Public outrage has been expressed at a US cop who pulled a gun during a friendly Washington snowball fight. The detective, who was calmed down by uniformed police called to the scene, has been suspended pending disciplinary action.
This could not possibly happen in the UK. In Britain five or six squad cars would have pulled up and disgorged police officers in full body armour and brandishing automatic weapons. A couple of dozen of them would have quickly contained and penned in the crowd of snowballers and detained them under the Prevention of Terrorism laws. They would have been cautioned, and their DNA samples taken and kept on record. Any who objected, or tried to otherwise interfere with the police carrying out their duties would have been sectioned under the Mental Health acts. We're lucky we live in a free country rather than in gun-crazy America…
Service Nation, the latest report from Demos, puts them firmly back in the big government box that they have been trying to crawl out of. Service Nation proposes ‘civic service’, which in case you are wondering ‘differs from volunteering, which is more commonly perceived as an add-on to citizenship: something that is morally desirable but not an integral or implied expectation in return for the benefits that citizenship confers.’ In other words, while volunteering is voluntary, 'civic service' is forced.
But politicians should take note. The report concludes that the youth of the country are not keen on being forced to act. The solution for Demos is simple: 'This response also reveals the importance of branding a scheme so that it appeals to the young people at whom it is aimed – which should be done in conjunction with them.' I don’t fancy their chances, slavery is a hard sell.
The policy suggestions in this paper are illiberal. School children would have to volunteer as part of the National Curriculum, while university graduates would be forced to do at least 100 hours of community service over the course of their degree. This will of course hurt poorer students who already work to fund their studies.
The term ‘slave’ might however be a more appropriate name for the rest of us. The report includes the ludicrous idea that public sector employees should be entitled to a week of service leave each year and the imposition of various entitlements open to those chosen few that are not forced, but paid to serve the nation. Demos are suggesting the creation of a new class of crypto-civil servants, feeding off the corpse of the already overburdened, shrinking and fleeing private sector.
Denis O’Connor, Chief Inspector of Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary used the release of his department’s inquiry into the police forces’ handling of public demonstrations to speak on the overall state of the Police. He worries that they have drifted from the true principles of policing, and as a result are losing the respect and confidence of the public.
The police force is not a gang of senseless thugs and gibbering, inept morons, but the laws, regulations and targets that bind their actions can make them appear to be. New Labour’s creation of nearly one new crime every day since 1997 has certainly helped in creating a culture where we feel restricted and watched over by the police. However, O’Connor explains that the force have more issues to contend with. Police performance and accountability is dealt with by regulators such as his own body, government offices and local partnerships. This can make things very confusing. New reports, instructions and initiatives are frequently directed at the police from bodies with differing interests and priorities. Unfortunately, this is counterproductive. The more orders and criticisms are directed at police officers, the less scope they have to use their discretion and judgment.
Independent thinking can lead to criticism and accusations of irresponsibility, so it makes much more sense for a bobby to blindly follow any instruction or precaution that could possibly be applicable in a situation. Inevitably, situations arise like the kettling of non-violent protestors for hours on end, or the death of a young boy because a PCSO had not received the training to save him from drowning in a pond. Another major problem is the imposition of centrally imposed targets, which distort incentives. The overload of instructions, advice and new laws can lead policemen to lose confidence even in their own abilities and role, or develop a distorted perception of their personal power.
In 1829 Sir Robert Peel remarked that “the police are the public and the public are the police". Britain’s first model of the police set out an “approachable, impartial, accountable style of policing based on minimal force and anchored in public consent". O’Connor is calling for a return to these values, and recommends the creation of universal principles to guide the police on the use of force and appropriate behavior in all areas of policing. It is sad that we cannot trust our police to figure this out for themselves. More can be done to help the force to regain focus and regain public respect. The different bodies involved in regulating and advising the police should be scaled down and simplified, and central targets should be scrapped.
