Freedom of speech (and expression) has been under attack in this country for quite some time. It is difficult to put a finger, precisely, on when it began but there is no doubt that it has accelerated since 1997. At some point in New Labour’s tenure I recall Geoff Hoon on the BBC programme Question Time attempting to defend his Party’s growing reputation for authoritarianism. During his evasive dissembling he uttered that deceitful exhortation that it was unacceptable to shout “Fire!” in a crowded theatre – or cinema (I forget which). The expression was not new and is, I believe, linked more to the meaning of the “boy who cried wolf” than related to the articulation of sentiments that might offend some people. But very quickly it became a sort of plaster with which to patch any sore of unease at the creeping intimidation of what people were allowed – or more usually not allowed – to say. Now, even responsible politicians can be heard resorting to this dishonest term in order to justify limitations on freedom of speech and expression.
New Labour introduced the concept of hate crime to Britain, not content with laws that already protected people from the physical or mental manifestation of hate. And, as was to be expected, the vague and perhaps deliberately loose wording of these very un-British laws was soon stretched and extended to cover all sorts of incidents that might best be described as trivial. Also, they introduced the concept of subjectivity to the law, where it no longer mattered what was intended by a potential offender (the mens rea or “guilty intent”) but merely how his or her “victim” felt about it. This was layered on an already growing sensitivity to “offence”, where public figures were beginning to be excoriated for what they had said (or more often what it was reported they had said), regardless of the context or their intent. There was the growth of “outrage” response to these utterances, reported by the news media but seldom identified as to who and how many. It became conventional for those accused to resign or to be sacked and for a clamour to be set up until this happened. As public figures they were no longer entitled to private opinions – at least not to express them. And yet frequently our Prime Minister hectors us with his personal beliefs, values and causes – because he thinks they are “right” and that his office empowers him to do so.
The growing police involvement in these “crimes” coincided with a change in their approach to investigation. Previously in Britain an allegation of crime would be subject to preliminary enquiries intended to ascertain whether a crime had indeed been committed and whether there was a person who might reasonably be suspected of having committed it. At this point, according to the old “Judge’s Rules”, a constable might arrest and caution his suspect. More recently the police have begun to arrest on complaint, without any preliminary enquiries, and to conduct their investigations after the deprivation of the accused’s liberty. This sea change has not, as far as I know, been the subject of any parliamentary scrutiny or sanction, even though members of parliament have themselves been the victims of its implementation. It creates a potential avenue of vindictive attack for the malicious and malevolent to pursue as it now seems relatively easy to bring about devastating consequences for ordinary law-abiding members of the public by making false or subjective accusations and to largely escape the consequences.
Further the execution of such arrests has become more forceful, with large posses of intimidatingly dressed and equipped officers, often breaking and entering before even a demand for entry has been refused or obstructed. Why? Who sanctions this unlimited and often unnecessary use of force and on what grounds? Is it the maximum risk aversion, worse case scenario approach that now seems to guide all public sector activity? An approach once scorned as “knee jerk” but now increasingly accepted by a cowed and subservient population as the norm of official behaviour. The presumption of innocence is changing too, to one more akin to the Napoleonic code, a presumption of guilt on accusation eagerly taken up by the media and aided and abetted by the police who happily reveal the accused’s identity for pillorying in the press. No longer is “a man assisting the police with their enquiries”. It is surprising how anyone might expect a fair trial in circumstances sometimes more reminiscent of Maoist Cultural Revolution China or East Germany circa 1960. How responsible is the EU for these changes and how can they be reconciled with matters of British sovereignty, common law and consent?
Ordinary law-abiding members of the public seem to be more and more the focus of incidents where the police arrest for what has been said or even inferred. A cafe owner showing religious programmes on a TV set on his premises was warned by the police to desist as a member of the public had complained of being offended by them. In the United States the cafe owner might have argued that the programmes were an inherent aspect of his right under the First Amendment to publicly worship God in freedom and without government interference. But in Britain there is no such protection for the religious, at least not a protection which is universally conferred and, ironically, despite the laws against religious hatred introduced by New Labour. But this is precisely where hate crime and diversity can collide with a whole plethora of unintended consequences, as we see almost daily reported in the press.
The police involvement in such minor cases is both demeaning (to them) and appalling. Especially so, as far from upholding a strictly neutral rule of law, they seem more disposed to upholding a partisan political correctness, conveyed into law by the ideology of a specific political party and very selectively enforced. It is disappointing that, despite promises, the current government have failed to tackle this drift towards a politically motivated police force and that a party supposedly founded on the principles of Liberal Democracy can support legislation that is drafted so badly, imposed so unfairly and which in every way undermines basic concepts of freedom that have been happily enjoyed by British people for centuries.
