting up innocent men as paedos. Credible and true indeed.
Even if we put the laughably desperate ‘Woke’ leanings of the force to one side for a moment and ignore the LGBTXYZ Cars, the way in which the police freely interpreted lockdown restrictions last year stretched the lingering vestiges of trust on the part of the public to breaking point; this as much as anything else successfully persuaded the masses that if the boys in blue are policing by anybody’s consent, it is not that of the masses but the powers-that-be. Sticking to the nation’s premier force and its illustrious track record, we can see that under the disastrous stewardship of Cressida Dick the Met has plumbed new depths of unaccountability. Calls for the Met’s head to quit are something many have been demanding for a long time – and for reasons other than the activities of Wayne Couzens taking place on her watch; yet the publicising of one especially rotten apple is more than enough for that demand to be renewed.
The murder of Sarah Everard by a serving police officer was shocking enough, but the revelation that he abused his position of trust, enticing his victim by flashing his warrant card and staging a mock arrest on the grounds of breaking Covid restrictions in order to carry out his sickening crime, has tarnished the force’s reputation even further. Had Wayne Couzens been an ordinary member of the public his crime would be reprehensible enough, but that he should have been a member of a profession that still bases its reputation upon trust somehow adds a grotesque layer onto his vile actions. One could argue his rare punishment of a whole life sentence was reached because of this, for it’s doubtful a young woman walking down a quiet street alone would have voluntarily consented to depart with a complete stranger had he not played upon the inherited belief in the probity of the police. Of course, the politicisation of this particular murder in a way that has heaped shame upon all of those who have indulged in such shameless exploitation hasn’t helped, yet some of the shit that has hit the fan in the wake of it beggars belief.
Cressida Dick now apparently recommends any woman stopped by a lone plain-clothes policeman should hail a passing bus (should one happen to be passing) on the off-chance he should be a rapist in disguise. If this is the case, how the hell can anyone in a vulnerable position be expected to trust a stranger whose warrant card is no longer a guarantee of safe passage? The stories that have emerged since the sentencing of Wayne Couzens suggest he was a career predator with questionable behaviour that triggered few warning signs as he was transferred around Home Counties forces with no vetting system in place. According to some sources, he had even been nicknamed ‘The Rapist’, which is unnervingly reminiscent of how Peter Sutcliffe had been nicknamed ‘The Ripper’ by co-workers at the haulage firm he was employed by long before he was finally outed as the real deal. But, again, the fact Couzens was a serving police officer utterly undermines any remaining trust in the institution even further. And if the police cannot be trusted, who can be? Maybe, in her own roundabout way, Mary Whitehouse was asking the same question half-a-century ago. Sadly ironic innit.
© The Editor
Website: https://www.johnnymonroe.co.uk/
Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/user?fan_landing=true&u=56665294
It is obvious the ‘thorough” police vetting, including family and friends, is not fit for purpose or more probable is the process has been abused by the general incompetence, maladministration and lackadaisical manner of those departmental staff. This behaviour is not exclusive to just the police. It also appears Couzens Personal Development Record (PDR) was irrelevant as was internal gossip.
The Judge’s sentencing remarks explains away the side stepped reason for the whole life tariff and in itself is questionable and not unsurprisingly given the media attention and, as an example, Jess Phillips has now jumped on the bandwagon. At least the Everard family will be spared the machinations of the Parole Board.
Ms Dick, who is cut from the same cloth as Paula Vennells, with her empty, meaningless apologies, is groping around in the dark for justification where there is none.
Let’s hope Couzens enjoys his time with the big boys for the next couple of years and then it’s time for him to depart in one way or another and save taxpayers money.
Sentencing guidelines need to be revised across the board not just for the safety of women.
And Couzens has not just destroyed Sarah’s family, he has also destroyed his own.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well said!
LikeLike
There are, sadly, amongst our gender, some men (mercifully very few) who are prepared to abduct, brutalise and murder a female who just happened across their path – most of these offensive men had apparently not previously demonstrated any indication to those close to them that they were inclined to, or capable of, such acts. Given the total manpower of Plod nationwide, perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised that, lurking within their huge volumes will be some small number with those concealed tendencies.
This particular case, because it involved the offender making positive use of his Plod credentials to invoke the act, renders him a particularly reprehensible example, if it’s possibly to be more reprehensible than your average abductor/rapist/killer – that he was already considered by some colleagues to display some indicative characteristics, yet nothing was ever done about it, further exacerbates the corporate doubt now cast upon the whole force, not only the Met division and its Dick of a leader.
