London Riots - Don't be too quick to blame the Parents.

I wrote this a couple of years ago and I think it is about time the government took notice of this issue:

I was all for blaming parents for their unruly children. I used to believe that no matter what, a parent should be able to control a child. Surely by grounding the kid and stopping their pocket money a parent had the upper hand?
I found out the hard way that I was sorely mistaken.

A year ago my 14 year old daughter was in one of the top classes at her school. She had been forecast to get good results in her GCSEs and she was generally well behaved. Then she starting mixing with the wrong crowd. Over the space of a month she turned abusive, came home late and started drinking and smoking cannabis.

Obviously I did what any good parent would do. I talked to her. When that failed I grounded her and stopped her pocket money. That seemed to work for a while but eventually I would let her out and she would do it all over again. Even without money she would still get booze and drugs from her so called friends. This turned into a battle, but I knew eventually I would win and she would come to her senses.

I was wrong again. My daughter upped the ante.

After another grounding she went out and did not come home. Eventually I found out she was staying at a friends house. I went round there to pick her up and she refused to get in the car. I tried to drag her into it but she started swearing and screaming. I realised that I could not get her in the car without seriously hurting her, so I went home to call the police.

Over two hours later (near midnight) I called the police again as I had not heard back from them. It was then that I realised that I was on my own. The police informed me that they had been round to see my daughter, checked that she was safe and told me that they did not have the power to bring her home. I was astounded and as you can guess, extremely worried about my daughter and very stressed.

At that point I rang the social services and they told me they could do nothing, but they would go round to check on my 14 year old daughter in 28 days. So there I was, totally and utterly unable to protect my daughter or control her actions. By the way, the house she was staying at was the house she was getting her drugs from. I'm sure the police knew this but that did not seem to them to make it an unsafe place for my daughter to be.

I ended up in hospital with chest pains, which turned out to be down to stress. Luckily after two weeks my daughter came home with her tail between her legs. But she knows that she can walk out and there's not a damn thing I can do about it.

A year on, and her behaviour has improved and it looks like she may pass her exams. But by God it has been a hard year.

So when the government say blame the parents, they need to consider what situation parents have been put in by ridiculous legislation. They have taken all of the rights away from adults and given them to the kids, and they then expect us to control them.

This is not all down to poor parenting, some of it is down to poor governmental policy. It is time to give parents the support they need instead of blaming them. Don't get me wrong there are some bad parents but some are just struggling to control their children with no help from the authorities.

Police disgusted over PC Yvonne Fletcher's murder trial.

Paul McKeever, Chairman of the Police Federation of England and Wales has expresses his member's disgust at the government's deal with Libya that will prevent PC Yvonne Fletcher's murderer facing trial in the UK. In a letter to the Prime Minister, Mr McKeever said:

15 September 2009

Dear Prime Minister,

Together with the 140,000 police officers throughout England and Wales that the Police Federation represents, I was shocked, appalled and disgusted at the revelations in the Sunday Times that the Libyan killer of PC Yvonne Fletcher will never be brought to justice in Britain following a deal struck by your government.

This is an absolute disgrace. PC Fletcher was gunned down in cold blood 25 years ago by a cowardly and callous killer who managed to flee to Libya. Now we discover your government rolled over three years ago abandoning any attempt to bring Yvonne’s killer to face the UK courts and justice. Only you and your colleagues know the true reasons why such an arrangement was agreed but for those I represent and for a large number of the public the timing of the agreement would suggest your government was prepared to sell its soul for trade deals being negotiated at the time.

This case is particularly close to my heart, not least because I attended the same school as Yvonne, albeit a few years ahead of her, and then our lives took a similar track again as we both joined the Metropolitan Police. Yvonne was an absolute professional with a promising policing career ahead; her untimely and tragic murder whilst serving this country needs proper resolution for her family, friends and past colleagues.

I appreciate that this deal was secured under the watch of the previous Prime Minister, but police officers throughout this country need to know that the dangers they face are understood by the government of the day and, if tragedy strikes, that political leaders will do everything in their power to ensure that justice is served.

I look forward to hearing what assurances you can give and what actions your government will undertake to bring Yvonne’s killer to face a jury in a UK court.

