http://animalfarmupdated.blogspot.com/2010/04/sheffield-pigs-and-rhinos-1963.html hosts a copy of an inquiry into police beatings in 1963 in Sheffield. There was also the Leeds case involving Challenor around the same time. He was kicked out as a loony and later published a book.
We like to think things have changed for the better, but a major problem with this is lack of memory and the weird non-memories in place in our experience we bring to present problems. I have found that police and other public agencies are as intransigent and using the same ‘techniques’ of denial that can be found in the 1963 report.
I have a complex methodology that works in academe as a means of enquiry – but most people have no clue on anything complex. Most could not unzip a banana without copying from others. This isn’t really to do with lack of smarts – I sense other forces at work.
The 1963 report is full of people who would not come forward and one can only say in 2011 that plenty must not have been able to come forward in the 20 years it took to get the matter to court.
One obvious ‘force’ at work, assuming corruption itself is a minority pursuit, is that which prevents the ‘honest’ coming forward.
It has struck me during the News of the Screws revelations is that an answer would be to hang everyone who reads the slag-sheet. Having a life so feeble that one needs leg-over gossip is a clear failure in choice. This is only one way to think of the scandal – starting from why anyone could trade on police files or phone hacking – public titillation. Track back from this point through to some shady cop selling a dossier, seedy creep hacking phones and once again we seem to find a system with no honest people coming forward until most of the truth is already out by accident.
This lack of honest people coming forward to stop malpractice is worrying. Does it mean there are no honest people, or that honest people are constrained from coming forward – are the chains of Gadget’s ‘not being able to pay the mortgage’ the ‘force’ we should be looking at?
It isn’t that simple either, but the gist is in the way Gadget can pass off ‘not being able to pay his mortgage’ in such a nodding-donkey fashion as though this is how a man of the world should act in not revealing the corruption in which he works. Sociology and literature have been way past Gadget for more than three centuries, but the problem remains intractable. My interest eventually concerns possibilities of different economics and ways of being in the world – these depend on changes in how we address human nature and hence my interest in scandal and bureaucratic workings.