You think we're bad, look at the others
Apr. 20th, 2009 12:06 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
peterbirksI'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.
_____________________
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-04-20 01:30 pm (UTC)Us and them
Date: 2009-04-20 04:03 pm (UTC)If there were a way of removing the idiots from the demonstrators' side of the equation, then the police would be wholly in the wrong. The pillocks smashing up RBS etc were an idiot minority and should be beaten about the head with night-sticks etc. But the vast majority of the demonstrators thought that too.
The chap from the IPCC had it about right. We need a discussion/rethink on how such things are policed.
no subject
Date: 2009-04-20 06:05 pm (UTC)Why else was Damian Green MP harassed by the police and told he might be going to gaol for life? Of course, the questioning detectives were morons but it was an attempt to frighten opposition politicians.
Why else are anti-coal demonstrators harassed and arrested for the pre-crime of attending a demonstration in the future. Gordon's brother works for EDF Energy. EDF and EON are regularly given intelligence information by the Home Office and police.
Pensioners harassed by police for not liking gay marriage.
The police consists of bully boys in the ranks and Labour Party infiltrators at the officer level.
So glad this vile social experiment comes to an end in May/June of next year and 18 years out of government will be nothing compared to what is to come.
Will the Labour party survive? I do hope not! A party full of liberal middle-class busy bodies is hardly what was envisioned when the party was first created. No wonder so many working class people look to the BNP or can't be bothered to vote.
And when the Tories come to power they need a US model for policing with a locally elected police commissioner for every constabulary and police force in the country. And get rid of all those sinister and shadowy national police bodies that are far too many to list.
And finally, any police officer without an ID number is not a police officer and should be arrested. If they strike anyone whilst in a uniform without an ID number then they should be tried for assault as though they are not a police officer.
End of Rant in E Minor
PS - When I was child I found a wallet and handed it to the first policeman I came across. He immediately said, "How much money did you nick from it?" I was only 8 years old but obviously more intelligent than the idiot in front of me, "I wouldn't have given you the wallet if I had stolen any money." The owner of the wallet rewarded me with it contents.
no subject
Date: 2009-04-20 06:59 pm (UTC)Seems about right.
no subject
Date: 2009-05-10 09:16 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-05-10 11:29 am (UTC)In other words, he probably was promoted not because he had "vast experience" but because he was an expert on the PR of modern policing. It's standard opinion among today's PCs (when they can speak freely) that it's politics rather than good policing ability that gets you to the top in the modern police. Nothing that you say serves to change my opinion on that.
What we do have is the evidence of his recent statement (yes, the one that I quote). You haven't addressed my argument in any way.
PJ
no subject
Date: 2009-04-20 08:20 pm (UTC)Now, I'm not particularly neutral on this one, what with it having been one of my four policies the last time I stood for Parliament, but I think we can agree that cancelling £76 billion (2007 Grauniad figures and therefore utterly unreliable) is, ooh, 40% of the way there. And the beauty of it is that it has no negative effect on the UK economy, because next to none of that gargantuan sum would be spent here.
Good Lord, if I were Chancellor and looking for an eco-friendly bombshell in the budget, this would be high on my list. The only button it doesn't press is the Big Red One.
This musing prompted by your (perfectly legitimate) rubbishing of ACPO's miserable "comparative performance" justification. It got me thinking. The intertubes are a bit laggy at the moment, but from memory we spend 2% of GNP on the police, which (from memory again) is considerably more than even the Belgians. A twenty per cent cut in that would benefit everybody. You'd have to claw back 5% to spend on "anti-terrorism," of course, to make it look good. I'm dubious about the moral case for that. But the political case is unanswerable -- provided anybody in New Labour has got balls. Or even millibands. (What do millibands measure, btw?)
And then there's the question of individual Value for Money. One could be quite creative in shrinking the Public Service. Basically, the cost to the customer per individual in the public sector is made up of two things: salary whilst working, and pension once retired.