Yours sincerely,

Paul McKeever

Chairman
The Police Federation of England and Wales

That's one mass murderer released to Libya, one Libyan cop killer allowed to avoid UK justice and the SAS training Libyan forces. How low can this Government get? Was the deal Labour struck worth this much shame on the country?

Ian Tomlinson - Independent inquiry and Autopsy.

From the BBC:

The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) also announced it would request a second post-mortem test as part of an independent inquiry.

I think we can assume that the autopsy will find bruising to Ian's legs (baton strike) and possible abrasions to his hands and knees (push to the floor). Of course there is the possibility that the shove and impact with the floor, or even the stress of the situation caused Ian's heart to give up.

What I do know is that the police officers involved should be suspended. And I do mean officers. An officer attacked Ian and the other officers did nothing. Who will police the police if they cannot police themselves. If you watch the video they don't even remonstrate with the attacking officer, so we must assume that they saw this assault as reasonable force. When I was in the Navy, if someone junior to you committed a crime and you did nothing to stop it, or failed to report it, then you were considered guilty of failing to do your duty. Those police officers who did nothing following this unprovoked attack on Ian Tomlinson are guilty of failing to do their duty.

I don't know if this unprovoked assault caused Ian's heart attack, but I do know that he was assaulted in a cowardly way. Ian was posing no threat to the public, the police or property. He was assaulted by a person who is paid to protect him.

Bob Quick aims wild corruption claims at the Conservatives.

I've heard some wild claims in my time, but the following from Bob Quick (Britain's anti-terror chief) takes the biscuit:

"It [story HERE] is an attempt to undermine an investigation which is legitimate. The Tory machinery and their press friends are mobilised against this investigation in a wholly corrupt way, and I feel very disappointed in the country I am living in. "I think it is a very spiteful act, possibly to intimidate me away from investigating Mr Green, and I feel it has put my family at risk."

I suggest that Bob stops reading those spy novels, and gets some "help" while he's at it.

Vote - Damian Green, Did Gordon Brown or Jacqui Smith have prior knowledge of his arrest?

Personally I find it very difficult to believe that both Jacqui Smith and Gordon Brown had no prior knowledge of Damian Green's arrest by the (note: I said "the" not "our") anti-terror police. I'm also disgusted that neither of them have seen fit to condemn this assault on our so called democracy. What do you think - are they innocent of all involvement - or are they being economical with the truth?

Do you think that Jacqui Smith or Gordon Brown had prior knowledge of Damian Green's arrest?
	Yes for Jacqui Smith
	Yes for Gordon Brown
	Yes for both
	No
pollcode.com free polls

American Cop Bill Bratton to replace Sir Iain Blair as Police Commissioner?

From William Hill:

WILLIAM HILL have slashed the odds about American 'zero-tolerance' top cop Bill Bratton being made the shock successor to Sir Iain Blair, from 66/1 to 33/1.

'The LA Chief of Police has been tipped for the job, and his odds have tumbled rapidly, even though it would seem to be a bold move even for Boris to bring in an American to police the capital' said Hill's spokesman Graham Sharpe.

WILLIAM HILL make Sir Paul Stephenson 1/2 favourite to become the permanent successor to Iain Blair and also offer 5/1 Sir Hugh Orde; 10/1 Sir Ronald Flanagan; Michael Fuller; Sir Paul Scot-Lee; John Yates; Bernard Hogan-Howe; 16/1 Peter Neyroud; 20/1 Tim Brain; Sir Norman Bettison; Ken Jones; 25/1 Mike Bowron.

Three men have been charged over threats on Gordon Brown.

Further to my earlier post: Three men have been charged over alleged threats to assassinate Gordon Brown. The three had been held in custody for 14 days and the police had to either charge the men, apply for an extension of custody or release them. The men have been charged with terror offences.

For more on this story click HERE.

Climate change storm troopers claim police smear.

Why is that some people believe that it is their right to break the law to show protest?

The bean eating soap dodgers (a little unfair as the police confiscated 10 kg of handmade biodegradable soap) are not happy at the Camp For Climate Action 2008. The police have found a stash of equipment near to the camp and other items in the camp itself. Gary Beautridge, the assistant chief constable of Kent police, said that while most of the people at the camp were peaceful, it was "clear" a minority intended to use the equipment for "criminal purposes". The happy campers say that they are fighting battle against Climate Change. They intend to carry out a "mass action" to shut down Kingsnorth coal fired power station - Saturday, 9th August, 2008.

