![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
You think we're bad, look at the others
Apr. 20th, 2009 12:06 pmI'm not sure if the line of argument put forward this morning by Sir Ken Jones, president of the Association of Chief Police Officers, appears in the book "Crimes Against Logic", but after his appearance on Radio Four this morning, I really feel that he should have a chapter of his own.
Jones's line this morning in defending the police is that
He claimed that the police's response was "proportionate".
Speaking on Radio Four, he went on to say that "the public" wanted the police to act against rising levels of lawlessness.
The first argument appears to be that "other police are worse", so you should be grateful for what you've got. It doesn't actually address whether the system we have is any good, or indeed if it is more or less effective than systems used abroad. Actually, I'm not sure what line it puts forward, apart from calling the police reponse "proportionate". Well, what does "proportionate" mean exactly? I presume it's meant to be the opposite of "disproportionate", both of the words being euphemeiums for "fine, ok" and "excessive" respectively.
His line this morning, about growing levels of lawlessness, has yet to be addressed by any Radio Four interviewer in my hearing, in that the police have been talking up the rising tide of lawlessness for at least 200 years, simply as an excuse to give them more powers, without any actual evidence that the tide of lawlessness is rising. And the defence "that shows our line is successful", obviously reminds me of that Not The Nine o' Clock News sketch where Constable Grif Rhys-Jones takes as proof that a bloke is a villain the fact that he, Constable Grif, has arrested him 38 times.
As Mr Butler pointed out, the police have to talk up "the other side" and the threat therein, because their living requires on it. And of "the other side" (e.g., drivers) become generally more law-abiding, then new laws have to be created for them to break. But what you will never, ever hear from a policeman is that we might need fewer policemen or, even worse, that budgets might be cut.
This morning another senior police officer, this time retired, made a more poignant analysis, referring to a "crisis of leadership" within the Met that had led to a "safety first" approach which meant that every encounter with the public was treated as a potential threat.
The police, I fear, now look on the public as "the enemy" or, if not "the enemy", at least as "them" in a case of "us and them". Any form of dissent was seen as anti-police and, since the police are representatives of the law, as anti-law and, therefore, arrestable. This line of logic is so self-evidently flawed that you wonder how anyone above the age of three could defend it. And, yet, successive Home Secretaries have just done that.
Part of the fault can once again be laid at the feet of lawyers, who joyfully confuse the words "justice" and "law". The police have caught onto this game. "Justice" has no place in the "policing for profit" regime. Once this principle of "law above justice" is established, the police actions last week become more understandable, if not more forgiveable. If the police represent the law, then the interests of the police are paramount, no matter how this infringes on the liberty of the public.
Indeed, the whole point of policing, to make life safer without making it intolerable, loses the second half of the equation. No matter how much our liberties are taken away, this is justified in the name of safety. The balance has been thrown out of the window. And, the paradox is, if you disagree with this, you are anti-police, therefore anti-law, even if you have not broken any "real" laws. It's 1984ish doublethink at work. Dissent is, by definition, wrong.
_____________________
Jones's line this morning in defending the police is that
.
"I can't find any other country which doesn't use water cannon, CS gas, rubber bullets. Our approach is proportionate and, in fact, has delivered on many other occasions,"
He claimed that the police's response was "proportionate".
Speaking on Radio Four, he went on to say that "the public" wanted the police to act against rising levels of lawlessness.
The first argument appears to be that "other police are worse", so you should be grateful for what you've got. It doesn't actually address whether the system we have is any good, or indeed if it is more or less effective than systems used abroad. Actually, I'm not sure what line it puts forward, apart from calling the police reponse "proportionate". Well, what does "proportionate" mean exactly? I presume it's meant to be the opposite of "disproportionate", both of the words being euphemeiums for "fine, ok" and "excessive" respectively.
His line this morning, about growing levels of lawlessness, has yet to be addressed by any Radio Four interviewer in my hearing, in that the police have been talking up the rising tide of lawlessness for at least 200 years, simply as an excuse to give them more powers, without any actual evidence that the tide of lawlessness is rising. And the defence "that shows our line is successful", obviously reminds me of that Not The Nine o' Clock News sketch where Constable Grif Rhys-Jones takes as proof that a bloke is a villain the fact that he, Constable Grif, has arrested him 38 times.
As Mr Butler pointed out, the police have to talk up "the other side" and the threat therein, because their living requires on it. And of "the other side" (e.g., drivers) become generally more law-abiding, then new laws have to be created for them to break. But what you will never, ever hear from a policeman is that we might need fewer policemen or, even worse, that budgets might be cut.
This morning another senior police officer, this time retired, made a more poignant analysis, referring to a "crisis of leadership" within the Met that had led to a "safety first" approach which meant that every encounter with the public was treated as a potential threat.
The police, I fear, now look on the public as "the enemy" or, if not "the enemy", at least as "them" in a case of "us and them". Any form of dissent was seen as anti-police and, since the police are representatives of the law, as anti-law and, therefore, arrestable. This line of logic is so self-evidently flawed that you wonder how anyone above the age of three could defend it. And, yet, successive Home Secretaries have just done that.
Part of the fault can once again be laid at the feet of lawyers, who joyfully confuse the words "justice" and "law". The police have caught onto this game. "Justice" has no place in the "policing for profit" regime. Once this principle of "law above justice" is established, the police actions last week become more understandable, if not more forgiveable. If the police represent the law, then the interests of the police are paramount, no matter how this infringes on the liberty of the public.
Indeed, the whole point of policing, to make life safer without making it intolerable, loses the second half of the equation. No matter how much our liberties are taken away, this is justified in the name of safety. The balance has been thrown out of the window. And, the paradox is, if you disagree with this, you are anti-police, therefore anti-law, even if you have not broken any "real" laws. It's 1984ish doublethink at work. Dissent is, by definition, wrong.
_____________________
