My apologies for not making any updates recently, but I’ve been flat out with work of late.
Posting again soon!
Meanwhile: Super Bogan is planning his next move.
My apologies for not making any updates recently, but I’ve been flat out with work of late.
Posting again soon!
Meanwhile: Super Bogan is planning his next move.
So, just for the sake of it, let’s assume you happen to be an editorialist at a major Australian newspaper. Let’s just say you have a radio program which is broadcast Melbourne wide. Let’s just say you’d just happened to also have a television show which is nationally broadcast. Let’s just say your name (to protect the proven guilty in a court of law) is Cyrus Grissom.
‘Cyrus’ was found guilty yesterday of racial discrimination. And as it turns out, ‘Cyrus’ doesn’t like it when the courts find him guilty of something, and subsequently believes that the courts have stepped on his ‘freedom of speech’.
Yep, that’s right. The guy who has a newspaper column, radio show and television show, apparently doesn’t have enough freedom of speech.
It’s not the verdict that I want to talk about, nor is it the fact that a so-called ‘journalist’ believed they could get away with completely misrepresenting and ignoring the facts, and be able to do so in the name of ‘free speech’. No, what I want to talk about is that little phrase ‘free speech’ itself.
Dig deeply enough into our social cesspools and you’ll find people using the term ‘freedom of speech’ to justify themselves beating on their fellow man. ‘Protect your rights’ they demand. And maybe there’s something in that, but the problem is, that the majority of these rump-fed runions start and end their defence of human rights right there. It’s as if the only right that is important, is the one where they protect people’s ability to open their mouths and spew whatever crap they verbally wish to spew. Some of them even go as far as to demand that a ‘bill of rights’ should be enshrined into Australian law, to ensure that they have that… one… single… right.
Is freedom of speech the be-all, and end all of rights? Is it fundamentally the most important right that we have? What actually is freedom of speech anyway?
Well, lets have a look at the last question there. What is freedom of speech?
So while we’re talking about human rights, we may as well start at the beginning. Let’s start at article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as set out by the united nations.
If you want to get ahead in your homework people, you can pop over to the UDHR document at any time.
So, alright. Everyone has the freedom of opinion and expression. And maybe that expression involves beating down a megaphone as loudly as you possibly can. Great. Something worth defending for sure. I just wish the people who were most often ‘defending’ their freedom of speech, weren’t doing so at the expense of everyone else’s rights. But more of that in a minute. I certainly don’t see anything in there that says ‘I can say whatever the hell I want, and no one can touch me’.
Truth be told, when people like ‘Cyrus’ declare their freedom of speech to be threatened, they tend to do so in order to stop or get in the way of a conflicting point of view. ‘Cyrus’s’ front page reply in a Melbourne tabloid newspaper is full of references to ‘Conservatives’, and how the judgement cast against him threatens the rights and the freedoms of other ‘conservatives’ in Australia. As much as this is absolute bullshit, it is also yet another stab at people who have opinions that differ from his. These are the same conservatives that cry out every time that Australia’s national broadcaster, the ‘ABC‘ presents facts and information that contradicts the beliefs of these conservatives. Australia’s peak conservative party, the ‘Liberal party of Australia‘ has on several occasions (while they were in power) attempted to chastise the national broadcaster for not presenting the news on the Iraq invasion from a point of view that they liked. They have also attempted to do this on several other issues that the broadcaster has attempted to tackle; Often making claims about bias that they can’t actually support. One one occasion recently, a member of the party that is in coalition with the Liberals, went as far as to claim that he had evidence that a story about the meat industry in Indonesia was a fraudulent beat-up.
Essentially these conservatives are trying to step on the rights of others, by aggressively using the media to drown out the voices of people they don’t agree with. Attempts to balance this out are frequently met with declarations that their rights of these conservatives are being trod on, amongst other threats to the lives and liberties to the people of Australia etc.
In the court hearing against ‘Cyrus’ it ended in the same old fashion. ‘Cyrus’ declared his freedom of speech had been void, and it was going to now be a dark day for Australian journalism. Reality is, that it put journalists on notice: DON’T MAKE UP RUBBISH ABOUT PEOPLE.