The government insisted that the creation of the world’s biggest DNA database was to retain vital information on criminals that would help to secure leads and aid convictions on crimes. Unsurprisingly, even official bodies are questioning whether the database is performing this role. An independent government advisory panel - The Human Genetics Commission - today announced that they have concerns over the unclear nature and practicality of the database. Of the 5 million profiles on record, 1 million are of innocent people. Is this supposed to be a database of offenders, or of the whole of the UK?
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act states that an “arrest must never be used simply because it can be used". However, evidence given to the HGC review suggests that in some cases, arrests take place simply to get hold of a citizen’s DNA. Giving evidence, a retired senior police officer claimed "It is now the norm to arrest offenders for everything if there is a power to do so. Chairman Jonathan Montgomery remarked “there was some evidence that we received, although it's hard for us to test, that occasionally people are arrested in order to retain the DNA information even though they might not have been arrested in other circumstances", and should this be perpetuated it would be of “very great concern".
The review also raises the problem that the database actually has little “forensic utility". While it rejects the creation of a nationwide database, it doesn’t call for a curb in scope of the project or the removal of innocent people from the database. This is regrettable. Retaining the DNA of those not convicted creates a class of the ‘semi-innocent’; if you are ‘bad’ enough to be arrested, you are "bad" enough to be considered a potential suspect for all future crimes. The massive overrepresentation of young black males on the database suggests the creation of a group of ‘potential’ criminals, who are arrested more on the assumption they may later commit a crime than any current misdemeanour.
The HGC’s report does however make one particularly important recommendation - that the purpose of the DNA database should be set out and constrained through primary legislation. Parliament has never formally debated the establishment of the national DNA database; it came into being through the amendment of existing legislation on the retention of fingerprints and physical evidence. There is thus no act of Parliament that exclusively or coherently outlines the purpose and scope of the project, and therefore there are no legislated constraints on its expansion. It is essential that if such a heinous contraption must exist, it should receive the official approval approval of our representatives, otherwise its creation is as undemocratic as it is authoritarian. Without the legal jargon to outline the limits of the purpose and function of the database, few safeguards exist to prevent a further ‘function creep’.
The UK’s reputation as a financial epicentre may have taken a battering, but it still attracts clients the world over in one area: libel law. Anyone across the globe can bring about a libel case in England if they can prove that just one copy of a publication containing ‘defamatory’ remarks about them has been purchased or downloaded on English soil.
Our system is incredibly claimant friendly. A defendant must prove that what they reported was either true or fair in order to win. Unlike in countries such as the USA, little respect for diversity of opinion and free speech is enshrined in the legal process. Also, defending libel action in England costs 140 times more than the average of other European countries.
These flaws bring about several problems. “Libel tourism" is rife; rich foreigners exploit UK law to try and silence unpleasant allegations made against them that would be thrown out of court in their own country. This has lead to foreign publishers becoming wary of circulating in the UK. Large American newspapers such as the New York Times told a Commons Select Committee that they are considering pulling out of the UK market as the threat of billion dollar court cases being brought against them simply isn’t worth it.
The high costs of defending libel lawsuits mean that too often those brought to court simply settle instead of fighting. It also leads to a dramatic clampdown on investigative reporting within the UK, as journalists are so incredibly wary of libel action. Journalists and Scientists in England are not forcibly censored, but they are self-censored; it is difficult to tell how many reports never make the light of day for fear of the potentially ruinous legal implications. Super-injunctions and over-zealous interpretations of the HRA’s Right to Privacy often mean the English public do not even know that something has been covered up.
Index on Censorship and English PEN have released a report on this issue, suggesting a number of reforms to libel law. These include bringing about a £10,000 cap on damages paid out, and ensuring at least 10% of a publication’s circulation is in England before libel charges can be brought about. A select committee is also due to be reporting their findings into the effect of libel law shortly.
At present English libel laws are used by the rich and influential to deflect attention, while discouraging serious journalism and the spread of ideas to the UK. These laws are in desperate need of reform so that they actually serve their intended purpose.
The 'S' and Marper judgement in the European Court of Human Rights ruled 'blanket and indiscriminate' retention of DNA unlawful. The government's proposal to retain the DNA profiles of innocent people on a criminal database for 6 years fails to address the key legal principle: that any retention at all of DNA from those uncharged or unconvicted of a crime is a breach of privacy rights, and needs justification.
