James Vitali has a useful Critic reminder about the cost of UK crime, our weak and ineffectual approach to it and the inevitable consequences.
Britain must lower the cost of crime
The lawful majority are suffering from the effects of the criminal minority
Before anything else, the first duty of government is to keep its citizens safe – from external threats and from the injuries of others. Indeed, that is why we have government in the first place; we establish it because alone we are unable to provide for our own safety.
Order and security are the prerequisites for all other societal goods. We frequently think of liberty and order as somehow mutually exclusive, but actually, they are mutually constitutive; we cannot truly live a life of freedom and prosperity until we are confident that we will not be arbitrarily deprived of our life, liberty or property by criminals, or threatened and intimidated by foreign actors.
Governments can fail in other areas of policy. Citizens can tolerate low economic growth for at least some period. They can put up for a time with an irrational tax system or a self-defeating energy policy. But when government fails in this core competency to protect its citizens, it is an issue of an altogether greater magnitude.
All very familiar, but it is well worth reading the whole piece as a reminder of how unserious modern UK governments and the political class have become.
Unserious in the sense of being weakly evasive when it comes to tackling serious problems. Unserious reliance on misleading language, unserious meddling with trivial issues of social behaviour, unserious in the promotion of facile noble causes which are neither causes nor noble.
More people need to be put behind bars, not fewer. To give communities a break, repeat offenders deserve tougher sentences. And we need to get smarter at policing at both the tactical and strategic levels. Tried and tested policing methods like stop and search need to be pursued without fear or favour, and police forces should focus more on those hotspot areas that attract the most crime.
More people need to be put behind bars, not fewer. To give communities a break, repeat offenders deserve tougher sentences. And we need to get smarter at policing at both the tactical and strategic levels. Tried and tested policing methods like stop and search need to be pursued without fear or favour, and police forces should focus more on those hotspot areas that attract the most crime.
10 comments:
A huge proportion of crime is committed by only a few families. Dispatch them to Rockall having first ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04clpd7h0b0
dearieme - ha ha - one of the funniest sketches on TV.
There was talk some years ago about putting a heavy focus on those families, although I can't remember what was meant by that, possibly not much.
Political elites get to see very little of this. Their jobs are well rewarded, and the need for security means that they are protected. The routines and staff that deter terrorists and aggressive members of the public also deter random lawlessness in their vicinity.
Contrast with corner shop owners. You can tell by their demeanour that they get to deal with more criminals than the average copper does.
This is what caused Tony Martin to open fire. We have to wonder whether we are going to see more cases like his.
Dearieme and AK, the phrase, 'Slice them through', passed into every-day comment in this house! Hilarious sketch as you say AK!
The governing class has always seemed to take a dim view of people who have defended themselves when no police help was to hand. They took a more serious view of the defender than the attacker, often to the point, it appeared to me, that they required innocent victims to die in conformity.
Sam - yes, political elites don't see what they need to see and don't hear what they need to hear because they don't venture beyond their boundaries. They may pretend to for photo ops, but it isn't real for them
Barbarus - good point, we probably will see more cases like that.
Scrobs - the interviewer's expression really makes it work too, that politely baffled shock.
Tammly - and it wasn't always like that, people were expected to defend themselves and their property, it was part of dealing with life instead of leaving it to officialdom.
When I was a boy we had a rifle at home. For shooting vermin. Of course.
But we didn't lock the doors until Dad was on his way to bed.
dearieme - our doors are always locked these days, but we don't have a rifle.
Post a Comment