It is clearly unfair to tar personally every serving Plod with the brush of brutality exposed by this case, but fairness is never the issue in any part of the criminal justice system, so maybe it’s time Plod felt that imbalance themselves.
What surprises me most is that any serving Plod, knowing only too well the pervasive power of CCTV, dash-cams, ANPR and other surveillance systems, could believe for one minute that he could carry out such an act, from a public place, and get away with it. On that scale, he was not only criminal, but also criminally stupid. His every move in his own car and the hired one were traced in detail by the ANPR network along the route of his crime, to be presented as time-stamped evidence at his trial – surely he must have known that was inevitable, that’s how stupid he is.
The questions for Plod management must be how they could possibly select, employ, train, maintain and support any officer quite so terminally stupid, through a number of different forces over many years, including armed divisions, whilst actively disregarding demonstrable evidence of his instability. Maybe they were just too busy checking Twitter for trivially nasty comments about trannies? Priorities, eh?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Couzens appears to have progressed from merely “flashing” on a couple of occasions that we know of from 2015- and let’s be honest here, the police would still not do anything even if a woman reported such an act today-to full scale kidnap, rape and murder. for reasons unknown.
What is frightening, and especially to their partners, is that these men don’t appear on the surface to display any such tendencies, like you have quite rightly pointed out. No one ever knows what is going on in someone’s mind.
I sincerely believe he was arrogant enough to think he could get away with it given he had hidden Sarah’s body in close proximity to land he owned never expecting her to be discovered, and could explain away the various surveillance systems in play. He is stupid.
As for resetting and throwing the mobile phone away that is a complete waste of time as the police can actually clone a phone even if missing. Your ordinary plod is probably not aware of the sophistication of all the resources available to forensics.
He also underestimated the interview process again due to his arrogance thinking he could fool his colleagues/look out for their own attitude.
Your ordinary plod is not blessed with much intelligence and the vast majority merely go through the loop without resolving anything. No wonder the public, myself included, have no faith in them.
Thank goodness we have another tier to the police the public don’t get to hear about. I can fully appreciate why these officers retire early and they deserve it with full pensions given what they see.
Unlike that Dickhead on 260K per year. Disgraceful.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The honest, concientious, hard working police constable must know that without a soft honours degree in some social thingie, without the correct gender and diversity he is not going anywhere in the promotion stakes. So what does he do? (It has to be a “he”). Get out, thus weeding out the virtues mentioned above, or keep taking the doughnuts, following the instructions to the letter, (Yes ma’am, No ma’am. Three bags full ma’am.) of his inane superiors until early retirement with benefits and then into a job in security.
I despair.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Let’s not forget the 81 Women allegedly killed by men since the murder of Sarah Everard-
data compiled by Karen Ingala-Smith on her blog Counting Dead Women. RIP. Makes for sombre reading,many not newsworthy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Whilst every such unnecessary death is obviously regretted, it’s important to acknowledge that the proportion of men being murdered is almost three times the scale of women victims. What’s more, the latest available ONS data shows an increase in murders of men by 20%, compared to a decrease by 16% in the number of female murder victims. Maybe dead young black men don’t enjoy the same PR profile.
So, if our non-discriminatory, equality-based, interest is in reducing murder rates, maybe the first issue to be tackled should be that of man-on-man murder, where the greatest opportunity for life-saving is available to be achieved.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mudplugger- I was concentrating on the Everard murder but I am VERY aware of the murder rate of young males and also the abuse men suffer at the hands of women. In fact I used to know a lovely chap who was systematically abused over a number of years. The sentencing guidelines are just totally inadequate. And the government is doing sod all about it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rosegarden – I’m sure we’re on the same page, we’ve just to be careful to keep things in their correct overall context.
LikeLike
Mudplugger- Yes we most definitely are. But what do you mean by “their correct overall context?”
LikeLike
It’s an error to extrapolate from one case, applying that across a coincidence of definition. E.g. not all Met PCs are like that, just as all GPs are not like Harold Shipman, not all truck-drivers are like Peter Sutcliffe. Not all men are like those. Broad-brushing those rare characteristics across an entire group does not help anyone.