The proposals are calculated to change current practice as little as possible, and to keep building up the National DNA Database, already by far the largest in the world. But while Home Office figures suggest that testing more DNA from crime scenes has helped to solve more crimes, massively expanding the number of individuals with records on the database has not.
A far more proportionate and practical approach would be to adopt the Scottish system, where DNA profiles from a small number of innocent people are allowed to be retained for three years (or exceptionally five, on application to a sheriff, and with right of appeal) in cases where the person is arrested for a relevant sexual or violent crime, and proceedings are commenced and dropped or result in a not guilty verdict.
Just a few hundred individuals' DNA profiles are held under this legislation, as opposed to almost a million people in England and Wales.
A heavyweight new report from the Transform Drug Policy Foundation (released this week) has called for the regulated legalization of all narcotic drugs. Under their plans, cannabis and opium would become freely available from licensed, membership-based coffee shops, while cocaine, ecstasy and amphetamines would be available to licensed users from pharmacies. This is an eminently sensible idea.
The Home Office, however, has reacted with a predictable display of willful stupidity. A spokesman told the BBC: “[We have] no intention of either decriminalising or legalising currently controlled drugs… Drugs are controlled for good reason — they are harmful to health. Their control protects individuals and the public from the harms caused by their misuse."
What they clearly don’t realize is that prohibition is not ‘drug control’. In fact, it almost the complete opposite: prohibition means putting drugs in the hands of gangsters and forfeiting any control whatsoever. It means huge profits for criminals, who turn inner city areas into gang-warfare zones. It means the destabilization of drug-producing countries like Columbia. And it means no reliable information on strength or quality for drug users, leading to overdoses and poisoning.
Of course, it also means thousands of drug addicts turning to crime to fund their habit. The government’s own figures suggest that 80 percent of UK crime is drug related, at a cost of some £15-20bn a year. This, again, is directly related to prohibition – around 90 percent of the street price of drugs represents an ‘illegality premium’. Few alcoholics, by contrast, are driven to a life of crime.
Ultimately, the fact that even high security prisons are awash with illegal drugs should make it pretty obvious – even to politicians – that prohibition can never succeed in its stated aims in a free society, and that the only way to minimize the harm associated with drugs is to take them away from the gangs and bring them into the legitimate marketplace. Transform’s report is a welcome contribution to this debate.
I discussed this issue on BBC Radio Leeds yesterday lunchtime. Click here if you want to listen, and fast-forward to 0:36:32.
All telecoms companies and internet service providers will shortly be required by law to keep a record of every customer's personal communications. This all inclusive ‘Big Brother’ system will record phone calls, emails, text messages, and even the links clicked on the internet, all stored for at least a year under government control. According to government officials this type of surveillance is absolutely critical in combating terrorism and hardened crimes.
This is the same kind of rhetoric that was given when CCTV was installed up and sown the country. However, according to the London Police Chiefs less than 3% of crimes were solved with the assistance of CCTV in 2008, even though the number of CCTV cameras in England had reached 4,200,000 in the year 2002. The most fitting use for CCTV has proved to be in discovering which parents lied about where they lived in order to enroll their children in better schools and who is not disposing of their rubbish properly. CCTV is conceivably the best example of a tool implemented to fight crime that quickly turned into a mechanism for domestic control, even going as far as attempting to install them in school toilets.
This new program, no matter how good the intentions, will only add to the already out of control invasions of privacy in this country. Chris Grayling, shadow home secretary has said he has fears about the abuse of the data:
The big danger in all of this is 'mission creep'. This Government keeps on introducing new powers to tackle terrorism and organised crime which end up being used for completely different purposes. We have to stop that from happening.
Grayling is simply pointing out the obvious. The government has repeatedly used programs such as this against its own citizenry without regard for personal privacy, claiming that only tguilty have anything to fear. The crusial question though is at what point do law abiding citizens need to start fearing their own government? If monitoring your private phone calls and emails without a warrant, and without permission from a judge, isn’t enough then what is? I doubt that people would tolerate CCTV in their own homes, but the difference between allowing cameras in our homes and this new program seems to be minuscule at best.