As a friend of mine put it, people like this believe that ‘freedom of speech’ simply absolves them of responsibility for their own actions. They believe that they have the right to say whatever they want, and it should never be held against them. This is interesting, because they usually use their ‘freedom of speech’ to say things that will in effect have some kind of impact on other people. Whether it be simply denting someone’s self esteem, to potentially rallying your countrymen to let you force at gunpoint members of a particular religion into a gas chamber, this abuse of freedom of speech has real world consequences. To egotistically believe that you have rights above that of everyone else when you declare your freedom of speech is a sign that you clearly have absolutely no threats to your personal freedoms at all. And this is damaging to our community.
It seems that freedom of speech is only preserved by those that can afford to do so, and for the people that they like. ‘Cyrus’ for example makes a pretty living out of his ‘freedom of speech’, and has done well for him self by mining this human rights resource.
Perhaps this is time to remind some people that there are other rights out there, other than just the right to open your obese mouth. For example:
Freedom of speech has most often been used lately to victimise Muslims in our community. As absurd as many religions may be, people have the right to practice these religions.
Alright, so you can use your freedom of speech to vent your rage at these people, right?
Yep… alright, so again they are protected, but you still can say anything you want about them, can’t you?
It’s hard to ignore the phrase ‘equal dignity and rights’ here. Degrading people’s dignity, and using freedom of speech to batter their rights really runs against this. And this is just article 1, the introduction.
I didn’t see ‘Cyrus’ or any of our ‘conservative’ friends showing any interesting in preserving any of this. How often have you heard them using their freedom of speech to cry out for refugees to be locked up, for muslims to be removed from our society or forced to obey laws. ‘Cyrus’ certainly didn’t protect the honour and reputation of the people he besmirched in his editorial, nor did he actually use facts to do so, but rather he relied on his ‘freedom of speech’. Perhaps he should have looked at what other freedoms people were entitled to first.
But hey… freedom of speech is more important than all the others, right? Because… it says so……..
There’s no confusion here. Rights are there to protect people. Freedom of speech these days only seems to be ‘threatened’ when people start to push for the other rights to be protected. Reality is, that in Australia freedom of speech is never considered threatened when we are trying to move forward and achieve things for the greater good. It only appears to be threatened at times when people are abusing this right to degrade, regress and damage our society and it’s citizenry. Be weary of people declaring their freedom of speech being violated. Chances are you’re being manipulated.
So you’re an aspiring political party that’s trying to ride in on the back of a social issue that’s frequently making the media.
So set up a party, and base most, if not all of your policies around this one issue.
Yep, I’m with you still
So you then tell everybody that you’re right wing and conservative.
So you then fail in several elections sequentially.
Well, no surprises
So you feel you need more media coverage.
Yep, that makes sense.
So what do you do?
Naturally, you go with a small group of your friends and protest at the biggest collective of individuals that are unlikely to vote for you, that you could find. Further more it is unlikely that anyone that would vote for you would actually be there to see it. Oh yeah, and you wear t-shirts that belittles your assumed beliefs about the people you expect find there; even though it has nothing to do with what they are protesting, or what you are protesting.
So how does that work?
Welcome to the land of the dinosaurs. This is the cul-de-sac of evolution. The place where undeveloped brains and bodies come to die. A place where looking back to the heyday your species is all that you have left.
It probably isn’t fair to pick on this particular political group, as the landscape is littered with also-rans that have all tried to be the little man screaming ‘What about me’?! Only to disappoint by running the same contradictory ‘Lets keep everything the same to change things’.
People look for one of two things from their politicians. They either want inspiration and ideas when things are going bad, or growth and wealth when things are going good. However political groups like those picture above, simple represent the fringe of our society that is dying off as it is unable to adapt to a world which changes rapidly from day to day, and will for the rest of eternity. It’s hard to play the leader when you’re the kind of person that reckons we should all just stand still, or look back at where we came from.
But something unusual has happened, and a great social irony has occurred. One of the most significant changes to our society of the past 15 years has actually helped these fringe groups to not only survive, but thrive in a way. Technological advancement has actually breathed new life into the lives of the luddites. The internet revolution has allowed these people to actually contact and communicate with each other. Even though they have failed to adapt to a changing world, they have been able to group together and unify thanks to this technology, even if they complain on there about how the other changes this technology had influenced in their lives.