One camper Isabelle Michel said "This in no way justifies the way the police are treating the camp," she said. "It is disgraceful to suggest that the campers have criminal intent. "This is obviously an attempt by the police to distract us from raising issues about climate change." No Isabelle, they are trying to prevent some of the more radical members of your camp breaking the law and putting themselves and EON employees at risk.

Here is a list of the equipment found:

An adapted knife,
A knife block containing knives,
A large chain with a padlock,
Bolt croppers,
Climbing ropes
Padded suits.

This is not the equipment you would gather to hold a lawful protest.

OK, let's see what the ClimateCamp website has to say:

Join with thousands in the battle against Climate Change, Mass action to shut down Kingsnorth coal fired power station - Saturday, 9th August, 2008. This summer, the Camp for Climate Action will be located near Kingsnorth, a coal-fired power station that pumps 10 million tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year. We chose Kingsnorth, because while the current power station is scheduled to be knocked down, owners E.ON plan to build a brand new coal-fired plant in same place! Could there be a clearer case of business-as-usual, despite all the talk of climate change being the most important threat facing humanity? On Saturday August 9th, the climate camp will go beyond talk and culminate in a spectacular mass action to shut down Kingsnorth. Permanently!

What really gets me about this whole kerfuffle is the reasoning behind targeting EON and the Kingsnorth coal fired power station. I just don't get it. EON are demolishing a Power station that produces 10 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per year, and they are replacing it with one that will reduce that figure by 40%. While this is not a complete solution, surely to God it is a massive step in the right direction?

Police - Colleague’s murderer wins appeal and the government dump on you.

It's not been a great day for the police. If I were a Police Officer, tonight I would be asking myself "Is it worth taking crap all day and risking my life, only to be shat on by the government?"

From the Police Federation:

Responding to news that the killer of PC Ian Broadhurst has won an appeal against a life meaning life prison sentence on the grounds of human rights, Julie Nesbit, Chairman of the Constables' Central Committee of the Police Federation of England and Wales, says:

"This is an absolute disgrace and insult to the family, friends and colleagues of PC Ian Broadhurst who was brutally murdered by David Bieber on Boxing Day in 2003.

"Bieber is a monster. Did he stop to consider Ian's human rights, or the rights of his family, when he shot him dead at point blank range?

"Society expects police officers to put themselves between trouble and the public. The decision today lets down all police officers and is nothing more than a victory and green light for those vicious and senseless thugs who think nothing of taking the life of a police officer."

To add insult to injury, it looks like the police are going to get shafted on their pay deal for a second year:

Paul McKeever, Chairman of the Staff Side of the Police Negotiating Board, says:

"We are bitterly disappointed that a failure to agree has been registered at the Police Negotiating Board today.

"Despite assurances that there would be fair negotiation this year, the Official Side of the PNB yet again appear to have their hands tied behind their backs by a government intent on driving down police pay, failing to recognise the unique status of police officers and the restrictions placed on their working and private lives.

"The Official Side's one year offer of 2.325% is insulting and adds to the sense of injustice experienced by police officers last year.

"We will take our very fair and reasonable claim of 3.5% to conciliation or the independent Police Arbitration Tribunal and fight to ensure that police officers receive the very best deal possible."

Live by the knife - die by the knife.

What drives your average teenager to carry a knife? Experts believe that the fear of being stabbed or attacked comes top of the list. What causes this fear? Well apparently if the media make it known that there are a lot of people out there carrying knives and stabbing people, you would naturally want your own knife for protection.

So we have a vicious circle. A few kids get stabbed and the media report it. This causes more kids to carry knives and more kids get stabbed. This goes on and on until the circle is broken. So how do we break the circle? Well for one thing we can ignore the rubbish the government have dreamt up. Wishy washy, lefty liberal ideas have had more than the fair chance in this country, and they have failed.

Kids need to know that you are more likely to get stabbed if you carry a knife. Stop and search needs to be increased and random lockdowns of schools for searches should be brought in. There needs to be a real deterrent, not some extreme sentence that makes a good political sound bite, but which will never be implemented. If anyone under sixteen is caught with a knife they should receive an automatic, zero tolerance 3 month sentence (first offence). Anyone over sixteen should get an automatic 6 month sentence, unless they can prove the knife is required for their occupation (first offence). The sentence should be automatically doubled for any re-offence.