New Labour’s eager legislative policy resulted in 4,289 new laws being created by January 2010, many of a type which introduced specific political elements to broader offences which were already addressed under existing laws, and some of which were unenforced. This policy was actively aided and abetted by unelected police organisations, quangos, fake charities and single issue pressure groups. And the imperative often seemed to be to legislate to coerce decent, courteous and fair behaviour (as envisaged by those on the Left) from ordinary law-abiding citizens rather than to deter or address overtly criminal behaviour – which largely continued. Imposing oppressive laws on a majority in response to the specific transgressions of a minority was the defining characteristic of their tenure. In the sledgehammer approach to the nut there was no appreciation of how such coercive legislation might alienate and make resentful a majority of people who were already decent, courteous and fair. It was the “something must be done” mentality empowered and unlimited. In that sense it reflected perfectly the tendency of the European Union, to see all progress and change advanced in terms of legislation, regulation and coercion. And all too often the majority punished for the sins of the few. The term “lawmakers” for politicians gained currency and became accepted, even though British members of parliament were supposed to represent the people in their constituencies and not just to enact legislation which increasingly controlled and interfered in their lives.
There have been concerns raised about this “creeping encroachment” and individual writers and bloggers (like Nick Cohen and Rod Liddle) have challenged it. Towards the end of the New Labour regime there was even a concerted effort to address the issue in conference by an alliance of concerned individuals and organisations. A prominent member of parliament and the shadow cabinet resigned over it. But all of this has been overshadowed by two important trends. Firstly, the broader tendency for society as a whole to accept and go along with the incremental but relentless limitations on what we can and cannot do “for our own good”, together with the acceptance of the inevitably accompanying trite platitudes such as “if you have nothing to hide” etc. Secondly, the willingness of the current government to perpetuate the status quo, to retrospectively enact new New Labour ideologically initiated law and not to reduce, limit, re-define or question the existing New Labour laws in any way – despite their promises to do so. For this alone David Cameron and Nick Clegg should be ashamed of themselves.
More recently we have seen a footballer arrested and prosecuted for words said in anger on a football pitch and a woman arrested and prosecuted for ranting almost incoherently on a bus. In both cases the official view was that such articulations were “unacceptable”. But when did “unacceptable” become criminal and who defines unacceptability and how? Subjected to incongruity in the implementation of security at the airport a writer made a facetious but perceptive and entirely natural remark. As a result he was deprived of his liberty and held by officials who insisted that he apologise for “causing offence”. The police, when called, did not take action in response to the unlawful detention but instead reinforced it. Both the security people and the police officer warned the writer that there were now things which could not be said, without telling him what they were or what offence he had committed. Instead of provoking a storm the incident was ignored by those who ought to be most concerned about it. And yet, in response to supposedly offensive writing or remarks some people are allowed to threaten violent retribution without any attention from the authorities whatsoever, not even a statement that such behaviour is “unacceptable”. All of this is being driven and managed to a specific political perspective, a specific left-wing, politically correct and divisive perspective. Far from making Britain fairer it has made it a very unfair place indeed, unless you happen to have that perspective and are perhaps making money from it. What is very strange is that the creeping encroachment is now continuing on the watch of a supposedly Conservative government, led by a Prime Minister who promised to “sweep it all away”.
As a conservative I give him fair warning. His behaviour in this matter deeply offends me and I am unlikely to vote for him or his party again.
Nicholas. This was a joy to read. Your words reflect what so many decent people now feel.
My husband went to our local shop this morning to buy some more ‘old fashioned’ lamp bulbs. To our rage, we find that the government getapo have removed them all from this chap’s shop, and they have been replaced with the new eye-breaker rubbish. I can just see female Lib Dem dwarves checking all the shops, and having the bulbs taken away. I hope these creatures develop short-sightedness to match their short asses!
We have been systemaicaly and cynically robbed of our traditional liberties. This has gone unnoticed because the teaching of history as I understand the subject has been erased from the curriculum, how many today have heard of the statute of winchester or the bill of rights of 1689, people can not resent what has been taken from them when they do not know they were deprived in the first place. What has been done to this nation by the foul band of leftists is nothing short of treasonous. We have by tradition been a law abiding people, but by God we need a good dose of civil disobedience.
Nicholas
Beautifully written. Thank you, a clear summary of our our current status.
That should form the basis of our Conservative Government’s approach to Law & Order, what we have at present is a clear travesty of traditional, restrained British values.
It is sad that the Spectator, Times or Telegraph cannot produce such a compelling article.
Well done.
Thank you Nicholas for your analysis of a situation that I suspect many younger people cannot even begin to understand, having no knowledge of what social discourse was like in this country 40 years ago and more. I fear that your argument cannot even be conceived by many young adults because the idea of even pursuing one’s own thoughts down a censored path is terrifying nowadays, let alone translating those thoughts into coherent expression.