Since Obama won the Presidential election in 2008 gun sales in the Unites States have been soaring. Citizens feared that with a democratically controlled congress and presidency that gun rights would inevitably end up on the chopping block. In reality, gun rights have actually increased in America since President Obama took office – especially with the ruling of DC v Heller. President Obama had even stated on several occasions before he ever ran for public office that he actually believes the right to bear arms is an individual right and is not dependent upon militia service. And the number of democrats in congress that are supportive of gun rights makes it highly unlikely that any gun regulation will be on the docket anytime soon. While it appears that the general public may have over-reacted to the threat on gun rights it has actually given us a unique opportunity to look at what happens to crime rates as the number of private gun owners dramatically increases along with the number of conceal and carry permit holders.
More recently, the number of conceal and carry permit holders has more than doubled in most states. The surprising part is that in areas with the largest increase in conceal and carry permits we are also seeing the greatest reduction in violent crime. Although this is nothing new – as far back as 1997 there have been studies linking crime reduction with the number of conceal and carry permits – it is still surprising to many people when they hear about it, and many choose to disregard it.
Many advocates of gun control tend to cite that crime in general rises when gun are more present in an area. Generally speaking this is true, but the number of violent crimes and crimes committed with firearms actually decrease. It is believed that when criminals face a higher risk of encountering potential victims that are armed they tend to substitute into committing more petty crimes rather than more violent crimes. While the outcome of this criminal-substitution effect generally leads to an increase on overall crime it also decreases violent crime. This essentially leads to fewer crime related deaths and an overall better outcome. I guess in a strage way, President Obama has actually helped make America safer – so let it not be said that he has done nothing since taking office.
We have all heard the old adage, ‘It takes a village to raise a child’, but the government has taken the village to mean the state. Unfortunately we live in a world where there are people who seek out children to exploit children, but does it take the government raising our children in order to prevent it from ever happening? The government has now taken steps to ban parents from entering play areas, and in some cases even banned parents watching their own children play, unless they have been vetted.
It feels as if we elected nannies instead of public officials. First parents were banned from ferrying their children to sports activities and then two police women almost lost their jobs over sharing child minding duties. Now parents can’t even watch their own children play without submitting to criminal background checks. How long will it be before you have to submit to a background check before you allowed to have a child? I know it sounds outlandish now, but if you told my parents 15 years ago that they couldn’t watch me while I played in a playground they would have thought you were crazy.
We have already given up so many of our natural rights to government that we almost don’t notice when we lose another. The real danger is that we are allowing our children to grow up under government control. Children will grow up thinking that ‘government knows best’ if they continually see their own parents undermined by government regulation and intervention. The government is practically teaching children that they need to be protected from their parents. If public-run institutions are any indication of how well things turn out under government control, then I’m afraid families don’t stand a chance.
Service Nation
Denis O’Connor, Chief Inspector of Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary used the release of his department’s inquiry into the police forces’ handling of public demonstrations to 
The government insisted that the creation of the world’s biggest DNA database was to retain vital information on criminals that would help to secure leads and aid convictions on crimes. Unsurprisingly, even official bodies are questioning whether the database is performing this role. An independent government advisory panel - 
The UK’s reputation as a financial epicentre may have taken a battering, but it still attracts clients the world over in one area: libel law. Anyone across the globe can bring about a libel case in England if they can prove that just one copy of a publication containing ‘defamatory’ remarks about them has been purchased or downloaded on English soil.
A heavyweight new report from the 
All telecoms companies and internet service providers will shortly be 
Since Obama won the Presidential election in 2008 gun sales in the Unites States have been 
We have all heard the old adage, ‘It takes a village to raise a child’, but the government has taken the village to mean the state. Unfortunately we live in a world where there are people who seek out children to exploit children, but does it take the government raising our children in order to prevent it from ever happening? The government has now taken steps to ban parents from entering play areas, and in some cases even