It's wishy washy liberalism that has got us in this sad position. It's time we went back to discipline, respect and morality.

UPDATE: Dave has left a comment on this post and you won't believe what the government have thought up to tackle youth crime.

Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

Parenting orders - are they practical?

I was all for blaming parents for their unruly children. I used to believe that no matter what, a parent should be able to control a child. Surely by grounding the kid and stopping their pocket money a parent had the upper hand?

I found out the hard way that I was sorely mistaken.

A year ago my 14 year old daughter was in one of the top classes at her school. She had been forecast to get good results in her GCSEs and she was generally well behaved. Then she starting mixing with the wrong crowd. Over the space of a month she turned abusive, came home late and started drinking and smoking cannabis.

Obviously I did what any good parent would do. I talked to her. When that failed I grounded her and stopped her pocket money. That seemed to work for a while but eventually I would let her out and she would do it all over again. Even without money she would still get booze and drugs from her so called friends. This turned into a battle, but I knew eventually I would win and she would come to her senses.

I was wrong again. My daughter upped the anti.

After another grounding she went out and did not come home. Eventually I found out she was staying at a friends house. I went round there to pick her up and she refused to get in the car. I tried to drag her into it but she started swearing and screaming. I realised that I could not get her in the car without seriously hurting her, so I went home to call the police.

Over two hours later (near midnight) I called the police again as I had not heard back from them. It was then that I realised that I was on my own. The police informed me that they had been round to see my daughter, checked that she was safe and told me that they did not have the power to bring her home. I was astounded and as you can guess, extremely worried about my daughter and very stressed.

At that point I rang the social services and they told me they could do nothing, but they would go round to check on my 14 year old daughter in 28 days. So there I was, totally and utterly unable to protect my daughter or control her actions. By the way, the house she was staying at was the house she was getting her drugs from. I'm sure the police knew this but that did not seem to them to make it an unsafe place for my daughter to be.

I ended up in hospital with chest pains, which turned out to be down to stress. Luckily after two weeks my daughter came home with her tail between her legs. But she knows that she can walk out and there's not a damn thing I can do about it.

A year on, and her behaviour has improved and it looks like she may pass her exams. But by God it has been a hard year.

So when the government say blame the parents, they need to consider what situation parents have been put in by ridiculous legislation. They have taken all of the rights away from adults and given them to the kids, and they then expect us to control them.

This is not all down to poor parenting, some of it is down to poor governmental policy. It is time to give parents the support they need instead of blaming them. Don't get me wrong there are some bad parents but some are just struggling to control their children with no help from the authorities.

Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

CCTV fiasco - Billions of pounds down the pan.

This what Det Ch Insp Mike Neville said about the CCTV system:

"Billions of pounds has been spent on kit, but no thought has gone into how the police are going to use the images and how they will be used in court. It's been an utter fiasco: only 3% of crimes were solved by CCTV. "There's no fear of CCTV. Why don't people fear it? [They think] the cameras are not working."

Some may argue that three per cent is better than nothing. I say: how many police officers would those billions have payed for? Typical Labour - throw money at it without any idea if it will work or not.

My list - What should the Conservatives do next?

Conservative Home are asking: What should the Conservatives do next?

Here is my list (for starters):

Give discretion back to the police

Give personal responsibility back to the people.

Addiction cannot be used in mitigation of crime.

No early release of prisoners.

Make all PCSOs Constables and then scrap the position of PCSO.

Raise drinking age to 21 outside of pubs and clubs.

£500 fine for anyone caught supplying alcohol to kids (outside of the home).

Allow police to use greater force when yobs are resisting arrest.

Call young locked up criminals, "young prisoners", not bloody trainees.

Stop the benefits of those refusing to work. They will find it when they are skint.

Re-introduce the word "Shame" back into society - many have forgotten the meaning of the word. (This is the No1 reason for the state our country is in).

Banish Jeremy Kyle

Realise that Mary Whitehouse was right about TV.

Move watershed to 10pm

Any program that requires bleeps will not be shown before 10pm.

