Policing by Consent? Not in my name

I want tougher policing by responsible, decent people.  I believe most crime could be dealt with by local mediation with minimal intrusion by lawyers and with public scrutiny built in (trials open to Internet recording).  Sure, we’d need safeguards and a different route for serious crime.

I withdraw (with a laugh) my consent from what is going on.  It’s bent, run by sold-out bureaucrats and can’t even do anything about thuggery and incompetence.  The killings at Stockwell and G20 are not the problem in-themselves, it’s the response to them and all failures across our systems from Baby P, Askew and the Ripper Enquiry, through to our illegal wars since WW2.  We are now a sad country without democracy or justice.  We are as bad at stopping old ladies and the disabled being tormented by yobs and criminal scum as we are at stopping the Taliban in Afghanistan.  We don’t even know how many Iraqis died at our hands and still allow the vile, actor-idiot Blair to strut about.  I want a flag back I could salute.  Sitting round a table sharing rice and cigarettes with Taliban wannabes nearly ten years ago, trying to dissuade them,my major tack was that their cause was lying to them.  I did not bear arms for ‘virgin reward’ (highly misunderstood here), but for a country worth living in.  Now, like many others, I know I was lied to about this.  The White Cliffs of Dover no longer welcome and are best seen on the way out.

We know Suez was based on a fantastic ‘policing action’ fiction in which Israel attacked Egypt and we and the French just had 120,000 troops lying about to keep the sides apart.  At least we got to know.  Now we have no real idea why we are fighting wars and can’t do anything about rogue cops.  It’s a case of no progress being frogmarched backwards by spin.  We can’t even get out on the streets and put flowers down gun barrels, though if we could the cops with discipline records longer than their batons would lash us to the ground, bent pathologist lying in wait and prosecution bureaucrats sure any jury of twelve of us would believe bent medical evidence ahead of good, thus rendering no need for justice to be seen to be done.  What kind of public have we become?  The sort that doesn’t notice when the disabled disappear, then the gypsies, Jews and any fool capable of dissent?  Zanu PF Nulabour have been replaced, but it is business as usual in Broken Britain, so just what are we ConDemned to?  We had an election in which the choice was merely between who would slash and burn the public sector, but no one told us this.  What extra civil rights should we be feeling now Mr. Clegg, now it’s affirmed a vandal police officer can club down a poorly old man in full view and face no criminal court?  What waste has been saved by keeping him and those who looked on in pay?  Is it him and the odd disgusting prick over on Gadget laying claim to ‘only following orders’ that you intend to use on us when we tumble your new policies?  I withdraw my consent, noting you have not made it easy for many of us to do the same in a manenr that could have constitutional effect.


This says a lot fairly quickly in describing the problem, but the answers involve getting this accepted and having a plan for change.  We have to get into a situation of open problem review and a scheme for solving the real ones without paying for an army of bureaucrats who redefine everything in their own interests.  We may well need our decent, brave police, but we also need rid of the ones who club an old man from behind when they should just help him home and those who run away as cowards as I have seen.  We need to take our share of the blame, as incapable of standing up to be counted.

There are answers and they all start in easily feasible forms of problem definition, with the baggage that those in positions of power already fail to allow this and pervert resources into false performance management.  They commission mass sample research that will inevitably only reveal expressions of support from people whose lives their organisations have not touched yet and the general inclination to think good of others rather than bad where we have no real knowledge.  Our education system is still churning out people with no idea what evidence is, especially lawyers.

Our legal system is fundamentally not available to most of us because we can’t afford it, and it’s built round this.  All kinds of stuff like he Human Rights Act and Judicial Review, even down to defence evidence and representation in court is really denied us.  Almost inexplicably, we are still paying for this, the money often going to represent utter scrotes against our interests.  There’s a classic Home Office report on the HRA detailing how much it might help us, if broadly adopted.  Farcically, what we have is a system in which all the actors know they can flout our ‘rights’ and get away with it – indeed this is expected of them within the system.  The fear is always that if we really had rights and access to litigation, the floodgates would open.  This fear also states that our public organisations, including the legal system knows they are not working properly, for otherwise there would be no ‘floodgate fear’.

In dealings with local authorities and police, indeed across the legal system, one cannot even hope that records will be properly kept.  One generally cannot even see what is being recorded.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jul/22/ian-tomlinson-story-justice-denied reviews the Tomlinson affair pretty well.  It might not succeed as a charge in court, but a serious conspiracy to pervert the course of justice is involved.  That  charges cannot be brought against Harwood lies primarily in the reluctance of the IPCC to get involved.  This allowed cops to bring in the ‘bent’ pathologist.  That the IPCC were reluctant should surprise no one.  They are useless and lack the right kind of expertise, are led by a loon and internal rumours abound that he has been told to back off embarrassing investigations establishing police incompetence and worse.