On Wednesday and Thursday of this week, the funerals of two women police constables, Nicola Hughes and Fiona Bone, took place in Manchester. For each occasion the Greater Manchester Police shut down Deansgate, one of the busiest thoroughfares in the entire conurbation, so that the cortege could progress to Manchester Cathedral. However, because the coffins on both occasions were followed by hundreds of police, on a route that was lined by hundreds more, the two processions (pictured here and here) through the city took on an unmistakable resemblance to a march and the parading of police power. If such a thing was designed – which is most likely the case given the cold-blooded calculating of the culturally Marxist leadership of British police forces – then it means that the deaths of two women, both victims of the British Marxist State, were exploited to make a statement about the dominance of Marxist political order in response to an attack that was symbolically potent and more abstractly dangerous than was the actual, dreadful, physical assault on the women police officers.
To understand fully what happened in Manchester this week, two other police funerals need to be considered as they will provide context. Almost 10 years ago, in 2003, the funeral of Detective Constable Stephen Oake also took place at Manchester Cathedral. His cortege was afforded the pomp of being escorted by six mounted policemen, “the silver on their helmets glinting in the winter sun”, according to the Telegraph reportage at the time. Accounts suggest that there were hundreds of mourners who stood outside the Cathedral that day; the police attendance, when it was mentioned, formed a guard of honour that “stretched from the cathedral down the route of the procession as far as the eye could see”. How dense this guard of honour was is not clear, but various photographs (and here, from whence the image on the left is taken) suggest that the entrance to the cathedral might have been heavily populated (as tradition dictates), but beyond the grounds of the cathedral, police presence was very light. An image collected by the BBC, and shown below on the right, which pertains to show mourners listening to the service, illustrates how surprisingly empty a space can remain even if it contains up to a thousand people.
The second funeral to consider happened in April 2012, and is one that became notorious because of how it affected alternative media broadcaster, Alex Jones, who, to his credit, and although he had been seriously inconvenienced by proceedings and is known to get justifiably upset and animated, did not impugn the honour of the dead police officer, nor project what was wicked about the event on to the object of the funeral (which is not the aim here either). Jones came to the conclusion that local police had deliberately chosen a route through Austin, Texas, that went miles out of its way to reach its destination, on what is reportedly some of the busiest highway in the entire United States, in order to run a convoy of escorts, hearse and following vehicles, that was comparable to that of a presidential motorcade.
With a high ranking police officer on the radio telling drivers who encountered the parade to pull over to pay respect, and the city of Austin effectively being shut down for 5 hours – which, according to Jones, caused gridlock for many hours afterwards – the radio host told listeners that he and other Austinites had been subjected to a psychological operation to impress the power of police upon them; in other words, the death of a policeman had been exploited by the authorities to create an exercise that would train the public. The idea being taught was that the will, whether it be lawful or not, and go-anywhere reach of the police should automatically provoke compliance and, indeed, feelings of submission in people to whom the police should actually be humble servants. Moreover, the authorities were trying to create a mentality of submission that is associated with what they determine is good citizenship; i.e. emoting in public caused by the death of a stranger; feeling proud of the deceased because he was in the service of the community. When that association has been fixed, then later, when police are no longer real heroes, but enforcers of a totalitarianism, and who may be injured, or worse, while provoking conflicts with defenders of liberty, they will still be thought of as in the service of the community, and deserving of homage.
Just as the practice of hiring low-IQ candidates, who will follow any unlawful order, has been adopted by UK police forces from the US, so, as it seems from the Hughes and Bone funerals, has the practice of exploiting police deaths for the same kind of purposes as explained above. The propaganda purpose of the two recent Manchester funerals becomes quite clear when they are compared with the use of the streets for the funeral of DC Oake.
In what, from the accounts and photos, seems a dignified event, the police at the Oake funeral seemed to be present only to do a professional service for their fallen colleague. At the Hughes and Bone funerals, individuals in breathtaking crowds of hundreds of police who were there as actual mourners – even though they were dressed in uniform and so possibly technically on duty – were seen emoting without evidently feeling that there was any reason why they shouldn’t. These crowds of police were apparently from all over the country; there had been an appeal named the “Cover For GMP campaign” which asked for police in other forces to cover for Greater Manchester Police while they policed the funeral; it turns out that it was in fact a recruiting campaign to populate and block Manchester’s street for propaganda purposes. According to the reports, there were also senior representatives from all 43 forces in England and Wales at the funeral. It is not clear that the same honour was given DC Oakes. All the same, it genuinely, generally seems as if there was a very special effort to make Hughes’ and Bone’s funerals more spectacular than any that may have set precedence.
