The person who wrote this speech had his mind up before he went on the job. I can tell just by reading the first few paragraphs that he is a bigot and if you think he hasn't used exaggeration and lies then you're kidding yourself.
What exactly he wants to do (not to unruly people, but unruly "lebanese" people) is unclear. It seems he's a bit disgruntled about not living in the days when he could hit an "abo" over the head with a telephone book and get away with it.
Call me stupid, call me a dinosaur, but I made sure that day that at least one person in the group that threw the brick was arrested.
Well good on ya mate! That's great and i'm sure it solved the problem of the group having a negative attitude towards police. After arresting them, i'm pretty sure they are going to love you.
I then reverted to the old ways of policing. I grabbed the nearest male and convinced him that it was he who had thrown the brick
Yeh, lets revert back to those good old ways! Despite the fact that probability states that this person more than likely
wasn't the one who threw the brick.. it's good that you got one.. merely because he assosciated with the criminal who did!!!
His brave mates did nothing. By the time we arrived at the police station, this young fool had become compliant, apologetic and so afraid that he kept crying.
He knows this kids IQ how? How does he know he was a "fool"? Are IQ tests upon criminals routine?
I wish i could be a big man like you.. Making a young guy cry.
By "fool" he is substituting what he really means which is "kid" with a put down, to entice the readers into entering a "good on ya mate, i'm sick of these
young,
Lebanese criminals" feeding frenzy.
If he used the word "kid", instead of fool, it would not help him get his prejudice across and it would make him sound lame if he admitted to making a kid cry.
You may not agree with what I did, but I paraded this goose around the police station for all the young police to see what they had become frightened of. For some months after that, police routinely rounded up the family whenever it was warranted.
yeh, so you can see that it clearly was a solution to the problem.. Because they had to revisit heaps of times (it was "routine"!!).. But the most important thing was that he maintained his power trip.. He can't let these little foreign bastards get one over him!
(This guy has clearly joined the police for all the wrong reasons)
the family got back on top and within months had murdered a young Australian man who had wandered into their area drunk.
Ooh, they got back on "top".. You can see the power struggle emerging (in the mind of this officer at least)..
And they murdered an Australian man! (lol, we can't forget to include the most important fact, that he was 'Australian')..
And guess what guys.. the WHOLE family were in on the murder.
They were all standing around with knives stabbing the guy! Even the grand mother. She was like "ima gonna cut u fool.. with this knife concealed in my walking cane!!"
They had set up a caravan where they sold drugs twenty-four hours a day.
Twenty four hours a day! Well what do ya know! They were standing in the caravan, selling these drugs 24/7!!!! They must have taken it in shifts or something.
In effect, this family had taken control of Redfern. Senior police did their best to limit police action against them, fearing an avalanche of IA complaints that would count against the Commander at Peter Ryan’s next Op Crime Review.
So, let me get this right. He wants zero tolerance policing to be enforced against these 'lebanese thugs'... But he does not want to be subjected to zero tolerance in the form of complaints against himself and his officers...
(complaints which are pursued through avenues which, i might add, were created largely due to the corruption that the public encountered from people like this guy a decade earlier).
I hope the examples I have just used don’t give the impression that I am a racist or a bully.
No, not one bit.
Actually, he does want to give this impression, but he does not want to admit to this (and he wants to dispel any concern that you may have that this is actually the case) because it might lower his articles reputation in the readers mind. He wants to position himself as an honorable "big" police man fighting against these hoards of foreign thugs. The emphasis being on "foreign", not "thugs".
The point I want to make from the start is that policing has never been rocket science.
But it is. We live in a post modern world where things are difficult to define. We have large social problems which cannot be solved by simple "bully" tactics and heavy handed policing strategies.. Because as this guy has already said (yet, which he fails to realise) the problems just continue to emerge on both the micro scale (this family continued to be arrested) and on the macro scale (gangs continue to emerge). To solve the bad attitudes towards police and society you need to attack the cause of the problem, not the person.
The Lebanese groups were ruthless, extremely violent, and they intimidated not only innocent witnesses, but even the police that attempted to arrest them.
I'm glad that the non-Lebanese criminals that he arrested weren't violent and intimidating towards him when he arrested them..
It never happens guys. Only criminals of Lebanese descent are rude to witnesses and police. True fact, no disputing this thanks. (I'm sure it's just an observation that he's made from his "years" of on-the-beat policing).
--
Of all the police that i have met in my degree.. and of all the places they have come from and from all the climates they have walked in.. Not one of them has had the attitude that the dick who wrote this article has. That's because anyone with policing experience knows that this mans attitude towards policing is not viable.
Half way through the article he switches from being the proactive fat bigot, to the emotional
But when I went forward and exposed the shame of Cabramatta, the residents were not Asians in my eyes, but Australians no matter where they came from.
type of person.
A typical wanker. You know, it's important that he viewed them as Australians "no matter where they came from".. Because he's the ultimate arbiter of what is and isn't Australian. He's important.. VERY IMPORTANT.
It's a typical rant. He starts off stating the problem in his eyes (the problem with foreign criminals) and then starts to break down emotionally when he realizes it's not going to change to be the way that he wants it. Through being emotional, he attempts to appeal to the emotions of the readers. He tries to make out that he has emerged from some golden age where these social problems didn't exist.