The Dinosaurs again have a place to live. They can breathe, complain and moan in cyberspace. They can relive the heyday again and again. They can even pass on their stagnant ideals on to future generations, ensuring that the antiquated ideas that they inherited off their own usually uneducated parents, can still be carried on in a world where education and information is more accessible than ever. The gene pool is potentially brought alive again, by ensuring those that have lost the survival of the fittest, are still able to find like minded genomes in order to be able to replicate. Move over Jurassic park, we don’t need frog’s genes and eggs, we just need the internet to bring the dinosaurs back.
Groups like the one pictured above often run online internet forums and groups which have become a safe haven for these evolutionary dead-ends. They aren’t hard to find, but they are usually aggressively named to attract attention, and tend to be filled with poorly written, poorly thought out dross. But it is this dross that gives them life, by giving them purpose. It allows them to once again believe that they have a purpose and a place in society, rather than being the isolated dead skin on the fringes. Most importantly they feel that they are doing something, by actually doing nothing. It may appear to be something like a rat spinning a wheel in a cage, but even that could potentially power a lightbulb.
In the next few months I’ll discuss some of the dinosaur groups that are dwelling in online communities. I’ve already talked about the Australian T.E.A. Party, but theres plenty more specimens to look at in the weird and whacky internet Jurassic park.
So till then. TTFN.
Today’s journey into the depths of the internet is an exploration into the realm of the online extremism, the realm of the keyboard commando.
Let’s play spot the difference.
First up, we have a statement made on an open public forum by a self confessed right wing conservative.
How does this compare to this statement made by a Muslim extremist on a public forum?
Both statements were addressed towards people who have been in the public eye at some level. The ‘him’ referred to in the former post is the friend of mine that has featured in a couple of my previous posts.
Differences? One potential victim is a major American celebrity? One is made by a Muslim? One is being investigated by the FBI, while the other isn’t investigated at all?
Similarities? Both of them are wish fulfilment? Neither statement would do anything for their cause if they were acted on? Both of them were said in a context?
For whatever the similarities and differences are, both of these statements have one major factor in common. The willingness to use force to achieve punitive gain.
So what exactly are the differences between islamic extremism, and the pockets of extremist nationalism that is poking it’s head up all about the place here in Australia? Individuals supporting one side typically state the virtues of a particular combative party as being what makes them different. This is essentially putting the cart before the horse, by claiming what is in the cart makes the difference despite the cart and the horse being in essence the same thing over all.
It also becomes a similarity, rather than a difference. As all parties essentially claim their superior virtues in the same way, even if the words that proclaim them are somewhat varied.
I heard about the latter example during a news flash on the radio. The former I discovered while exploring facebook. It is interesting that in our society a threat against another individual is only major news if it comes from a muslim and it is aimed towards a very famous person. Neither of the people who made those statements have any intention or ability to act, or capacity to incite someone to act on these threats, even though the former claim was made after the threatener had been in the same room at a public event with the threatee and had widely announced that they had done so.
Stupid is as stupid does.
It is hard to ignore right wing extremism in our community these days. The threats involved have started to move beyond the commonplace calling for governments to do sadistic things to asylum seekers, and even more violent things such as ‘nuking muslims’ have started to morph into something else.
The reason it is so hard to ignore, is because of the sheer brutality that happens when some of its exponents actually act on their fantasies. The Norway attacks and US Congress woman shooting has shown that these extremist nationalists more often than not turn the weapons onto their own countrymen before anyone else. The same can be said for Islamic extremists. It doesn’t take much to find comparable acts violence and assassination on the other side of the extremist fence.
The internet has become quite and exponent of these fantasies. Facebook has taken a largely non-interventionist role when this kind of violent language appears on their site, in a protection of freedom of speech. Although they do tend to act on statements made by Muslims, rather than comparable statements made by others. This is often seen as a vindication by other extremists, even though facebook is often just retaining their statements for other reasons other than supporting them.
As I mentioned before, we often have individuals in Australia demanding that the government do sadistic things to Asylum seekers. Things like blowing up their boats, or shooting them while they are in the water are essentially calls for us to murder someone simply because they like us enough to want to live with us.
It is interesting that the individuals that often declare freedom of speech to be a fundamental right are so willing to take the away the lives and rights of others. Something is seriously amiss here. Most of these violent statements are often made in the expectation that such a thing would never happen, while being ignorant of the reality that it could actually happen, and historically when such groups have come into power, has.