However, this preferential treatment does not correspond to the apparent worth to society, in their role as police officer, of the individual men and women who died in service. Oake was described by the then Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police, Michael Todd, as a man of integrity, who did his job with a sense of humour – both traits seriously lacking from self-important police these days. He described him as a “first class officer”, a “real thief taker” “one of the good guys” and “completely dedicated and professional”. Oake was killed as he was participating in a Special Branch raid on a Manchester flat in which an Algerian illegal immigrant with possible links to terrorism was thought to be hiding. Being a thief-taker is to be one who is able to pluck culprits up in the midst of their crimes; in other words, to prevent a crime, not to turn up later after one has been committed.
This might have been what Hughes and Bone were about when they were ambushed and murdered as they attended the scene of burglary – the schedule of events does not seem to have been released, so no conclusion can be made. Tributes to the women naturally included comments about how enthusiastic and brave they were, but there was also an insightful observation about Hughes by police chaplain Keith Stewart who asked mourners to “remember a vibrant young woman” who was a green belt in karate but also enjoyed looking after her nails and hair and who still had “something of the little girl about her”. Of Bone, Sergeant Stephen Miskell told the congregation that “she was wonderful at keeping colleagues’ spirits high with her bubbly nature. She was wonderful about caring for others”. The Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police, Sir Peter Fahy, reiterated this aspect of Bone’s character: “it is clear that helping people and building community spirit was at the heart of what she did”.
The really pertinent question, however, is would these qualities make Hughes and Bone effective officers in a proper police force that was actually geared towards tackling and preventing crime against the person and property, not merely cultivating a perception that it was doing those things in order to execute its real role: protecting the Marxist Revolution? True enough, Bone had received a chief superintendent’s commendation in 2009 for her outstanding contribution in an investigation into a series of burglaries and robberies which secured convictions, which is a positive indication, but lack of detail means that in her case, for the time being, the question is still not satisfied.
On the other hand, because entry requirements to join the police have been lowered so that forces can recruit women, the general answer is that women cannot be as effective as men in a sphere of activity that pits two sides, irreconcilable in terms of their objectives – the law officer and the criminal – against each other. Violence may, and probably will, ensue. The natural verdict is that women cannot be police officers in the same way that men can (so their recruitment is not desirable). This sort of thing is heresy in the Marxist society, where Equality asserts (within the doublethink arena of said society, at least) that women are capable of anything that men can do in whatever sphere of employment; therefore the primacy of Equality is both the reason why women can be placed in mortal danger – an anathema to previous British generations whose men would be ashamed of themselves to allow a woman to get in harms’ way – and why they must be feted when they have succumbed to that danger.
Therefore, one of the key motivating factors behind the Manchester funerals this week was the defence of the quasi-religion of Equality, which is the central pillar supporting the new British Marxist hegemony. When Manchester Police stages an over-the-top funeral, then important questions that should otherwise be generated by the potentially unnecessary murder of a woman, get overshadowed and marginalised. These questions are not only about policing and how crime is only perceived to have been tackled when police turn up hours later after a burglary not expecting to catch a culprit, but also about the role of women in society – and therefore Equality. In turn, the gender issues threaten the very core of the carefully crafted general perception that Equality is a real, natural, substantive quality in human experience. Nothing could be further from the truth. Equality has to be legislated for in order to exist, therefore Equality is about creating control over society. Equality (with affirmative action) creates a society where people do very well in a role that they are not suited for; Equality, therefore, creates non-cohesiveness and confusion; social breakdown, which for the ruling elite means reduced threat to their supremacy.
The funeral of Bone represented a particularly significant moment for the Marxist Revolution because she was a homosexual who was “engaged” to a “life partner” and planning a civil partnership. As such, she must have been an affirmed homosexual, and therefore someone who was particularly set against living a Christian lifestyle – as Christianity itself defines it, not as it is defined by Marxist society. And yet she was honoured in Manchester’s cathedral church, with the congregation there being told that she “represented the best that humanity has to offer the world.” Here, then, in a collaboration between the guardians of the Revolution, and the Anglo-Catholic church that the Baptist Oake’s family seemingly, and characteristically, thought was an inappropriate theatre for his funeral (speaking during the service, Stephen’s father had hinted that the family would have preferred a “more intimate” occasion), was a declaration of the triumph of Marxism. Fiona Bone had nothing to do with the engineering that had gone on to bring this about, of course, and her choices in non-Christian life using the freewill that the Lord nevertheless gave her, were between her and the Giver. Besides which, like her colleague, she was a victim.