"Doug and Bob are metropolitan policemen with a difference."

 



How blue is your lamp?

I likes this picture.

Evening all

Blame is easy, blame is cheap. Blame doesn’t really achieve a great deal. As a society we are all to blame for the Frankenstein’s monster of a country that we have created, but rather than waste too much time on blame we need to understand how things have gone badly wrong, and set about trying to create a better life for everyone.

Since the Tories have been in power we have seen a great many people covering a wide range of socio-economic groups taking to the streets. If they’ve done nothing else the Tory cuts have managed to get a lot of people off their arses to show their disapproval as best they know how. One thing that struck me when I went on the TUC march on the 26th of March this year was how friendly and sympathetic the police en route seemed to be. I suppose it is understandable really. They were no doubt bruised by the criticism over kettling and concerned over how the cuts would affect them.

I was born into an age when Dixon of Dock Green epitomised the British bobby on the beat and we all wore rose-tinted spectacles. The police force, I suspect never was or never will be like that. Today’s police force is an entirely different animal. I think one thing that tends to get forgotten is that the police force is a public service. They exist to maintain the rule of law to the best of their ability; a rule of law that can only be maintained with the co-operation and consent of the public. The police aren’t perfect, as I’m sure that many amongst their ranks would agree they are human like the rest of us but given the tasks that are expected of them and given the resources at their disposal I think they do a pretty good job. Clearly the recent revelations about the News International/police cosy relationship, trigger-happiness episodes, continued racism and some examples of thuggery during recent disturbances don’t do anything to enhance their reputation, and need to be addressed. But policing isn’t something to be done in a vacuum. The police are as much a part of society as you or I, we need to work with them and they need to work with the population as a whole. Using them as scapegoats is neither productive or will it serve any purpose. The government are just adding to the divisions in society by blaming the police for the extent of the destruction in this week’s riots. Yesterday’s comments by Cameron and May weren’t helpful at all and are a perfect example of what is wrong with our ‘me, me, me’ society.

This BBC internet news report Riots: Police chiefs angered by Cameron criticism highlights the stupidity of the Tories and concerns that a battle weary police force are having:

“A row has erupted between police chiefs and the government after David Cameron criticised the number of officers deployed to combat this week's riots.

The PM also said the wrong tactics were used - while Home Secretary Theresa May said it was her decision to cancel all police leave to boost numbers.

Sir Hugh Orde, head of the Association of Chief Police Officers, said she had "no power whatsoever" to do that.

It was police, not MPs, who had restored order, he insisted.”

Full story here.

There is no argument for a death penalty

For once I agree with David Cameron on something; there is no place in a civilised society for the death penalty. With a number of e-petitions calling for its restoration it looks as though it could well be discussed again by parliament. As well as being abhorrent and absolutely immoral it is also unjustifiable as a deterrent. Personally I don’t accept that deterrents really work and that the way to reduce crime of any sort is to address the causes. Why try to cure something when you can prevent it? Those misguided enough to support this barbaric practise only have to look to America to see that it doesn’t deter murders. Support for the death penalty is the logic of the imbecile. It is the tool of fascists and despots.

On 20th December 2007 I blogged here about how ridiculous a concept it is. This is what I wrote then:

“...Daily Mail readers... ...confuse Justice with Revenge. Justice is only justice when the higher and pure moral ground is taken. State murder is just as wrong as murder by an individual. What right has any person to take the life of another? If you say ‘none’ then you are arguing against the death penalty. If you say ‘some’ or ‘plenty’ then you are saying that murder is acceptable, therefore why are you making it as a crime and one punishable by death at that?

For those of a religious disposition, who believe in a creator god, to take the life of anyone is a blasphemy. You are setting yourself up as an equal to your god. From what I know of the mainstream religions it’s not the done thing. For those of us that don’t need the crutch that is religion, but care about humanity, it would be hypocritical to preach that something is wrong and then go and do the self same thing. Legitimising it under the framework of law doesn’t make it any more justifiable, or any less abhorrent. And for those a little more intellectually challenged (Sun readers etc.), two wrongs don’t make a right!”

 

Yellow peril

If a law is deemed to be generally acceptable by society and a person breaks that law it would seem equally acceptable, if caught, for that person to be dealt with by the justice system. I have no desire at this juncture to go further on the outcome of being dealt with by the justice system as it is irrelevant to my argument and I have blogged on it here. Suffice to say that if you break the law and get caught there will usually be something referred to as punishment. As a procedure or process this doesn’t seem unreasonable to me and I suspect most people feel the same.

Are burglar alarms an affront to people’s individual liberty?
Are they evidence of the ‘big brother’ society?
To a burglar the answers are probably ‘yes’ and ‘yes’, unless of course you are Norman Stanley Fletcher, in which case it could be ‘yes’ and ‘no’. But to most of us they would seem to be a useful, if not occasionally annoying when they go off in the early hours near where we live, piece of crime prevention equipment.

Road safety experts say that “speed kills”. We have laws that say speeding is an offence. In general most people accept these arguments. So what is it about speed cameras?

Why are they seen as an instrument of oppression by the BMW driving, Daily Mail reading hang ‘em and flog ‘em brigade?

They encourage people not to break the law and they catch them when they do. Agreed they are more effective than your bog-standard burglar alarm, although the more sophisticated burglar/surveillance equipment is pretty good at ‘catching’ people. They are electronic witnesses to law breaking. What is wrong with that?

Now I know that some people object to speed cameras because they see them as an easy tax revenue raising facility, and I have some sympathy with this viewpoint. But I do think the use of the camera and the penalty need to be kept separate in the argument. Personally I’d like to see the emphasis put well and truly on rehabilitation. If people are caught driving dangerously then perhaps the answer should be re-training and education in the consequences of bad driving rather than a fine.