Wednesday, 24 October 2012
Law And Disorder In The UK
Its not often that I actually agree with anything written in the Guardian, but with regards to the latest one about law and order, this article really seems to have hit the nail on the head. With the recent announcements made by David Cameron that they were going to start being more tougher on crime one doesn't need to be a genius to realise that this is all just smoke and mirrors to detract attention away from the main troubles going on right now.
In any case, Im not going to simply repeat what was written in the Guardian, so feel free to read the article here:
The 'tough on crime' stance wheeled out every so often to trick the gullable law-abiding citizens into supporting further decent into a police state is getting a bit old, even so, it still doesn't stop some of the more traditionalist members of society from giving their support. The state of the law and order in this country currently is quite frankly a joke. The politcians may rattle their sabres to gain temporary support from well intentioned citizens who may still remember, or wish to return to the days where there was such a thing as social cohesion, but punishment is essentially like shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. Politicians are keen to mention crime statistics but not anything to do with social equality or community unity, all things which ultimately reflect upon why people commit crime in the first place.
So what currently do the British public have to contend with when faced with law and order in the land of hope and glory?
The nation which gave birth to liberalism and the modern ideals of legal and constitutional equality is in my opinion at breaking point. There is a plethora of legal and constitutional issues which we face right now which if not tackled appriopriately will end in a particularily nasty national identity akin to a certain dystopian novel by a Mr Orwell.
One of the most worrying trends we see at the moment is with the level of incompetence, lack of common sense and the extremely zealous approach of police, particularily the younger officers who have been brought up in the 'brave new world' environment that Britain has become. Gone is the image of the friendly English bobby who used to represent everything that was right about this country. There used to be a degree of respect and honour both within the legal system and with alot of the organised crime gangs. Just as a for instance the infamous Kray twins in London's East-End used to donate money to various charities and causes:
The sci-fi drama 'Life on Mars' and 'Ashes to Ashes' from the BBC invoked alot of the issues involved with the changing of police styles over the years, from the local police of the 70's to the decent into the modern face-less borg. The underlying message is that in decades past where there was local communities that cared and looked after one another, even most of the criminals had respect for others to some degree, (unless you owed them money of course) but this has all changed. Now the police go after generally law-abiding people who happen to break some minor law, half the time they don't even realise that what they have done was an offence, whilst the real hardened criminals are ignored because they are difficult targets or because the police themselves feel threatened.
As more and more of the 'old school' police are retired, the more and more we see the new face of the 'police', or as we should call it, the 'corporate tax enforcement force', because by and large, real crime is ignored.
The A19 document is available to all police stations and essentially gives the leaders the authority to retire officers who have served a set amount of service already.
But this of course means even more of those 'old school' coppers will leave leaving more room for youngsters who generally speaking have no idea about community and who have no choice but to follow their orders of revenue collection from drivers or to arrest someone who said something slightly inappropriate.
Yes, in this day and age it seems that you can be arrested (and convicted for) things you said in jest, online or in person and indeed you can be convicted on a 'minority report' whim for something you may have said online. For instance:
Men who were alleged to have tried to insight violence and rioting in Cheshire in the 2011 English riots. Of course they probably was, but how can the law convict on the grounds of pre-crime, there is nothing to say these lads were not just joking. They probably wasn't, but I don't understand how you can be convicted on the basis that 'they probably wasn't joking..
A Muslim who posted the following message onto a Facebook page which was a tribute to fallen soldiers:
"People gassin [venting off] about the deaths of soldiers! What about the innocent familys who have been brutally killed.. The women who have been raped.. The children who have been sliced up..! Your enemy’s were the Taliban not innocent harmless familys. All soldiers should DIE & go to HELL! THE LOWLIFE F*****N SCUM! gotta problem go cry at your soliders grave & wish him hell because that where he is going."
Do I agree with him? No. Do I agree that a tribute page to the dead is the right place to start political debate? No. Do I think that someone who gets a little hot headed and emotional should be sentenced to prison? Of course not! I don't agree with the wars, they have nothing to do with us - but even if you was gullable enough to believe the propaganda, wouldn't it be ironic to be punishing freedom of speech against dead soldiers who died in a war against the Taliban?
This was a high profile case because of the mass-media getting ahold of it, but this woman although not exactly eloquent, voices concerns that the vast majority of white Europeans harbour. She was more than likely feeling extremely vulnerable since she looks to be one of the only English people on the bus. Also, there seems to be an awful amount of 'racist' videos coming from certain accounts which seems to suggest that many of these people are being goaded into saying things they wouldn't usually say (unless pissed off.)
I often speak to a ex-policeman who comes into where I work and even though he worked for the police for some thirty years, he says himself that most of the 'new-breed' are simply bullies in uniform, or lack any kind of intelligence or integrity to do the job in a proper capacity. This is an increasing trend too, many older people who used to never question the way in which the police operate are suddenly becoming surprised at the sort of behavior we are being subjected to these days.
So why is Cameron hammering on the idea of 'tougher punishments?' Well, its a ridiculous situation. In the past few decades, especally under Labour, we have seen thousands of new offences being created. Most crime (as in stealing, assaulting, murdering etc) is actually down in recent years.
When you look at these statistics you will see something strange:
The vast majority of crime is 'anti social behavior'. Well aside from the fact that anything could be construed as 'anti-social', we have to assume that most of this is from the kind of typical ASBO lout you may expect to see in any run down council estate area, or anyone who is in a drunken state coming out of a pub or club late at night and is making a bit of a nuissance of themselves. In this case we have to ask some questions seeing as all the other areas of 'normal' crime (such as robbery and so on) are actually on a decrease.
Why do kids go out and become anti-social?
Why do people drink excessively every weekend?
If politicians could answer those questions effectively and more importantly seek to rectify the problems, then maybe that is more important than starting a witch hunt against the vulnerable in society. Am I advocating the 'hug a hoodie' mentality that Cameron came up with before he was elected and has since dropped? No. But what I'am calling for is for the real reasons for Britains social woes to be investigated instead of making laws up for no inherrent reason which only serve to restrict freedoms and do not help society in any way.
I'm not qualified to answer these questions, but I would suggest that the vast majority of the reasons comes from the Government itself. That is:
The destruction of family values.
The unbelieveably poor education system which teaches in an out of date fashion without the dicipline which that old system requires to operate.
The destruction of local communties (both through the disintergration of traditional organisations and through mass migration.)
The attack of individual liberty.
The isolation of children in community.
The lack of job or career prospects (because the Government keeps getting cheap foreign workers in and because British companies keep moving their factories abroad) and for most if not all youngsters in this day and age.
The fact that alchohol and drug usage is a coping mechanism for many for the many issues the poorer face today. Not only that but much of the violent and anti social behavior is a learnt charectaristic through the sheer frustration of their situation and it essentially equates to mental illness. Punishing chavs just because they are uneducated and angry at being put on societies landfill sounds somewhat harsh to me. All the while the biggest criminals in the world eating lavish meals at international conventions paid for by the struggling tax payers, I very much doubt the status quo is going to change a great deal.
Just another day of bullshit.
(On a lighter note, Rowan Atkinson is backing a campaign for free speech, let us hope his fame will bring some real debate on the subject. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9616750/Rowan-Atkinson-we-must-be-allowed-to-insult-each-other.html)