Subsidise buses to make them cheaper than using your own car.

Scrap charges for hospital parking.

English votes on English matters.

SGC Say - Do not send addicts that commit crime to prison.

It appears that the Sentencing Guidelines Council (SGC) advise that judges and magistrates take dependency on drugs, alcohol and gambling into account when punishing offenders. In other words - don't send them to prison even if they have committed a crime worthy of such punishment. I don't have time to write about this so here is a link.

DNA Database - Some disturbing facts.

I was browsing through yesterday's Hansard written answers and came across a question about our DNA database:

Mr. Bailey: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for how long the Government retains the DNA records of individuals who are not found guilty of committing an offence.

Meg Hillier: Under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984, the police have the power to take and retain DNA from anyone arrested for a recordable offence and detained in a police station. PACE does not set a limit on retention. Instead, the police follow retention guidelines issued by the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), which state that records will normally be retained for 100 years from the person’s date of birth, regardless of whether they are still alive.

So for the vast majority of innocent people their DNA will be kept on record for life. I take it that the ACPO don't see those over 100 years old as a risk. Did you know that one in ten of the adult population of England and Wales are now on the DNA database? There are approximately 43m adults and there are 4,523,154 on the DNA database.

Now, this is a little strange seeing as only 3,903,482 individuals have had DNA samples taken. The reason for this massive 13.7% discrepancy? Well it seems that one reason for this is that the person being arrested gave different names, or different versions of their name, on separate arrests. Now this looks to me as if the police have taken DNA samples from people without bothering to find out their true identity - or once they have found out their true identity the arresting officer has failed to update the DNA database. Meaning there are 619,672 individuals on the DNA database that do not exist.

EU states have agreed to incorporate into EU Law, a system which will allow its members to view DNA, fingerprint and car registration data of criminal suspects. There is one glaring problem with this system: There are over one million British citizens on that DNA database who have never been convicted of any crime. This system was incorporated into EU law without any consultation of our Parliament or the European Parliament. Do you remember giving your consent to share our country’s confidential data with foreign Governments? No, I didn’t think you would.

From the Daily Mail, May 07:

In the past 12 months, the samples of 81,000 children convicted of no crime have been added to the database, which can be checked against any crime scene. It takes the total to 105,000. Since April 2004, anyone aged ten or above who is arrested in England or Wales can have their DNA and fingerprints taken without their consent, or that of their parents.

Around 80,000 innocent children are likely to be added to the database every 12 months, as that is the average number of children arrested for the first time each year but never convicted. Parents can appeal to have their child's DNA removed but this is at the discretion of chief constables.

Police say those who have had their DNA taken include two schoolgirls charged with criminal damage after drawing chalk on a pavement and a child in Kent who removed a slice of cucumber from a tuna mayonnaise sandwich and threw it at another youngster.

I'm not against the DNA Database, I'm just against the way it is being abused by the police and the government. No innocent should be on the database.

The Police Federation respond to the Flanagan Report.

The following is a press release from the Chairman of the Police Federation, Jan Berry, in response to the publishing of the Flanagan Report:

"There is much in the report to be welcomed, as collectively many of the recommendations have the potential to release significant numbers of police officers back onto the street, and return some healthy common sense into policing.

"The recommendations would also help restore police officers' discretion; something this government has been eroding through the imposition of nationally set targets.

"Whilst we must be accountable for our actions, recommendations to overhaul crime recording, stop and account, RIPA and rationalise stop and search bureaucracy is to be applauded.

"Cutting central targets will also allow police officers to deliver the type of policing that local communities want, and will eliminate the ridiculous arrests that officers are often compelled to make to satisfy Home Office diktats.

"Rationalising the governance process will also ensure that we don't end up with a top heavy police service, with more people deciding what we should be doing, than numbers available to actually deliver.

"However, as is often the case with reports of this magnitude, the devil is in the detail. There is an assumption that the workforce modernisation programme, advocating a mix of police and support staff in operational roles, provides greater efficiencies, flexibility and resilience. It is premature to reach such a conclusion as the demonstration sites are not due to commence until spring and there has been no evaluation. This government has a tendency of declaring pilots a success as soon as they launch them. This report assumes they are a success before they have even started.