A seminal essay on key elements of the State of the Nation, Nicholas. It’s no surprise to anyone here that you are a distinguished and accomplished culture warrior and that your words are the weapons that will help us mount a fightback against the treasonous stupidity of the last few decades. It’s up to all of us to disseminate this post and support the sentiments behind it. Bravo!
We know we are being monitored; let’s hope your post is placed on Cameron’s desk as evidence of what his erstwhile supporters are thinking. You speak for a majority of them, I’m certain. If the last paragraph isn’t an alarm bell for the Conservative Party, then the party stone deaf!
I am going to read Nicholas’s post over my second cup of tea and some breakfast. I will just say in advance, though, that there is absolutely no point, as in zero, nil, in voting for the Conservatives, who have submissively allowed themselves and their country to be robbed of the freedoms our ancestors died to protect and hand on to us.
The Conservatives are finished. Everything comes to an end. Instead of grieving their (none) loss and looking backwards, we must put our faces to the future and decide, as a matter of great urgency, who is to govern Britain.
The Conservatives have changed their colours and replaced blue with pink. Don’t cling on to them thinking they will change back. They won’t. David Cameron is a template-perfect NuTory to match his ally and hero Tony Blair’s NuLabour.
I will now concentrate on reading Nicholas’s esteemed post.
If you can bear with its length and complexity this paper provides a good insight into the rationale of defining “hate crimes” from an academic perspective (albeit in the USA). You will see that the writer identifies the cart and horse element towards the end of the paper. The absence of data before hate crimes were invented is usually explained by their being unreported or not classified as such. I’m personally not sure whether this is really the case or whether the problem has got worse since these definitions have been legislated for and focussed on. Was the (then) legal persecution of homosexuals a “hate crime”? If so, it doesn’t say much for legal certitude in the present. Why should we believe the laws are any more less partisan or oppressive now? The historical examples given seem a bit tenuous. The subject came up on QT last night where there was a fairly strong promotion of the need to control forms of speech at a young age and a correlation between freedom of speech and the encouragement or incitement of hate. People of an older generation, often brought up in a more rough and tumble world, sometimes struggle with this concept and Starkey was incensed by it, calling it “Maoist”. But it underpins the leftist ideals of “zero tolerance” and “maximum compliance” behind their authoritarian stance. Generally the thrust of the paper is to broaden the scale of the problem as a defined issue and to widen the incrimination of what are termed “hate groups” (and rather loosely defined) to almost include those who might challenge the propositions from whatever perspective. Reading this it is easier to understand why leftist academia throws the “racist” accusation around so readily and recklessly.
But it is also possible to read this paper and see an unfortunate defining and polarisation of people and communities into “perpetrators” and “victims” which might just perpetuate intolerance and division and increase tension. Are such studies and legislation divisive to begin with? Of course the people involved in this sort of analysis make a living from it and the bigger the problem is characterised the more the need is seen for their involvement, analyses, interventions, laws and regulations. That is the great problem with the top heavy state and quangocracy, that the incumbents will constantly seek to broaden the scope and remit of their lucrative activities.
http://www.internetjournalofcriminology.com/Where%20Do%20We%20Go%20From%20Here.%20Researching%20Hate%20Crime.pdf
I have just finished reading Nicholas’s post and am in awe. He has identified and adroitly summed up the malignity that has grown in Britain, devouring the corpus of our laws and rational, proven system of governance … and the failure of the British to excise it … this failure being mainly because “the authorities” refused to formally recognise that there was a gigantic issue to be addressed … the usurpation of ancient rights by a joinr Labour-Conservative cabal.
It now matters not which party is in power. Their policies, except for some frilly bits and diverting, invertebrate spats in the HoC, are identical.
A prohibition against hate speech presumably correlates to a collective immunity, enjoyed by a protected group, from having derogatory things said about it.
Traditionally, crimes required victims, which in turn required some formulation of harm. The possibility that a member of the protected group could be offended cannot literally be ‘harm’ to that arbitrary member or the group. They might not even have been aware that the speech had been uttered.
It may be more coherent to correlate hate speech with harm to a collective reputation, harm which clearly follows if the public at large hear the calumny, even if no member of the group does. Quite a few people in this forum would presumably accept, for example, that there is a case for criminalising the propagation of fabricated Talmudic quotations (no names, no pack drill).
I did qualify the harm assumption with ‘traditionally’. If formulation of the crime starts with ‘bias motivation’ in itself and the definition of harm is left deliberately vague, or the requirement is dispensed with altogether, then we are into the realms of pure thought crime. I have no qualifications in this area and have no means of knowing whether we have arrived at that destination yet but a cursory look at the academic paper gives the impression that it is an option the experts would like to leave open.
