Another Anti-Police Kelly Myth exposed.

The Benalla Bootmakers Shop : still standing.
What idiot put the power pole in front of it?

Probably the thing I object to most about Kelly idolatry is that it encourages and supports disrespect and contempt for the police, because police hate was what motivated Ned Kellys entire lifestyle. The troll on his slag heap who promotes racist anti-British sentiment, islamophobia , misogyny and sickening right wing views of history also, of course, encourages police hate. However his latest move in that regard has met some opposition, which is good to see. 

They're arguing about the footage of that poor fellow being mobbed on his front lawn by half a dozen police. There were clearly faults on both sides - the man could have simply opened his door at the very beginning instead of yelling abuse at the Police and keeping them waiting outside. However, its clear he was mentally disturbed. I have no doubt the police had plenty of other work to get on with, and they probably know stuff about the guy that we don’t, but they clearly and very badly over-reacted once he came out, and the behaviour of some of them was a disgrace. But  do we know how many of those police have previously been injured trying to arrest a violent drugged out thug, or been spat on and scratched and bitten? There are definitely some cops who should be severely reprimanded, and I expect they will be. There are some people who just should NOT be cops - they're violent and they're bullies. Get rid of them. But most are not like that.

On the news, a police spokesman said there were thousands of interactions between police and the public every day, and he admitted there were also complaints every day about their behaviour but the number was a handful. I keep saying it but it’s worth repeating, that any institution with people in it will have problems, whether its political parties and Governments, Churches, schools, armies, multinational corporations or the local shops. Where is the one with an unblemished history?

So let’s not use these rare incidents of a few police acting badly, even very badly as an excuse to tar and feather the whole force, and lose sight of the fact that the vast majority of the difficult work they do for all of us is really good. The parallels with the Kelly story are too obvious : the Kelly apologists regard all police as corrupt and nasty because of a few bad eggs in the force in the 1860's and 70's. Not so much Fitzpatrick, who has been vilified and hated by the Kelly mob for doing his job, but Hall, also trying to do his job but with excessive violence. 

That arrest scene reminded me of the Kelly story where Ned Kelly was resisting arrest in Benalla, and fought violently with four police and the bootmaker trying to handcuff him. I looked it up : it happened in September 1877.  Unlike the guy in the CCTV footage who didn’t put up much of a fight, Ned Kelly fought wildly, and boasted in the Jerilderie Letter how “with one well directed blow I sent him (Fitzpatrick) sprawling” They didn’t have pepper spray but they had the Squirrel Grip.

To my great surprise I  noticed an important error in this narrative which hasn’t been identified before as far as I am aware. All the Kelly books up through to Ian Jones and Fitzsimons say that the trouble started when police decided to handcuff Ned Kelly as they walked him from the lock-up where had been kept overnight, to the Courthouse to face the Judge on a charge of being drunk and disorderly. They say that Ned Kelly objected to this, saying he would go quietly “but you won’t put the darbies on me without a fight” (Clune The Kelly Hunters p123)

In fact what Ned Kelly himself said was that ‘he escaped’ and THEN they tried to put the handcuffs on him:

On the following day, when I was taken out of the lock-up, and still dazed, I escaped, and was pursued by the police. I took refuge in a shoemaker’s shop, and four constables soon came in after me. They, assisted by the owner of the shop, tried to put the handcuffs on me, but failed. In the struggle that ensued my trousers were almost torn off me. Finding me a more difficult man to manage than they expected, Lonigan seized me in such a manner — a cruel, cowardly and disgusting manner — that he inflicted terrible pain on me ; but still I would not surrender. The act of Lonigan, which cannot be described, might have ruined me for life, if it did not actually kill me. While the struggle was still going on a miller came in, and, seeing how I was being ill-treated, said the police should be ashamed of themselves, and he endeavoured to pacify them and induce me to be handcuffed. I allowed this man to put the handcuffs on me, though I refused to submit to the police. It may seem strange, but it is as true as I am here that from that time up to the time of Lonigan’s death I suffered excruciating pain and inconvenience from his treatment; but from the day of his death until now I have been free from that pain and the ill-effects I before experienced.”(Interview with Ned Kelly)

So it appears the Kelly mythologists have once again created a version of history that’s not accurate, but serves its dual purpose of demonising the police and making a victim out of their hero Ned Kelly. The Kelly apologists narrative, invented I think by Max Brown, is that the police “through petty vindictiveness or actual fear” (Alex McDermott The Jerilderie Letter) tried to handcuff Ned before leaving the lockup. In fact, if we are to believe what Ned Kelly himself said, there was no 'petty vindictiveness' - Ned was given the opportunity to behave responsibly and just walk across the road with an escort but instead he decided to make a run for it. He was chased into the bootmakers shop where, quite reasonably, they decided he would have to be handcuffed, yet still, like a moron he continued to fight and struggle. To save face in the struggle he was never going to win he decided to allow the cuffs to be placed by the JP who walked in on the mayhem.

So, what are you going to believe? The narrative provided by Ned Kelly that he probably imagined showed him to be ‘flash’, trying to escape, fighting off police and kicking them around the room while they tried to handcuff him? Or are you going to stick with the made-up fairy story designed to fit the nonsense that Ned Kelly was a poor persecuted innocent victim of the mean police?

The truth of this episode is now out for the first time. It looks bad for Kelly.

It shows that on this occasion Ned Kelly behaved like a complete idiot, an immature show-off, though in 1877 he was 22 years old, and according to Ian Jones was soon planning a republic of north east Victoria- yeah right! Instead of being fined just one shilling for being drunk, his foolish behaviour cost him an extra 85 shillings (£4/5/0d) which no doubt he was easily able to afford because at that time he was a self confessed full time 'wholesale and retail' stock thief. As for the claim that his balls ached until he killed Lonigan : that’s got to be some weird psychological shit going on inside his head!