Hilarious moment bumbling cops struggle to break down door as mocking neighbours shout ‘go on… knock it!'
Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window)
Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
POLICE officers were ridiculed by onlookers as they feebly attempted to break down a door.
Despite multiple efforts, the officers appeared to be unable to break down a front door.
Sign up for Scottish Sun
newsletter
Sign up
3
An onlooker filmed the cops trying to break the door down
Credit: Brad Jones
3
Social media users mocked the cops online
Credit: Brad Jones
Bobbies from West Yorkshire have been left humiliated as footage emerged of them failing to force their way into a house.
Onlookers couldn't hide their amusement at the officers' inability to break down the front door.
One chuckling onlooker teased them, taunting: "Bit Harder!"
"Go on, hit it!"
They then mocked the fumbling officers with a killer line: "Call yourself a police force?
"There's no force in ya!"
Two officers can be seen repeatedly attempting to barge down the door.
Even while using a handheld ram and a hooligan bar they are unable able to enter the house.
Two other visible cops can be seen standing idly by as their colleagues floundered at the house's entrance.
The door does appear to have suffered some damage, as there is a significant dent is visible on its left side, as well as fractures to its top, glass window.
Yet it remained upright and intact.
Many seeing the social media video online were quick to mock the officers' fruitless efforts.
One man commented: "They couldn't break into an Easter egg."
Another said they, "Couldn't open an advent calendar door."
One comment even appears onscreen at the end of the video saying: "Rumour has it they're still trying."
Some people saw a darker side to the video, believing it showed a decline in British policing standards.
"Police are losing respect, it's what it's come to. So sad," commented one viewer.
A different TikTok user said: "It's a shame because I have respect for the police.
"But currently the state of this country is a joke.
In a twist, one user, claiming to be a former Method of Entry instructor, even seemed to spot why the police were having such little success.
He said: "Use the other end of hooligan bar i.e. the wedge knocked into the door gap.
"Then pull on the bar and the door (usually) opens."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Barron Trump's best friend claims he got ICE to detain world's biggest TikTok star Khaby Lame
One of Barron Trump's supposed best friends has claimed he's responsible for getting the world's biggest TikTok star deported out of the United States. Bo Loudon, a Gen Z MAGA influencer who's previously been pictured with Barron and Donald Trump, said he reported Khaby Lame to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Loudon's first post on X came June 6 when he wrote that Lame is an 'illegal alien ' in all caps before proclaiming that he has 'been working with the patriots at President Trump's DHS' to deport the Senegal-born influencer. ICE already confirmed Lame was detained at Harry Reid International Airport in Las Vegas on June 6, the same day Loudon made his supposed involvement public. Lame, who has over 162 million TikTok followers, overstayed his visa after entering the country on April 30, according to an ICE spokesperson. He was granted 'voluntary departure', a bureaucratic euphemism for being kicked out. 'Serigne Khabane Lame, 25, a citizen of Italy, was detained… for immigration violations,' the spokesperson confirmed in a statement. 'Lame was granted voluntary departure… and has since departed the US.' Loudon, 18, claimed that Lame was detained at Henderson Detention Center, southeast of Las Vegas proper, though its unclear how long he may have been in custody before leaving. ICE has not confirmed whether Loudon was involved in reporting Lame to authorities. has approached immigration officials for comment but did not immediately respond. Loudon has continued to celebrate his alleged role in the TikToker's removal. He made a post Wednesday afternoon denouncing various media outlets' coverage of this incident, who reportedly called him a 'rat' and a 'rat extraordinaire'. 'Why? Because I helped President Trump's DHS deport TikTok's biggest star, Khaby Lame, for being in the U.S. illegally,' he added. 'I wish Khaby well and hope he returns as a LAW-ABIDING citizen.' Loudon also did an interview with Dylan Page, another popular TikToker who has been the 'News Daddy.' In that sit-down, Loudon said he became aware of Lame's immigration status because 'he had worked with a few of my friends and business partners' who said his visa expired years ago. 'I called some people in the administration and they said "we're gonna get on this right quick,"' Loudon said. Lame is best known known for his dead-pan skits reacting to other content on the social media site. Loudon admitted that he doesn't watch much of Lame's content but said Lame has posted videos expressing a 'hatred' for Trump. 'I'm sure he hates him much more now, which is why I posted "far-left" TikToker,' he said. Lame has not commented on his detainment or his removal from the US and has continued to post videos as if nothing happened. As recently as May 5, Lame attended the Met Gala in New York City, where he wore a three piece suit with well over a dozen timepieces attached to his vest. Loudon, from Palm Beach, Florida, is the son of Dr. Gina Loudon, a conservative pundit and former co-chair of Women for Trump in 2020. His father, John Loudon, was a Republican Missouri state senator until 2008. Loudon and Barron Trump were instrumental convincing Donald Trump that it was a strategic advantage to appear on various podcasts popular with young me, including Adin Ross' show.
Spectator
8 hours ago
- Spectator
Has deporting illegals become illegal?