The important thing is to take steps to address all homicides, of which those typified by the Sarah Everard case are a tiny and very unrepresentative minority, albeit high-profile. In any problem-solving situation, it is usually smart to address the majority cases first, known as the 80/20 rule.
LikeLiked by 1 person
mudplugger-Point taken. But in the scheme of things murders are rare. So where would you begin to categorise the ‘majority case’ murder? Knife crime? I would also like to emphasise this is not an argument but a debate. And it has not escaped my attention our Editor is conspicuous by his absence for want of a better phrase!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Who needs the Editor anyway? And you’re right, we don’t have arguments here but we do have healthy and respectful debates.
Reportedly the majority case is ‘young men’: I don’t have any further granularity, although I suspect ‘black and city’ should probably feature in the current categorisation. It’s a very sad fact that almost 90% of female murder victims know their killers, most often from within a relationship – maybe there’s something to be done about how some men can fail to handle normal relationship issues without resorting to violence. The incidence of female murder by an unknown assailant is extremely rare, hence it is fair to say that the perception of its fear is far greater than the reality.
LikeLiked by 1 person
With respect we have gone round in a circle with regard to female murder victims, but it’s just not ‘black and city’. I have noticed many murders are committed by, what the justice system describes as, ‘children’ ie mainly males under the age of 18. If you remember the case of lawyer Peter Duncan murdered by a 17 year old who received a paltry minimum sentence of 15 years- I won’t refer to the sentence as ‘life’ as that’s a misnomer- but if he had turned 18 the judge could have sentenced him upwards of 30 years. Where’s the deterrent?
LikeLike
I agree about deterrent – it seems odd that we have a much younger ‘age of criminal responsibility’ (10 to 14) but then the justice system simply disregards that in its sentencing. Responsibilty is binary, you’re either responsible or you’re not.
We used to have a death penalty for murder, which was widely regarded as a deterrent, but could we have enough faith in the justice system not to condemn an innocent person? I don’t have that quality of faith, so have to rely on the system to deliver less terminal sentencing, but still reflective of the crime. There’s a lot of work to do on that.
LikeLike
I’m of the same opinion regarding the death penalty. I could see a place for the most heinous of crimes providing the evidence was 100% fullproof, but where does classification of heinous begin? Murder is murder. I understood the death penalty was abolished in favour of the life sentence,whereby life meant life, but that’s not the case. Reform is badly needed, but it’s not going to happen. Back to Couzens: the inevitable inquiry led by an ‘influential’ person will be a complete whitewash and waste of public money, but its purpose is designed to look like something will be done. Wonder whether Couzens will appeal? Only the lawyers win!
LikeLike
He won’t be appealing against the conviction, his guilty plea renders that futile. However, he could appeal against the sentence, no doubt we’d all pay for all the lawyers on that one.
All ‘life’ sentences are still ‘whole of life’, in that offenders remain on license for the rest of their lives after release. ‘Whole of life imprisonment’ is different and quite rare.
My solution to the life sentence issue would be to offer all ‘lifers’ the option of euthanasia – that way, they are saved the decades of confinement in an unpleasant place and we are saved from funding it, but it’s their choice. The key attraction is that it offers any innocent person who was convicted in error the prospect of having the sentence overturned on appeal (with compensation), something which a death penalty can never achieve.
LikeLike
Helen Hill campaigned successfully to keep ‘lifers’ once released under supervision from 4 years to 10 years. The instinct for survival even under years of confinement would still appeal to the criminal mind.
What are your thoughts on the manslaughter with diminished responsibility slant that’s always being pulled? And the usual defence of mental illness eg paranoid schizophrenia?
And does ‘Mudplugger’ stem from ” Let all the poison that lurks in the mud, hatch out”?Just being a nosy sod!
LikeLike
I would suggest that the claimed mental condition of the killer made no difference to the outcome for the victim, they’re still dead. Whilst no doubt some do indeed suffer from such extreme conditions that may cause normal human judgement to be compromised, I suspect most are rather more the construct of defence lawyers than reality. But the victim’s still dead, regardless.
As for the nom-de-plume, nothing so literate, it’s just an old motor-sport term I stole.
LikeLike
Or psychiatrists perhaps? But where’s the Justice?
Being embroiled in a war that’s so one sided under the diktat of a governmental hob knob and with each move taking a month on average on each side I will procrastinate no longer. Enjoyed our debate, Mudplugger. Just passing through here.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rosegarden – pass through again soon.
LikeLiked by 1 person