A last thought. ‘Collective immunity’ probably does not quite capture it but it’s the best I can come up with at the moment. A system of bilateral ‘right’ relations was once formulated by someone called Hohfeld. It’s not easy, at least for an unwashed prole, to shoehorn the right not to be offended into this system but don’t let me stop more erudite contributors than me from having a go.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MurUEJL/2005/9.html
Nicholas (15:35)
Having ploughed through your link, with a heavy heart – for it reminded me of so many others of similar abstruse prolixity that I assimilated in the latter days of my active service while engaged in resistance to the combined cunning of of the ungodly (from the Leslie Charteris lexicon rather than Archie Cuntsbury’s) – from the urchins of the London slums, to the divers international crime cartels, I can only concur with the final paragraph of your comment.
It is a wonderfully brief and accurate assessment of Ms Perry’s attempt to intimidate and brainwash today’s police officers into expiating the alleged historical sins of their constabulary predecessors, rather than dealing with the practical problems of today’s criminal methodology, made more convoluted and difficult – if not impossible – to deal with, as a result of the passage of reams of unnecessary legislation, designed to pander to minority groups who seek immunity from the law – insisting that their crimes are indeed the fault of the victims of their crimes. That is where racial hatred and minority hatred is seated – in them, not us.
As I have reiterated so often on our various intertube forums – policing is not rocket science and there was enough statutory law in place and explained; together with excellent, albeit simple guidance, instructions and plainly defined powers of arrest, in the police manual that was issued with my first blue melton, lignam vitae and silver whistle in 1954, when I first took to the foggy streets of the Metrollups, filled with a sense of duty having sworn the oath office to HM QEII at the outset of her reign; determined to carry out the simple tenets of Sir Richard Mayne ‘without fear or favour regardless of race, colour, creed or social standing’. It’s what I did during my police career – and allied trades thereafter until the ‘fin de siécle’, when I finally sat back to contemplate the wake of the ship in which my generation of coppers had sailed and found it less polluted than that of many other institutions of the British fleet, which now claim superiority. Now I observe with horror the baneful if not indeed the baleful and wanton destruction of The Job and can only mournfully berate my heirs and successors for forfeiting powers and privileges to facilitate inimical political pressures.
If I were 60 years younger, I could cope with the crimes of London as effectively, with the same laws – and instruction book as guide, as I did throughout the rest of the 1950s, before the 1960s heralded the creeping scourge of the counter-culture war and the rot set in. The bullshit of the social and criminological ‘sciences’ is the problem, not the solution.
“Further the execution of such arrests has become more forceful, with large posses of intimidatingly dressed and equipped officers, often breaking and entering before even a demand for entry has been refused or obstructed. Why?”
This paragraph reminded me of an incident some years ago where the police took measures that were in my opinion disgraceful and possibly even illegal.
I was driving home east bound on the M62 intending to take the M621 exit to drive home through Leeds, about fifteen or so miles short of this exit I observed that the traffic in the opposite west bound lane was spars, after a further five miles it was non existent.
Just as I turned of to take the M621, I noticed three police cars blocking all of the west bound carriage way, the reason soon became apparent, about two thirds of my journey down the M621, approaching in the opposite direction were two police motor cycles heading up a convoy of police vehicles, all driving at a high speed.
It transpired that an individual who had been attending the Leeds Criminal Court was being returned to his prison in Manchester.
Another example of New Labour’s attack on the people was the “Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, 2000 (aka RIPA) This wasn’t about regulation at , it was all about de-regulation. It increased, exponentially, the number of council stasi, quango and other petty bureaucrats who feel “entitled” to snoop on you. They can intercept your mail, email, tap your phone, obtain your bank and credit card records. Prior to RIPA, apart from MI5, only the police could do this and only with the authorisation of a judge.
Also don’t forget Walter Wolfgang who was manhandled out of the Labour Party Conference and detained by the police under anti-terrorist legislation just for shouting “Nonsense” during one of Jack Straw’s speeches. Heckling used to be part of the normal political discourse. Apparently no longer. Also, under laws introduced under Labour, one is not allowed to be heard joking – about almost anything – lest someone is offended or takes offence on behalf of a 3rd party. Free speech? FORGET IT!
AND where is the Grand Repeal Act, promised by the Grand ConLibDem Coalition, that was supposed to rid us of the draconian laws introduced by New Labour? Buried somewhere under Cameron’s bullshit society!
Thank you, Nicholas – superb stuff. .
The attack on rights throughout the west by regimes seemingly oblivious to the existance of Magna Carta, or our (or the US) Bill of rights, has also been slated by proud-to-be-right-wing Mark Steyn, and proud-to-be-left-wing Brendan O’Neill.
Yes, where was our promised bonfire of useless, or worse, New Labour legislation? And why aren’t the media, who should be taking at least some interest in the attack(s) on freedom of speech, doing their bit?
R o C (08:59)
“And why aren’t the media, who should be taking at least some interest in the attack(s) on freedom of speech, doing their bit?”