The circus around Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia – whose full name the New York Times likes to trot out as if citing an old-school English aristocrat – speaks volumes about the immigration battle roiling the US. Our friend Kilmar is what we fuddy-duddies insist on calling an illegal immigrant. The Salvadoran crossed clandestinely into the US in 2012. As for what he's done since, that depends on whom you ask. According to his GoFundMe page, Kilmar is a 'husband, union worker and father of a disabled five-year-old'. Left-wing media portray 'the Maryland man' – a tag akin to Axel Rudakubana's 'a Welshman' – as an industrious metalworker devoted to his family. His wife has rowed back on the temporary protective order she once requested, claiming she'd been over-cautious. Yet according to the Trump administration, Kilmar is a member of the notoriously violent street gang MS-13 who's derived his primary source of income from smuggling hundreds of illegals over the southern border for several years. Choose A or B. In 2019, Kilmar was arrested for loitering along with three other men, one a suspected MS-13 member. He was carrying marijuana, for which (of course) he wasn't charged. From his clothing, tattoos and, more persuasively, a 'past proven and reliable' confidential source who verified he was an active gang member using the moniker 'Chele', police adjudged that Kilmar was a gangbanger, for which (of course) he wasn't charged. He was turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement – whose acronym, ICE, reinforces its rep as cold-hearted – which moved to deport him. Kilmar (of course) contested his removal. The immigration judge hearing Kilmar's case concurred that the defendant was indeed a gang member and deportable; the Salvadoran (of course) appealed the decision, which nevertheless was upheld. Kilmar (of course) then filed for asylum, as well as for a 'withholding of removal'. A subsequent immigration judge stayed his deportation to his home country, where his wellbeing might be endangered by local gangs. Now, you might suppose that putting yourself in the way of other famously rivalrous gangs would come with the territory when you join one yourself. Like, inter-gang violence seems a natural hazard of this line of work. But it's not only British immigration judges who are soft touches. Only mass round-ups and swift group trials could effectively address the millions of gate-crashers Kilmar (of course) remained in the US. In 2022, he was pulled over for speeding while driving eight other Hispanic men of uncertain immigration status in an SUV altered to add a third row of seats for extra passengers. The officers suspected human-trafficking; Kilmar's driving licence had expired; a run of his number plate through the database turned up a federal note on likely membership of MS-13. Yet when the patrolmen contacted the feds, ICE (of course) declined to pick him up. So Kilmar was (of course) released without charge. Even so, his claim that he was merely transporting construction workers between jobs did not, under investigation, hold up. Fast-forward to 2025 and why this otherwise obscure Salvadoran who is or is not a thug merits such a detailed lowdown. Meaning (of course) that this case has to do with Donald Trump – whose evil minions in March flew more than 230 purported criminals to a Salvadoran prison, including none other than Kilmar, whom ICE did finally pick up (no 'of course' there). The flights' timing was judicially dodgy. The planes did or didn't take off after a federal judge ruled that the flights could not proceed until the deportees were given the opportunity to challenge their removal. The administration appealed to the Supreme Court, which directed Trump to 'facilitate' Kilmar's return to the US. Because, remember, there was only one country to which he could not be deported because of that credulous 2019 decision: his own. Hence the Justice Department's acceptance that Kilmar's deportation was an 'administrative error'. During this proxy war with Trump, Democrats have pretended to hair-tear over poor Kilmar, mouldering away in a nasty foreign prison and deprived of due process. But the story I just laid out has due process, not to mention leniency or even dereliction on the part of the authorities, up the wazoo. Meanwhile, after slyly getting their jurisprudential ducks in a row, last week Trump and co finally got Kilmar flown back to the US, only to arrest him immediately for human-trafficking – with every intention of convicting the guy and then deporting him right back to El Salvador. What do we make of this farce? The American commentariat has focused on a potential showdown between Trump and the judiciary, claiming to fear a flat-out executive refusal to follow court orders but secretly rather hoping that Trump does defy the courts and thus reveals himself as an unconstitutional tyrant. I view this absurd tale through a different lens. All these trials and flights for a lone illegal alien are expensive. The amount of 'due process' the American justice system affords every single illegal makes deportation at any scale impossible. There isn't enough time and money and there aren't nearly enough judges to make any but a token gesture toward the mass deportation of illegals that Trump has promised. That amounts to a victory not just for Democrats but also for disorder. I'd assess the odds that Kilmar is a thug at about 90 per cent. But proving membership of unofficial allegiances in court is a bastard. If every individual deportation case must be adjudicated according to exacting evidentiary rules and appeal procedures, America's drastic, undemocratic demographic change will proceed inexorably. Only mass round-ups and swift group trials could effectively address the staggering ten million gate-crashers during the Biden administration alone. What are the chances of that? In New York at the weekend, ICE raids were impeded by LA-style crowds of righteously indignant protestors screaming: 'Let them go! Let them go!' The officers just doing their jobs looked beleaguered, tired, numb and pre-defeated. After all the ICE agents' thankless labours, what proportion of their detainees will still get to stay in the country in the end? I'll take another stab at 90 per cent.