Statements made off the cuff on the internet like these are often made with little to no consideration about what the real world outcome could be. While baseball bat beatings and tongue cuttings may seem unrealistic, say them often enough and someone may believe that they have the justification to act upon these wishes. There are people out there that are more than willing to turn to force before any other solution.
And lets not even start to talk about how all of them hate homosexuals… for some stupid reason
The ‘truth’ is a funny thing. In literary circles defining something as ‘the true story of…’ or ‘the truth of’ is usually a dead give-away that it’s a complete and utter load of rubbish. It’s a nod from fiction writers that says ‘I’m going to lie through my teeth about something till I convince you that it’s true, and I hope you get wrapped up in the story’.
Writers love this wordplay. And it becomes even more amusing when people just gloss past the headlines and the titles to the information held within, to just unwillingly take the title on it’s face value.
This ‘low information’ or ‘flash reading’ approach to life has created some interesting side effects. Putting ‘Truth’ into the title of something that is poorly researched, or full of pithy headline-based sound bites has become quite the norm for some people trying to push their own agenda.
9/11 Truthers anyone?
It is the conspiracy theorists that tend to run with the bulls like no other.
Take the Australian T.E.A. Party for example.
It’s hard to take their site seriously. It has got ‘Truth’ written all over it. Pithy little headline statements which aren’t backed up by any solid articles and writing. Yet they expect you to take this all as ‘truth’ .
Where’s an example of their website.
The site claims to be a voice of the ‘Taxed Enough Already’ (get it! get it!) but the site doesn’t seem to be actually about tax, but rather conspiracy theories about the greens, the ALP Government and climate scientists. Not to mention its weird daily ranting about how ‘leftists’ (left wing inclined people) are evil… and that kind of stuff.
In a way it’s nice to have someone so in touch with their inner selves that they know exactly what side of the room they are on.
Sites like these are actually really hard to read. After several passive-agressive, or just down-right agressive postings, you start to to find the site downright hard to take seriously. And then when it starts rambling on about Communism, you really have to scratch your head and ask yourself “What on earth am I reading”.
It becomes even harder to read when you realise that this person is making several of these posts a day. Damn the facts, this is important! I must tell the world what I have discovered by sitting in my chair, and looking for evidence online that supports my predisposed point of view! f**k science and due process!
The site itself even caries what it calls its ‘Iconic movie’. It lasts but a mere few seconds, and is an odd rip-off of the British cinema version of the animated movie ‘Animal farm‘. Although it does claim to be inspired by ‘George Orwell’s Animal Farm‘.
This is a bit weird really. Anyone that knows their cinema history would know about the controversy involved with turning the film into exclusive capitalist propaganda, by removing any critical points from the story that were made against capitalism. It has also been claimed that the CIA Funded production. But then again, a single sided point of view is exactly what this site is all about.
It isn’t hard to see that the title of the page borrows heavily from the ‘Tea Party’ movement in the United states. Other than iconic Australian wildlife and livestock animals being represented in the ‘iconic movie’, there’s nothing particularly ‘Australian’ about this site in it’s execution.
Oh sorry, I forgot. The logo is in green and gold, and they mostly only attack ALP politicians. Albeit in the same disjointed way as the Americans do with their ‘Tea Party’.
It’s a rant. A huge, huge and near unreadable rant, which preaches firmly to the choir and no-one else. It has to be no-one else, because unless you were certifiable in the same way as the person that runs this site, you really would find yourself tuning out within moments.
The net is great for this kind of rubbish. Everyone wants to be the boss of their own newspaper, printing their own stories. Bugger the facts: here’s my opinion.
Speaking of mad, mad ranting. The Australian Tea party looks pale in comparison to ‘Jesus is Saviour’. If filling your page with disorganised rubbish, is a sign of an unhinged mind, then this site takes the cake.
This site is wall to wall with 9/11 truther, religious nutter and New World Order theories. If the TEA party site was unreadable, this site is positively blinding.
Looking at this site is disorientating. Reading it is unsettling, and trying to make sense of it is impossible. This is another example of the ranting of a madman that has gotten hold of a text editor and some free web-space.
Like the TEA party website, the person that writes this stuff is firmly entrenched into his or her own world. Unlike the TEA party website, this site has become so unhinged in that self created reality, that it has lost all focus on what it may or may not wish to achieve.
