The current government, even more than the last, places active communities at the centre of its policies. OK, so far this is more rhetoric than reality, but the 'Big Society', if it is ever to exist (and that's a pretty big if), will need strong, cohesive local communities at its heart.
So what are we to make of this? How can this plan - if it is a plan - possibly help to increase community cohesion, get everyone pulling together etc etc? Making people living in social housing move after 5 years might help social mobility, although I'm not quite sure why: surely it's jobs that will increase social mobility? But it certainly won't help them form bonds with their neighbours and neighbourhoods of the type that might encourage them to go out and do all the things the governments seems to want them to do.
Or is, as usual, that the Tories think people who live in council houses are not really 'like us', but are minions to be shunted around at will? Or perhaps they are just so far beyond the pale, contaminated by 'benefit culture', 'ASBO culture', whatever-culture that they can't really take part in the Big Society. Indeed, are they the problem against which some Big Action is needed by right thinking middle class home owners who will be allowed to stay in their homes for as long as they like?
Thursday, 5 August 2010
Monday, 2 August 2010
It's not all wine and roses in France. Especially if you're Black.
The British police often seem to get a bad press. And rather more often than should be the case, they've - individually or collectively - done something to deserve it. Think G20, think the handling of rape cases, think the ethnic disproportionality in stop and searches; the list is depressingly long.
But it's worth remembering that, for all their faults real or imagined, the British police are far better than many of the alternatives. Seeing this happening just on the other side of the Channel, during what appears to be a 'routine' demonstration, should bring this point home.
Despite what happened at the G20 climate camp last year, I really can't imagine scenes like this, in such a context, in Britain at this point in time. I hope that statement is not a hostage to fortune......
But it's worth remembering that, for all their faults real or imagined, the British police are far better than many of the alternatives. Seeing this happening just on the other side of the Channel, during what appears to be a 'routine' demonstration, should bring this point home.
Despite what happened at the G20 climate camp last year, I really can't imagine scenes like this, in such a context, in Britain at this point in time. I hope that statement is not a hostage to fortune......
Tuesday, 27 July 2010
White paper on police reform
I've not had time to read this through yet, so more to follow when I have.
For the moment though, the proposals for elected police commissioners remain extremely worrying - and seemingly unsupported by anyone outside the government (although I stand to be corrected on that). It seems to me one issue here is that elected police commissioners will not automatically 'give the public a voice', since by definition large swathes of that public will have voted for someone else (especially, as seems likely, the commissioners stand on party tickets). In all likelihood many others will not have voted at all. How does democracy, as the simple rule of the majority, work in relation to a public service which must be open and accessible (and accountable) to everyone?
Close to the heart of the problem is, I think, that this government follows the previous administration's apparent belief that policing is something done by/for 'us' against 'them'. Since 'they' don't vote, aren't really part of society and so forth all that remains is for us to decide how best to deal with the problems they create. But there is no simple us and them. Offenders are very often also victims, the 'law-abiding majority' regularly break the law, and today's anti-globalisation protester is tomorrow's doctor, plumber or perhaps even politician.
Reconciling extremely complicated and conflicting positions and issues is a central part of what policing is, and this is not something amenable to control by one person elected on a specific mandate. Collective local democratic control (perhaps organised on similar lines to a parliamentary committee, or something that looks a lot like a Police Authority) seems much better suited to such a task.
Anyone who's seen The Wire will know one possible outcome to all this. Direct political control of the police does not automatically lead to policing in the interests of 'the community' but rather policing at the behest of whoever shouts loud enough - moral entrepreneurs, moral majorities, entrenched local hierarchies, or newspapers concerned only with maintaining circulation. Another possible outcome is the reverse, local commissioners so tightly bound by what they can achieve in legal terms (for example, they will presumably be unable to trump the HRA and or indeed any other relevant legislation, regardless of what their electors want) that they are effectively powerless, something which would run the risk of further damaging public trust in the ability of (local) democracy to ever achieve anything.
For the moment though, the proposals for elected police commissioners remain extremely worrying - and seemingly unsupported by anyone outside the government (although I stand to be corrected on that). It seems to me one issue here is that elected police commissioners will not automatically 'give the public a voice', since by definition large swathes of that public will have voted for someone else (especially, as seems likely, the commissioners stand on party tickets). In all likelihood many others will not have voted at all. How does democracy, as the simple rule of the majority, work in relation to a public service which must be open and accessible (and accountable) to everyone?