Police retirement age is, I understand, generous in the extreme. Hack them down! Note that I am not advocating a slash and burn of police pension rights ... merely that, if they're going to spend their golden years on the public teat, there should be far less of them.
And of upper-ranking commissioned officers in the armed forces, also.
And then there's 635 worthless farts in Westimnster to consider, also. The list is endless. And the great thing is, this measurement prioritises people like nurses, who actually get things done. God, their services come practically free when they're properly amortised.
The milliBand defined...
Date: 2009-04-21 09:00 am (UTC)Band - The Who; nothing can have a rating higher than one band and that one band is The Who.
Queen, Lynyrd Skynyrd, The Doors, Jimi Hendrix Experience range from 0.8 to 0.99 Band
Groups in the milliBand range came into existence after The Old Grey Whistle Test ended.
Anything by Mr Cowell is in the picoBand range.
The milliBand defined... soon to be an SI measurement
Date: 2009-04-21 06:44 pm (UTC)First we need to decide which milliBand to use, since there are two of them. I think we should be bold and use an imaginary milliBand. The real ones don't seem to have much traction on the public.
I'm a little surprised that you measure Cowelling Dogs on the picoBand range. You must be far more sensitive than me. I hear no signal at all ... only noise.
Re: The milliBand defined...
Date: 2009-04-21 08:13 pm (UTC)I would happily dedicate the rest of my life to ensuring that the Conservative Party vanishes from the earth. Everything I love (including England) was blighted by Thatcher. And it's no use claiming that the Old Etonians are back in charge -- it's seductive, but only if you have a fetish for top hats and floppy hair.
I am in complete agreement with your wish that the (Old/New/Plain Stupid) Labour Party vanishes from the earth. In fact, I've held this position since a playground argument in 1970, when Heath was first elected.
In theory, I have this nasty choice: do I vote Liberal, because ... well, Bowen is a Liberal, and I can always move to a different part of Birmingham ... or do I vote Labour because their constitution suggests that they're not paralytically annoying greedy apparatchniks ... or do I vote Conservatonian ("New! Fresh! Even little girls' bicycle seats will smell of Wind Power!") on the grounds that
they can't wreck civil
liberties
more that the current
*(#&):GUID:UKFY*(P*Y:#RT
No, it's too difficult. I give up. You go and live with Smaug on your pile of gold in a Spanish cave, with the angels' portion of fifteen-year-old garam masala permeating the limestone.
Me, I'm off to Northern California. And fuck the lot of ye.
Re: The milliBand defined...
Date: 2009-04-21 08:20 pm (UTC)Who to vote for? God knows. I really can't bring myself to vote for this bunch of twats. We had 10 years when we could have "done a Norway" and lived happily, if not ever after, well, at least for a decade or so on the proceeds. Instead, Brown the Chancellor found idiotic ways to waste it on non-jobs here there and everywhere.
Now we are looking at a national debt likely to reach 100% of GDP, and you can't blame Darling, or the world economy for this. basically, one fuck of a lot of it is Brown's fault. The causes of it came when he was on the watch.
But Cameron? He and his bunch look equally intolerable and incompetent. The Liberal Democrats are in a way the best and the worst of the bunch. They seem to have a penchant for blaming the banks even more than do the Old Labout bunch. Does it not occur to them that the reasons the banks went broke was because they lent lots of money to us which they are now not going to get back? It's hardly their fault that we've spent it all (well, I haven't, obviously, but a lot of people have).
PJ
Re: The milliBand defined...
Date: 2009-04-21 10:22 pm (UTC)Other than that, I couldn't agree with you more, on every single point.
Hope that cheers you up. No, seriously (about the inability to agree with you more -- I'm not that fussed about cheering Londoners up.)
Re: The milliBand defined...
Date: 2009-04-21 10:24 pm (UTC)PPS His trios are rubbish.