It is trying to push some kind of puritan line, but isn’t exactly sure what it is being puritan about. Either way, it can only be preaching to the link minded, as by god… it is utterly unreadable.
These are just some of the examples of what happens when we seek to have all of our information presented to us in small packets, and then start to consider that as the normal practice. It is what freedom of speech protects the most, and probably needs to protect the least.
Remember my post: Of all the stupid things ?
Well, here’s an update.
There was quite a lot of response from that blog entry, both online and in my inbox. Jame Gumb even took the time out to post to me.
Well…. he did contact me, but that’s not what he actually wrote. The real email from Jame Gumb waffled something about fraud, and then went on to make some weird and whacky threats about defamation. Not sure if this genius is up on his law, but I didn’t actually give the names of anyone involved in that post, let alone either of Jame’s real or fake names. Defamation or not, the only cops that will take his cries seriously, stopped producing films in 1917. Although they did try to revive their task force a few times.
But that’s all in the past now.
As the meme goes; if you sleep with dogs, you wake up with fleas. The trouble with being a socially disgruntled racist & anti compassion activist (read, ‘right wing’ try-hard), means you end up end up with all kind of problem-child friends.
Sure, start a facebook group where you can collect up all the socially disgruntled losers that have featured on ‘The Anti Bogan’. There’s nothing like making friends by looking for all the people spend their lives beating on other races, in order to try and hide their own insecurities.
Fine, make friends with the local Neo-Nazi comic book characters who fire off big rhetorical statements and get into drunken brawls at any opportunity. If your friends are a reflection of who you are, then finding individuals of the lowest possible quality implies that you’re an individual of the lowest possible quality. Move along. Nothing that thinks here.
So what do we find at the bottom of the barrel? How low can we go to gain friends? Well, why not child sexual predators…
I’m not sure what Jame Gumb was intending when he posted up my friend’s details onto his website and other locations. Was he intending to convince someone to go and assault him? This would be taking the cowards way, as from all reports Jame actually lives within short walking distance from my friend. Was he intending to get my friend sacked from his job? Was he intending to try and trigger his Neo-Nazi friends to do something Neo-Nazi-ish; like post photos of weapons and swastikas about the place.
Whatever the intention was, he has facilitated a child sexual predator to target children from my friend’s workplace, via facebook, with a profile laced with homo-eroticism and child sexual fantasy. This wasn’t just limited to children from my friend’s school (if you recall, my friend is a teacher) but the person that has created the profile approached other primary school children on facebook, from other schools in the area.
Did I mention that the profile was a fake profile that used my friend’s name and image in order to gain the trust of these children?
If you don’t see any problem with this, there really is something wrong with you.
Jame Gumb hasn’t been silent on the matter though. (UPDATE: SEE BELOW) He’s actually been quite supportive of this child sexual predator. His postings on his ‘Victims’ site essentially accuse my friend of bringing this situation onto himself, because he disagrees with Jame’s point of view. He also contradicts himself by claiming it never happened, and it was just some paranoid delusion. Although, this claim was only made after the profile was removed from facebook.
That’s right. Jame is happy for innocent and unrelated children to be befriended by a child sexual predator on facebook, and used as pawns in a personal dispute, in order to achieve his unspecified goal of hurting my friend.
I can’t wait to see how he justifies Dennis Ferguson as a patriot.
Let me be clear. I call the person who created the fake profile a child sexual predator, as they are willing to directly approach children, and fill their facebook walls with homosexual detritus and child sexuality. People are arrested and jailed for less. To do this, and target children with their sexuality for the sake of political purposes? I can’t even find the words to describe how lowly I feel about this person. I felt sick just hearing about this.
Anyway. I feel I have left out our Neo Nazi friend.
Although he’s achieved nothing other than some smug postings on his site, I feel I need to include him somehow.
So to Mr White Trash Flowers…. I have a special for you.
Maaaaaate. You’re in luck. You can be a hard-core Neo-Nazi, or hard core anything you like, on the cheap!
Big W Specials:
Hair clippers – Tiffany brand $32
Black T-Shirt with skulls and stuff printed on it $12.99
Black stretch jeans (Up to Sz 144!) $31.55
Black pleather boots $29.99
Navy bomber-style Jacket $44.90
And if you stick with the underpants and sock you’ve been wearing since 1993, you’ll even smell authentic neo-nazi like!
