27 December 2006

My christmas gift to you all

Yes, I mean Christmas, not Winterval, Festivus or anything else. I am a traditionalist!

I am no lover of sprouts, in fact they are frequently referred to, in the Bitseach household, as Satan's Testicles and I normally eat exactly one per year, at Christmas, again because I am a traditionalist at heart.

However, this tried and tested recipe for Brussel Sprout Soup is FANTASTIC. It's so good, it's actually worth buying the little testes just to make this soup.

For 3 people:

1/2 lb chopped Brussels sprouts
1 onion (chopped)
1 pint of stock (chicken or ham is best), real or 1 cube per pint
1 flat teaspoon of nutmeg or cinnamon (sounds dodgy but go with it)
1 tablespoon oil

Saute onion in oil (for a nicer favour use a small knob of butter in the oil - the goodness of oil with the yummy flavour of butter) gently until soft but not brown. Add chopped brussel sprouts and mix on low heat for 5 minutes. Then add stock and nutmeg / cinnamon.

Simmer for 15 minutes then allow to cool. Once cool enough to do so safely (I can never wait this long and end up with scalding splashes of soup all over my face, hands and clothing but I don't recommend this course of action!), liquidise. I would imagine this stage is also easier if you have posh cooking-type equipment - I make do with an electric hand blender which does the job. This is a vital step though in producing the lovely thick creamy soup that tastes of loveliness and not of sprouts, so don't neglect the liquidising!

Either now re-heat to serve or chill (never tried it chilled but I guess it wouldn't kill you) to use as a starter.

1 pint of stock serves 3 people for a very filling and delicious soup. Increase quantities pro rata for larger volumes of soup. It would probably also be nice with a bit of bacon chopped and gently saute-ed in at the beginning too, but I normally just stick with the original version.

Enjoy, and think kindly of PC Bitseach and her colleagues as you eat this lovely soup.

Merry Christmas!

16 December 2006


Another [somewhere] Ripper - the media must be wetting themselves with excitement.
Not since the 7/7 bombings have they enjoyed a news item as much as the recent serial murders in Suffolk.
One thing that they've badly let themselves down on is in constantly referring to the murdered women as prostitutes. Now I generally prefer to call a spade a spade, but to the families of these people, it must be especially hurtful and shameful to hear their loved ones constantly referred to as murdered prostitutes. Okay the prostitution angle is relevant up to a point as it appears to have been a targetted group; God knows they're a vulnerable enough group.
But does it have to be, "murdered prostitute Firstname Lastname" .... can't they just be murdered women?

13 December 2006

It don't work?

I have just watched a TV programme about some new technique being taught in some schools Sarf of the Thames which is supposed to help children with ADHD, behavioural disorders, dyslexia etc in their schooling. Being TV, they then followed around the lippiest teacher they could find and sought her opinion on the new technique.
Firstly, she likened it to someone coming into her house and telling her how to cook (what the?). We then saw her going towards a pupil, said something which ended with what sounded like, "'spect" and then touching her clenched fist to that of the little mite. Very "street". Indeed.
Her last comment though, pretty much epitomised everything about why the old system had to be changed in the first place. She looked to camera, blethered something about the new teaching method and then said, simply, "It don't work".
Perhaps if we selected our state sector teachers a little better than this, we would find that it do work. Then instead of it don't working, us could find that it all went a lot more betterer. Isn't it?

11 December 2006

Right, everyone round to my house!!

I have a few cases pending at the moment - nothing particularly scary or highbrow but I DO have witnesses.... security guards and shop managers for theft-shoplifting, fellow officers in various other matters. I am now of course hoping to find a safe-house for all of them as any form of witness intimidation or harm to them as a result of their being witnesses in my cases is MY fault. I will be disciplined personally and my force / service will be subject to the good old Human "£££" Right$ Ac£.

Hertfordshire Police is now appealing against a ruling that it breached the Human Rights of a witness in a trial for theft, who was murdered by the suspect days before the trial. Now I am obviously not in full appreciation of the facts and there is perhaps much background to this tragic case to which I am not party, but as it stands at the moment this was a case of theft by employee, not a gangland situation or a Trident case. I mean no disrespect to the murdered man or his family and loved ones, but they have just been awarded £50,000 - the standard amount won for a "breach" of the Human Rights Act, articles 2 (right to life) and 8 (respect for family and private life) - for the police's alleged failure in protecting him.

I supported the Human Rights Act when it came in - it surely can't be a bad thing for all of Europe to enshrine on paper some of the rights we've had by statute or Common Law in the UK for decades / centuries. I even wondered why so many police officers seemed to oppose it - surely it was a good thing for us all?

As with everything it's been hijacked by the legal profession who see a quick buck ensuing from their suing. Instead of protecting us all it's being used as a stick with which to beat the police, to create extra paperwork to try to prevent avaricious litigation by lawyers who are on the clock, earning, whether their appeals are withheld or denied, used to protect the criminal over the victim, used as an excuse not to take action against criminals who richly deserve it... the list could go on. The spirit of this Act has been flushed away in lawyers' greed and loopholers' absence of consciences as the letter of the law is perverted to help them instead of society. The only ones laughing are the criminals.

The relationship of the UK with Europe in the law has not all been bad - the police are more careful in planning jobs that they are according to PLAN, ie Proportionate, Legal, Accountable and Necessary; we've seen advances in legal protection for women, gay people in employment, gay people in the military etc because of people taking the government and employers into the European courts system. Maybe I just make the distinction because I fall into those two categories but there is a distinction because there are laws to protect the innocent and there are laws or articles that only seem to help the guilty, or the wallets of the legal "profession".

What happened to Giles Van Cole was a terrible act by a criminal who deserves to spend the rest of his life in misery. Were the police negligent in not protecting him? Well the courts seem to have decided so and they have access to all the information that I don't. Should the family and their lawyers get £50,000 from the public purse for police's failing to place in protective custody what appears on the surface to be a witness in a theft-employee case? Unless a lot more emerges about the background to this case, forget building more prisons, we'll need to build giant witness protection centres, everyone will be unable to do their jobs as they'll be in the protection centre, there will be no police patrolling at all as we'll all be standing around guarding them, and society will grind to a halt with all the witnesses and police off the streets.

In the meantime, I have a spare room and a bed-settee. So everyone round to my house until their court appearances. Bring tea-bags.
My views are my own and would probably not endear me to my dear employers.