That’s an easy one to answer, Richard, it’s because they’re facilitating the cultural enemy of whom you speak; they are the agitprop arm of it. Ere long they will be restricting the intertubes to shut the likes of us up, too.
Richard of Christchurch and Frank P – Thanks for a couple of strong and lucid posts to read with my first cup of tea.
David Cameron is a stupid … meaning, I don’t think he has much wherewithal up in the attic … man, a greedy man, of no fixed political poles. The one thing he knows for sure is, he wants to be important … for which he lacks the brain cells, certainty of vision and moral compass.
Like a lot of people who don’t have much going on upstairs, he is as obviously manipulative as a six year-old child. Remember when he wasn’t going to wear morning attire to the Royal Wedding, obviously thinkig it would frighten the horses and people would be awed and embittered by his grandeur … not realising that almost every bridegroom in Britain is in morning attire. That is how utterly disconnected he is from the citizens of the country.
Then his wife apparently thought that wearing a hat to a wedding might alarm “the little people” and turned up in just a plain dress (so as not to frighten those little people with her grandeur) utterly unaware that every woman in Britain sees a wedding as a legitimate opportuity to go out and try on hats and buy one.
They are more gruesome than the Blairs … a sentence I thought I would never write. And Cameron is just as toxic Blair, although more by stupidity than by design.
David M (22:43)
Excellent post. Back at the turn of the Millennium I watched this egregious bill being hammered out in the Parliamentary Sessions when I was still marginally ‘in the loop’. I screamed blue murderat the time, but by then the Long March had already occupied Broadway SW1, from arsehole to breakfast time. I may as well have pissed in the Thames, downwind. The die was cast.
Can you remember the name of the peer (or MP) from Brighton who steered it through? I’ve forgotten. Must dig out the Hansard stuff. I watched most of the debates on the Parliamentary channel. The curse of failing memory!!
Verity, I have to admit that I initially thought your characterisation of Cameron was/is a bit grotesque and hyperbolic. But increasingly I am seeing him like that. I think he is probably worse than Blair in that his capacity to harm conservatism from within is infinitely greater than that charlatan’s capacity to harm it from without. And in both situations the Labour Left go merrily marching on, trampling on freedom and churning out the ideological propaganda he eagerly gobbles up. The current analogy for the Conservatives is like Britain in 1940 without Winston Churchill and instead a useless, appeasing leader like Chamberlain. The external enemy is the same but, boy, is the prognosis different.
Anybody who says pompously that they favour the centre ground is aiding and abetting the enemy, since the “centre” ground has long been wholly in the enemy’s hands.
Nicholas et al.
A US counterpart sent me this link today, which is appropriate to this link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/03/nyregion/james-q-wilson-dies-at-80-originated-broken-windows-policing-strategy.html?_r=1&emc=eta1
I’m not keen on anything that comes from the NYT, but there is date in the piece which is worth putting in the bank. As I wrote back to my source, I note that Jack Maple, the real dynamo behind CompStat (aka enforcing the law with a modicum of practical planning that was once inherent in all police duty) was Jack Maple. I posted several comments about it on the Old CH Wall after the hoo-hah after the ‘Tottenham Riots’ (aka Met. Police-failure-to-police- fiasco) when Cameron approached Bill Bratton. My post script today when I replied to my oppo was “Success (if that it be) has many fathers – but failure is usually an orphan”.
Sorry – typo alert -read data for date in the first line. My minces are getting worse.
(Down! ACP)
Frank P writes (12.21): “That’s an easy one to answer, Richard, it’s because [the media] are facilitating the cultural enemy of whom you speak; they are the agitprop arm of it. Ere long they will be restricting the intertubes to shut the likes of us up, too.”
Yes indeed. It won’t be long before certain trolls I shan’t mention will be demanding the right not to be offended by whatever they choose to hunt out on the web. In fact, glancing elsewhere, I see they have already begun.
Good link, Frank, thanks. I’m convinced that the withdrawal of uniformed police from that kind of routine, high-visibility deterrent, “personal stake in the territory” foot patrolling and the trend instead towards a selective “fire-fighting” response has led to the increase of so-called “no-go” areas. I also think the increasing unapproachability and thuggishness of the police has reduced public co-operation and reporting – although that is a gross generalisation. It is somewhat incongruous that those who are in part responsible for bringing about this change in policing style – and the concomitant decline in street level law and order – are often the same people who cite the number of police officers as a stick with which to beat the government of the day. Usually, as in most things (and as with nurses), it’s not about how many but what they do and how they do it.
There is still plenty of policing skill and experience in this country. It is just not being tapped – and is unlikely to be with old FMP-wearing May in the Home Office. If I were her I’d worry less about diversity and providing sops to the single-issue agenda minorities and more about making the constabulary fit for its primary purpose.
Excellent article and comments. Congrats to Peter for establishing this blog.