Close to the heart of the problem is, I think, that this government follows the previous administration's apparent belief that policing is something done by/for 'us' against 'them'. Since 'they' don't vote, aren't really part of society and so forth all that remains is for us to decide how best to deal with the problems they create. But there is no simple us and them. Offenders are very often also victims, the 'law-abiding majority' regularly break the law, and today's anti-globalisation protester is tomorrow's doctor, plumber or perhaps even politician.
Reconciling extremely complicated and conflicting positions and issues is a central part of what policing is, and this is not something amenable to control by one person elected on a specific mandate. Collective local democratic control (perhaps organised on similar lines to a parliamentary committee, or something that looks a lot like a Police Authority) seems much better suited to such a task.
Anyone who's seen The Wire will know one possible outcome to all this. Direct political control of the police does not automatically lead to policing in the interests of 'the community' but rather policing at the behest of whoever shouts loud enough - moral entrepreneurs, moral majorities, entrenched local hierarchies, or newspapers concerned only with maintaining circulation. Another possible outcome is the reverse, local commissioners so tightly bound by what they can achieve in legal terms (for example, they will presumably be unable to trump the HRA and or indeed any other relevant legislation, regardless of what their electors want) that they are effectively powerless, something which would run the risk of further damaging public trust in the ability of (local) democracy to ever achieve anything.
Tuesday, 20 July 2010
One in ten police .....
Channel four news and others are talking about Dennis O'Connors report (PDF) on 'Policing in an age of austerity'. In amongst some very sensible points about, for example, archaic shift patters that ensure less people are on duty on Friday night than on Monday morning, there's one of those really annoying media factlets that always seem to grab the headlines and wind up anyone who thinks about them for more than 30 seconds.
This time it's this:
At present just one in every 10 of all police officers is "visible and available" to the public at any one time, the report warns, despite the fact that policing has enjoyed year-on-year budget increases over the past 40 years.
Seems terrible, no? What are they all doing? Skiving? Filling in forms? Both? Well the clue is that this really does mean one in every ten of ALL police officers (see page 14 of the report). Around half of the total of police officers and PCSOs are in neighbourhood or response teams - these are the police who are 'available' to the public (the rest are doing other stuff - you know, investigating serious crimes, things like that; some probably are filling in forms, although they might call some of them 'evidence' or 'statements'). Of that 50 per cent, subtract the approximately two thirds not on duty, the others who are on holiday, sick, in training etc, and in turns out that three quarters or more frontline staff who could be 'public facing' at any one time actually are. Not quite so shocking, is it?
No wonder the public are so obsessed with bobbies on the beat - stories like this just inform them that most police aren't doing anything at all. You have to wonder what the report writers were thinking, going with this in their executive summary. Some internal politics here, possibly?
This time it's this:
At present just one in every 10 of all police officers is "visible and available" to the public at any one time, the report warns, despite the fact that policing has enjoyed year-on-year budget increases over the past 40 years.
Seems terrible, no? What are they all doing? Skiving? Filling in forms? Both? Well the clue is that this really does mean one in every ten of ALL police officers (see page 14 of the report). Around half of the total of police officers and PCSOs are in neighbourhood or response teams - these are the police who are 'available' to the public (the rest are doing other stuff - you know, investigating serious crimes, things like that; some probably are filling in forms, although they might call some of them 'evidence' or 'statements'). Of that 50 per cent, subtract the approximately two thirds not on duty, the others who are on holiday, sick, in training etc, and in turns out that three quarters or more frontline staff who could be 'public facing' at any one time actually are. Not quite so shocking, is it?
No wonder the public are so obsessed with bobbies on the beat - stories like this just inform them that most police aren't doing anything at all. You have to wonder what the report writers were thinking, going with this in their executive summary. Some internal politics here, possibly?
Monday, 19 July 2010
Grauniad editorial on the coalitions record on 'liberty'
Hard to find much to disagree with here. I particularly like "Labour is clinging on to its recent authoritarianism despite losing all authority".
It'll be interesting to see, though, what happens when the quick wins - ID cards, Section 44 stops - dry up and the more difficult stuff, like prisons, comes to the fore. I kind of think Ken Clark really means it. But do his backbenchers?