"I don't dispute that we have become a 'risk averse' service. Perhaps if officers received better ongoing training and there was less of a blame culture and or a witch hunt if they make genuine mistakes or errors, then the 'risk aversion' trend may just turn."

Police red tape criticised by report.

I'm not going to write much about this. I feel it is sufficient to point you towards the story and ask: Is this the most damning report into the way a government can interfere so much that it causes harm to the people it is sworn to protect?

Please click HERE

Police get shafted - If you can strike, you can get fair pay.

The news that police support staff and PCSOs have accepted a 2.5% pay deal today will no doubt further infuriate front line police officers. The reason police staff and PCSOs got a better pay deal than police officers? - Their pay was negotiated by the union Unison. It seems clear that if you have the ability to strike, you stand a better chance of fair pay. No wonder the police federation are balloting members on the ability to take industrial action:

From the Police Federation Website:

Why is the Police Federation voting on whether officers want the right to strike? It is illegal for police officers to take any form of industrial action. For nearly a century that is what has set officers apart from all other workers in the public sector. Many officers have said if the government wish to treat us like all other workers, then perhaps we should have the same employment rights. It was therefore decided that the Police Federation will hold a ballot of the 140,000 members to ask the question –'In the absence of binding arbitration, do you want the Police Federation to lobby for full industrial rights for police officers?’. It is intended that the ballot will take place at the end of February.

The Police Federation are also holding a rally on the 23rd of January 2008. An estimated 15,000 officers are thought to be taking part in a one hour march from Park Lane to the Home office where petitions will be handed in by one representative from every force in England and Wales. I wish them good luck and hope that the media give this rally the publicity it deserves. If Jacqui Smith was hoping this was going die down, then I think she is very mistaken.

I've said many times before that this government have been in power far too long and they now believe that they can do anything they please. I hope the police federation are just the first group to show Gordon Brown and his government that they cannot ride rough shod over the people.

Teachers get above inflation (CPI) three year pay deal.

Teachers are to receive an above inflation three year pay deal. 2.45% in the first year and 2.3% for the following two years. How can this have happened? Gordon Brown has been saying that he would not risk the economy by awarding this level of pay rise in the public sector. Many teachers are not at all happy with the pay deal, but I'm damned sure the police federation are spitting tacks over the news seeing as their members received 1.9%, despite arbitration setting the level at 2.5%.

Of course the fact that the government are using the CPI (2.1%) as a measure of inflation means that everyone receiving anything bellow 4.3% (RPI) is in reality worse off this year than last year. RPI takes into account rent and mortgages, the CPI does not. I assume that all public sector workers live in some kind of dwelling which they have to pay for. The government however, believe the RPI is suitable for working out how much MP's allowances should be increased by.

One rule for them, and one rule for us little people.

Labour MPs are voicing their dismay over poor ministerial behaviour (Smith and Hain).

It seems that each day more and more Labour MPs are making statements to the media that are not at all supportive of their ministers. Over the last couple of days their comments have been aimed at Jacqui Smith and Peter Hain. Keith Vaz, Labour chair of the home affairs committee, Lindsay Hoyle and Andrew Mackinlay have all made it very clear that the police pay award could have been handled better. Keith Vaz believes that the police pay award is of such importance that it should be voted on in parliament. Lindsay Hoyle has called the two stage pay deal "unacceptable and unpalatable", and Andrew Mackinlay believes the deal would not only cause "disproportionate offence to public servants" and "collateral damage" to the Labour government, but it was also "unfair". However Jacqui is not listening:

"I had a responsibility to make a decision that was right for the police, for the affordability of policing and for the taxpayer as a whole."

What Jacqui fails to mention is that her actions are in breach of the police pay award arbitration.

As for Peter Hain - he is getting it in the neck from all angles. Even Gordon Brown has left him swinging in the breeze, saying that Peter's fate is out of his hands. Labour MPs Peter Kilfoyle, John Spellar and Ian Gibson have made it clear that Hain should step down for the good of the party. To add to Hain's woes, it looks like the police could be called in to investigate his undeclared donations.

Rumour has it that Gordon Brown plans to have a cabinet reshuffle in February. If I were Gordon, I would ensure that Harriet Harman, Peter Hain and Jacqui Smith would still be standing when the music stopped and all the cabinet chairs were taken.