Somewhat apropos, and interesting anyway, is a blog run by a freelance news photographer who specialises in covering protests, police activity and assorted events in bidonville London not covered in the MSM. The accompanying text is cheerfully cynical which should appeal to Coffee Housers. Give it a try. http://mitchell-images-blog.blogspot.com/
Thanks for that link AB – very interesting catalog of the benefits and blessings of multi-culti Britain and how vibrant the diversity is. I noticed this:-
“Of course, no protest would be complete without some left wing involvement. Some numbskulls from OccupyLSX turned up as yup, you’ve guessed it, legal observers. Proudly wearing his hi-vis tabard, one such wee scrote engaged a cop with the line ” Proud of yourself are you? there’s a pregnant woman in there (points at group of arrested protesters) you don’t have to be cop” What the Congo has to do with these halfwits I don’t know.”
Perhaps we should all join UKIP and attempt to help Farage to win the next election; you can volunteer to be Home Secretary. It really requires just that: somebody who will restore real Police independence and seek out the best of the talent who joined to serve and protect the law abiding sector of the public, rather than facilitating agitators and the criminal fraternity that has a symbiotic relationship with them. Moreover the Legal profession needs the sort of kicking Sir Bob Mark gave the shysters in the early 70s.
Unfortunately there is nobody left from the working ranks of The Job now who has achieved high enough rank and the articulacy to speak up for the sharp end. Even Mark didn’t finish the job before he went off to sell tyres, but he made a good start. His work has all been forgotten and wasted.
The naivety of this generation’s politicians is breathtaking, and as deeply depressing as the ineptitude of Chief Officers of HM holders of the Office of Constable is deeply destructive, of the fabric society. That is why leftist ideologues are able to drive us back into barbarism. I am currently re-reading Peter Quennell’s “London’s Underworld” (an edited and selective re-hash of Mayhew).
We need another Mayhew. Remnants of the London Mayhew know were still extant when I joined The Job. But it was less deleterious for Britain’s culture than the multi-culti mess that obtains now. And the corruption is far more insidious and worse than ever it was because alient elements now call the shots.
Austin Barry.
As you know, I always exclude you from my rude remarks about the legal profession. When you coughed to have been part of it many moons ago, I rejoiced that some integrity existed therein, evidenced by your sagacious and salty wit. Wish there had been more like you during my stint on the patch.
Let’s see you here often, please. We’re getting to the stage where the ‘other place’ is fast becoming redundant and we could leave it to the trollery. I only pop back to stir up the usual suspects now. Nelson doesn’t even deserve those footfalls, the pillock!”
I would say the rot set in in the Labour years of the 1960s, not under New Labour. Enoch tried to resist the weaselly new laws being passed and look what happened to him. Every politician has been cowed since then. Even Mrs T was hauled over the coals for using the word swamped.
Thanks for writing what many of us think. The last paragraph sums it up nicely.
I have been pondering Frank’s March 2nd 18:08 post, somewhat sadly at what has been lost in this country’s police. I hope he won’t mind but I thought it might be useful for those visiting to also see here the nine principles of policing by Sir Robert Peel and the nine principles of policing by Sir Robert Mayne. I believe it is obvious from just reading these to see where the police have departed from them. Beginning with Sir Robert Peel:-
1. The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.
2. The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police actions.
3. Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observance of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.
4. The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.
5. Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.
6. Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient.
7. Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence
8. Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.
9. The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.
I believe the principles that Theresa May and her inspectorate might usefully consider more closely in the light of current operational practices are 4, 5 and 6. That is not to diminish the importance of the others.
These are the nine principles of Sir Richard Mayne which were mentioned by Frank:-
1. To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment.
2. To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfil their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.
3. To recognise always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing co-operation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws.
4. To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.
5. To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion; but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour; and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.
5. To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.
7.To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
8. To recognise always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.
9. To recognise always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.
Again 4, 5 and 6 warrant close attention by today’s police tsars. It is perhaps a sign of the times that both articles on the subject of the police at the Spectator today make no mention whatsoever of these principles or attempt to evaluate what has been lost. One might also conclude that the habit of modern police officers to often conduct moralising press conferences following the conviction of offenders is not conducive to Principle 8.
Sir Robert Mark (Met Commissioner 1972-1977) modernised the principles as follows (which are sometimes also attributed to Sir Richard Mayne):-
“The primary object of an efficient police is the prevention of crime: the next that of detection and punishment of offenders if crime is committed. To these ends all the efforts of police must be directed. The protection of life and property, the preservation of public tranquillity, and the absence of crime, will alone prove whether those efforts have been successful and whether the objects for which the police were appointed have been attained.”