Anyway, I just have one more piece of advice to give:
Have a great weekend everyone.
PS. Jame, I have a special little something for you – Right here
UPDATE – UPDATE – UPDATE
I was just notified that someone has removed Jame Gumb’s postings, amongst others, from the ‘Victims’ website. These are the comments whereby Jame and friends (for want of a better word) advocated for the abuse of children for the sake of their petty goal.
Either Jame had a change or heart, or some admin somewhere woke up to the broader implications of this level of stupidity.
I however, had not taken screenshots of the comments, so I wont be posting them here. So I’ll leave that to ‘The Anti-bogan’ to publish, as I believe they may have taken some.
I feel some kind of weird cosmic kismet is happening here. The idea of a ‘Victim of the Anti-Bogan’ being a victim of his own victimising while crying foul that he is a victim, seems to me either absurdly ironic, or just plain Dickensian. Either way, someone figured out that it wasn’t too cleaver for them to be advocating the abuse of innocent and unrelated children.
“Your Honor”, Said the defendant. “I have something I’d like to say in my defense”.
The aging Judge that was almost asleep in his chair looked up over the rim of his glasses, briefly looking away that from the iPhone he’d been messaging with to kill the sheer boredom.
“Yes, what is it Mr Stephen” the judge scowled down in return.
The defended swayed nervously for a moment, before replying “Brother! Brother I am hurt inside”.
“Oh Really”? The judge retorted with a hint of sarcasm.
“Brother yes. These charges that have been placed against me are utterly unfair”.
Intrigued, the Judge put his iPhone aside, and leaned forward. “Please explain how you see them as unfair” he uttered in reply through his aging lips.
“Brother, I’m a man. And I have man needs. These needs have to be met”! The defendant declared before continuing. “Brother, I found someone that met those needs. When I saw him on the street, with his shirt off, his hat backwards, his CK underpants peaking over the waist of his pants, I was mesmerized. I was mesmerized I tell ya.”
The defendant paused for a moment to give a longing glance to another man in the room. He opened his mouth, and stuttered as he tried to finish his statement. ‘Your honor. Brother! When I saw that gold chain hanging over his six-pack I just HAD to take him. Have you seen this ass! Brother! That’s one fine ass. And the way he was dressed, well. I couldn’t help myself your honor”.
The court fell silent for a moment. The judge looked over to the other man, before asking “So, you say.. it was because of the way he was dressed”?
“Sure as I’m standing here today, your honor. I just… just… couldn’t help myself”.
The judge stroked his chin for a moment in thought, before picking up the gavel and striking his bench with it. “Case dismissed”! he decried.
You’ve all heard about ‘SlutWalk’ by now. It’s difficult to have avoided. With a name like that, it’s instantly in everyone’s face. There have been all kinds of articles written in the media about it, but there seems to have been very little attempt to actually address the issues that the Walkers have tried to discuss.
So in short, we have some cop that addresses a group of women, with a line like “women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized.”
Coming from a cop this is naturally quite worrying. This is a man that should know that the majority of women that have been raped, are raped by someone known to them. As he is a cop, I can understand that he feels himself to be the protector of the world. But restricting women’s rights to go where they please, or dress how they wish to dress isn’t going to solve anything. Do we restrict men’s rights in the same way?
And what is worse is the horrendous passing the buck that such a statement makes. The statement infers that it’s the responsibility of the woman to not get raped. This is as though the world is full of out of control animal men who wish to never take responsibility for their own actions. No one seems to want to run a women’s safety course where you sit down with a room full of men and say ‘Don’t rape FFS. That hot dress she is wearing isn’t necessarily for you to rip off’.
After all, how often have you seen a man get hassled by a group of Muscle Marys because he has his shirt off. It always seems different when it is a man that gets attacked. It just doesn’t seem to happen in the same way.
Why? Because men look at men differently.
So for those of you who don’t understand SlutWalk, here’s something for you to think about. It’s about time we started seeing some men reflecting on the problems in our community. Someone has to start telling them that they have to take responsibility for their own actions, and it’s other men that need to do it.
Incidentally, Mr Rogerson wasn’t the cop.