Spectator
8 hours ago
- Spectator
My plan for Prevent
In the autumn of 1940, British cities were being bombed every night by large aeroplanes whose provenance was apparently of some considerable doubt. While the public almost unanimously believed the conflagrations to have been caused by the Luftwaffe, the authorities – right up to the government – refused to speculate. Indeed, when certain members of the public raised their voices and said 'This is all down to Hitler and Goering and the bloody Germans!', they received visits from the police who either prosecuted them for disturbing the peace or put their names on a list of possible extremists. The nights grew darker. The number of towns and cities subjected to these nightly bombardments widened. Very soon everybody in the country knew somebody whose home had been destroyed or who had themselves been killed. The government was forced to take action, and so in November 1940 it came up with what it called its 'Prevent' strategy, which aimed to protect British cities from further destruction. In the introduction to this new policy, civil servants listed possible vectors for these bombing raids and top of the list, by some margin, were the Slovaks. A senior intelligence officer told the public: 'The greatest threat to our nation today is from the Slovaks. We must train our people in how to spot Slovaks and report them to the police whenever they can.' The Germans were also mentioned, further down the list of possible perps, but the wording here was heavily caveated. Yes, some Germans may have been involved, but over all the German population was utterly devoted to peace and regretted the nightly infernos every bit as much as did the people who suffered under them. Our own air force was directed to drop its bombs on Bratislava, Kosice, Poprad and (the consequence of an understandable confusion over the names of the two countries) Maribor. And yet for some mystifying reason, the raids on Britain did not lessen. This seems to me exactly the response of our government(s) and most importantly of Prevent to the threat from Islamic terrorism. Let me be clear: I am not remotely comparing Muslims with Germans or Islam with National Socialism – I am simply saying that, in effect, this is what our government would have done in 1940 if it had been gripped by the same cringing witlessness and outright lying that possesses seemingly all of our authorities today when it comes to terrorist attacks upon the British people. You may be aware of the manifestly stupid quote from the Prevent halfwits that people who believe that 'western culture is under threat from mass migration and a lack of integration by certain ethnic and cultural groups' are cultural nationalists at risk of becoming the kind of extremists who end up murdering people. People who believe the above probably consist of 70 per cent of the British population and, if his latest speeches are anything to go by, include the Prime Minister. And yet this stuff pervades everything Prevent puts out, while at the same time exonerating Islam and in some cases even those Muslims who do become terrorists (because they have suffered, you see). If people who support Brexit or worry about immigration are extremists, you're going to get pretty high figures So, for example, Bolton council's useful 'Prevent' handbook singles out 'right-wing extremists' as being at the forefront of terror attacks in the UK, and these extremists include people who are cultural nationalists: 'Cultural nationalism is ideology characterised by anti-immigration, anti-Islam, anti-Muslim, anti-establishment narratives, often emphasising British/English 'victimhood' and identity under attack from a perceived 'other'.' Islamic terrorism is also mentioned – but, again, heavily caveated. Then there's Prevent's own list of people who were picked up under its guidelines: 45 per cent were related to extreme right-wing radicalisation (230); 23 per cent were linked to Islamist radicalisation (118); the rest were related to other radicalisation concerns, including incels and those at risk of carrying out school shootings. But then I suppose if people who proclaim their support for Brexit or worry a bit about immigration are extremists, you are going to get pretty high arrest figures. If you add into the mix the fact that simply to associate Islam with terrorism you are guilty of Islamophobia, then you can see why we're in the state we're in. Incidentally, when she was Prime Minister, Theresa May, to her credit, drafted a new introduction to the Prevent guidelines which made it clear that the biggest threat to British security was al Qaeda, not Tommy Robinson et al. But that message does not seem to have sunk in with those in Prevent. It seems almost pointless to run through the facts. The truth is that almost every fatal terrorist attack in Britain since 2001 has been perpetrated by Islamists. All bar three. Have these people got a twisted or perverted understanding of Islam, as Prevent insists? I haven't a clue. I am no Quranic expert. I'm just, y'know, taking their word for it. Further, 80 per cent of the Counter Terrorism Policing network's investigations are related to Islamism (2023). Some 75 per cent of MI5's surveillance cases are Islamists. There are around 40,000 potential jihadis being monitored by our security services. There is not the remotest doubt as to the provenance of the gravest terror threats to our country. It's not the shaven-headed nutters with swastika armbands. It is Islamists. Nigel Farage's answer is to sack everyone working in Prevent. That seems a perfectly reasonable suggestion. But I may have a better one. Scrap Prevent entirely and initiate a new network of monitoring and reporting which focuses solely on Islamic terrorism. Junk the sixth-form philosophising over what is meant by the term 'extremist' and locate the problem precisely where it is: somewhere within our Muslim communities, even if we accept that our Muslim communities may not want them there. In short, get real and tell the truth. This kind of approach worked pretty well 85 years ago.