If I have reported any of the above incorrectly I shall be most appreciative for Frank to correct it or indeed expand on it. Currently there are still many ex-police officers in Britain who will relate to these and to the less aggressive way policing was once delivered here. Indeed it was the reason Britain’s unarmed police were admired across the globe. When they are gone there will sadly be no living testament to their efficacy or to the respect that the law abiding majority once had for them, the majority of whom were then, as now, dedicated and upright men and women doing a very difficult and demanding job.
In January1881, Thomas Hardy wrote in his diary:
“Conservatism is not estimable in itself, nor is Change, or Radicalism. To conserve the existing good, to supplant the existing bad by good, is to act on a true political principle, which is neither Conservative nor Radical”.
Nicholas has identified a dangerous change in the definition of criminality when he notes that “hate” crimes do not seem to require mens rea. These seem in that sense to impose strict liability for what was a narrow, but is now an ever-widening, class of illegal acts. The case of Sweet v. Parsley in 1970 identified the English common law principle in these words:
“… there has for centuries been a presumption that Parliament did not intend to make criminals of persons who were in no way blameworthy in what they did. That means that whenever a section is silent as to mens rea there is a presumption that, in order to give effect to the will of Parliament, we must read in words appropriate to require mens rea … ”
That English common sense was absorbed by our old laws and the spirit is alive in the expression we still sometimes hear “Oh,leave him alone, he didn’t mean it”. This tolerance applied to all manner of speech and action that might give offence and went from the people up into the courts, of which of course the House of Commons is one.
The presumption appears, as Nicholas has noted, to be in the course of reversal. The politicos have redefined the notion of “in no way blameworthy” to infuse a general sense in society that people are indeed blameworthy now for what they would not have been blameworthy in the past. A new standard is born and then is reflected by the courts or by fiat from the EU in the erosion of common law principle. In an article on Peter Cook in the DT yesterday, someone called Fiddy is quoted as saying ““A lot of material from that era has casual sexism and racism that seems wrong now”. In this way, the Chinese communist of “self-censorship” has been introduced into our political life, despite the increasing coarseness of expression in which political debate is conducted (I see that in the House of Commons this now includes the Glasgow kiss) which often seems to, but does not, contradict that.
Where the concept of mens rea has faded, the popular presumption is now that “He meant that”. Arrest on complaint is consequently felt to be less offensive to our traditions, because there is a new presumption of malintent – the natural consequence of the disappearance of a requirement for mens rea and,as Nicholas points out, the stealthy immigration of the Napoleonic Code.
One step away from this is the assumption of right to use force where none would have been even contemplated, because of course illegality is evident by the act alone. The example which was most shocking to one person brought up in an earlier England was the video of rural police smashing their way into the car of a man in his sixties who had pulled over to the side of the road and dragging him out of it for a failure to wear a seat belt. I think it was shown by that chap giving a talk in Cornwall in a link posted by Frank P a few days ago.
Should we spend any effort asking “why” the erosion of common law and common sense? I think not much; just get it stopped – “supplant the existing bad by good”. If you are a politician, don’t waste time scratching your head about it – leave – and organise to get it stopped: “It is no secret that Steve [Hilton] was increasingly frustrated at the slow pace of dealing with over-regulation…” (quoted byRobert Watts, Deputy Political Editor in the DT today) .
There must be a “why” though. I would hazard a guess that what has wrought the maleficent changes in our political and civil society is primarily a poisonous combination of consumerism and its helpmeet, the social engineering of the behaviourist school, popularized by B.F. Skinner in the last century.
Politics is the continuation of consumerism by other means. To oppose consumerism is nowadays to be an enemy of the people and is a topic which has been banished from popular discourse; making it difficult to tackle. I do see a link however between its dynamics and the facility with which it has become possible to manipulate what people are taught to tolerate or want in the political sphere. If I am correct, then the challenge to reverse the erosion of common law and common sense is a formidable one.
I do agree with Hardy that the principle should be to conserve the existing good, to supplant the existing bad by good; but in a society whose main principle is that what is good is what makes me feel good, where to start. The old debate on the nature of the public good, going back to Socrates, might not be a bad place – back to basics, in fact…
Nicholas has diagnosed the disease. I would be very interested to read, and hope he can be prevailed upon to provide, a further blog in which he sets out his idea of a cure.
Rose 17:50 – Ace point. Look what the left did to Enoch.
How did they get the power? Rose is right. The socialists took control of the destruction of Britain during the 60s.
How very odd that they managed, during that decade, to turn the political fortunes sour of an essentially conservative … small c … country.
And we are now in the final phase of conquering Britain and replacing the indigenes by sliding the country out from under them and criminalising their objections with the foetid word “racist”.
Nicholas.
I certainly agree that the tenets of Peel and Mayne are as you listed; but their simplification into a mantra that is the paragraph you have attributed to Sir Robert Mark, is not his; it is the one that all recruits had to learn by heart at Hendon (or Peel House) Training School when I joined in 1954 – long before Robert Mark took over the Met.
Mark had risen through the ranks in the Manchester City Police as I’m sure you know and came to London in one of the first ‘interchanges’ of Chief Officers: just one of the government’s strategies to thwart the culture of corruption that evolved in some of the Yard’s Central Squads. He had previously served with Lord Mountbatten on the Standing Advisory Council on the Penal System as its only Police Officer.
A vast amount of myth abounds regarding that era of corruption and the ensuing scandals and later allegations of ‘institutional racism’ in the police, that has now become a given in the annals of law enforcement by both the uninformed – and the malignant propagandists of the Left.
I neither underestimate nor excuse the corruption that did exist in the 60s and 70s, but the type, scale and roots of that corruption have been subject to much faulty analysis, some through ignorance and some through subversive political intent.
I attribute this entirely to the politicization that occurred from the early 1980s through to the present era, during which time Chief Officers have quite shamelessly crawled into bed with not just politics, but left-wing politics, in order to ensure perks and ultimate elevation to the Lords and as part of the Long March (police chapter) devised and organised at Bramshill National Police College. It’s iniquitous; the public have countenanced it with little protest, despite the fact the general reputation of HM Peacekeepers has plummeted. Ask yourself – how many ex-Chief Officers now have their arses on the red benches. And how many that haven’t (yet), have carved out another niche for themselves in ACPO, inventing bogey uniforms and ranks that would irrelevant to the working police force were it not for the said politicization creating another layer of interference and power over policing for people who least deserve it. Hugh Orde is the exemplar of this triple dipping old cops dining/drinking club which has taken over from the Masonic chicanery of yesteryear. At least the Freemasons had a charitable and altruistic side to it in the police (though it was undoubtedly corrupted by those who wished to use it to circumvent career shortcomings or forge links with criminals ‘outside their silos’). I suspect that Common Purpose is yet another manifestation of this type of corruption.
The ‘Primary Objects’ that you quote were indeed the rote that the vast majority of police officers were proud to adopt as their guiding principles through most of my era of policing. The corrupt cabal was a small group of thugs that wielded power only over the like minded, but did however manage often to obstruct honest officers when their enquiries got too close to their contacts in the criminal fraternity. The said mantra of the Primary Objects did not, as I remember, change at all until after Robert Mark had retired; I’m not quite sure when the adjustments were made, I think it was on Paul Condon’s watch, when it was buggered around (quite literally in some aspects) to incorporate the demands of the racial and sexual activists. Mark had been very much resistant to those sort of changes, as he understood the underlying politics and was wise enough to see where that would ultimately lead. I think Paul Condon was the first Commissioner to diminish the comparative political independence of The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis; if my memory serves me correctly he was the first to enter the Upper House since Trenchard, even Joe Simpson – a Trenchard boy himself – was satisfied with a K; he died with his boots on anyway, but I doubt he would have lowered himself to political office in the Upper House – in my conversations with him he indicated a healthy disdain for all politicians (and usually demanded that the Home Sec came to him in the Old Building on the Embankment, I understand). He considered himself the Queen’s Chief Officer, not the Home Secretary’s.
It was Sir Jack Waldron, his deputy, who was landed with the corrupt cabal who disgraced the job from the late Sixties through to the early Seventies. Though there are many versions of that story and its aftermath, it has never been comprehensively told. Probably just as well. The boys in blue have enough to contend with just now; they don’t need the embers raked over again. Public confidence in the police has never been at lower ebb – at least since the late Victorian times when the first members of the newly-formed CID got heir collars felt for copping rather than coppering.
Plus ca change ….
Nicholas
A superb analysis, better written than anything that I have seen in the other place of late
The way forward is for more of this excellent content and refreshing comment. The challenge for us is to take the game back from the left through argument and reclaiming the institutions. A sort of Long March Back. Supporting UKIP might be a good first step
That and getting excellent journalism such as this back out into the public domain once more
Thank you Nicholas
Frank P.
Many thanks for your kind remarks. I hope to be posting here more often but, unhappily, spend my waking hours explaining a rising tide of nonsensical, micro-managing EU-directives to irritated and bemused US clients. To paraphrase what was written of Proust, reading this turgid sludge is as dispiriting as ploughing a field with knitting needles.
I must say though it’s great to see you, Nicholas and others given time and space here for more expositional efforts.
Regarding Nicholas’s irritation with Hoon the loon: “he uttered that deceitful exhortation that it was unacceptable to shout “Fire!” in a crowded theatre – or cinema (I forget which).”
Mark Steyn drove a coach, four horses and a panzer through that risiculous cliche when he appeared before the comic-but-crooked commie Canadian c… Commissars, and Mark had them for breakfast.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/177285/droning-cliches-burning-theater/mark-steyn
It’s so inspiring that I’ve memorised it for anti-muppet ammunition.
Sorry about the spelling. “risiculous”? I’ll take more water with it.