And then, of course, there are the calls for the return of the death penalty, the banning of full veils, tilts at the Human Rights Act and other somewhat less 'liberty-oriented' missives emerging from the Tories (and, to be fair, elsewhere as well).
It'll be interesting to see, though, what happens when the quick wins - ID cards, Section 44 stops - dry up and the more difficult stuff, like prisons, comes to the fore. I kind of think Ken Clark really means it. But do his backbenchers?
And then, of course, there are the calls for the return of the death penalty, the banning of full veils, tilts at the Human Rights Act and other somewhat less 'liberty-oriented' missives emerging from the Tories (and, to be fair, elsewhere as well).
Thursday, 15 July 2010
Crime down, again
The latest British Crime Survey/police recorded crime data shows another fall in the number of crimes committed and in the risk of victimisation.
This is starting to get a bit spooky. The government certainly can't cope with it, since the latest figures relate to the time when Labour were still in power. So the ConDems are reduced to saying, essentially, that this is the wrong type of crime and if we looked at the sort people are really concerned about, um this might be going down as well, but it's still going up too, dammit! And anyway we don't count it properly. Or something.
Political denial aside, the continued reduction in both recorded crime and the crime reported in the BCS is posing some really interesting questions for criminologists. Most academic criminologists, as far as I'm aware, buy into two key narratives. First, most crime is about/caused by deprivation (relative and absolute), inequality, and other socio-economic 'bads'. Second, police numbers, initiatives, crime prevention measures, and particularly imprisonment can have only relatively minor effects on crime, mainly because of point one. These are certainly my own default positions.
Yet the continuing reduction in crime has occurred over a period in which socio-economic bads were not dealt with in any meaningful way (the latest figures are even post-banking crisis). Inequality, certainly, has probably increased over recent years. And the reduction has occurred at a time of increasing police numbers and record levels of imprisonment.
So what is going on here? How do we deal with these contradictions? Are they contradictions? Are we just plain wrong? I very much doubt it, as it happens. When you look into it properly, the numbers simply don't stack up to support the idea that police numbers/imprisonment can have major effects on the general level or rate of crime (for a whole range of reasons, not least because so few 'crimes' ever make it to court) - although in certain limited circumstances they definitely can.
So what is the story?
This is starting to get a bit spooky. The government certainly can't cope with it, since the latest figures relate to the time when Labour were still in power. So the ConDems are reduced to saying, essentially, that this is the wrong type of crime and if we looked at the sort people are really concerned about, um this might be going down as well, but it's still going up too, dammit! And anyway we don't count it properly. Or something.
Political denial aside, the continued reduction in both recorded crime and the crime reported in the BCS is posing some really interesting questions for criminologists. Most academic criminologists, as far as I'm aware, buy into two key narratives. First, most crime is about/caused by deprivation (relative and absolute), inequality, and other socio-economic 'bads'. Second, police numbers, initiatives, crime prevention measures, and particularly imprisonment can have only relatively minor effects on crime, mainly because of point one. These are certainly my own default positions.
Yet the continuing reduction in crime has occurred over a period in which socio-economic bads were not dealt with in any meaningful way (the latest figures are even post-banking crisis). Inequality, certainly, has probably increased over recent years. And the reduction has occurred at a time of increasing police numbers and record levels of imprisonment.
So what is going on here? How do we deal with these contradictions? Are they contradictions? Are we just plain wrong? I very much doubt it, as it happens. When you look into it properly, the numbers simply don't stack up to support the idea that police numbers/imprisonment can have major effects on the general level or rate of crime (for a whole range of reasons, not least because so few 'crimes' ever make it to court) - although in certain limited circumstances they definitely can.
So what is the story?
Saturday, 10 July 2010
Section 44 stop and search powers 'scrapped'
I was reminded of this today, and it's definitely still worthy of comment! This is probably the most relevant part of the story:
"Officers will no longer be able to search individuals using section 44 powers. Instead they will have to rely on section 43 powers, which require officers to reasonably suspect the person to be a terrorist. And officers will only be able to use section 44 in relation to the searches of vehicles. I will only confirm these authorisations where they are considered to be necessary, and officers will only be able to use them when they have 'reasonable suspicion'."
This news is only to be welcomed, and you have to say hats off to the government for taking this step. Section 44 stops were certainly invidious from the human rights angle - whole parts of the Terrorism Act 2000 revealed the shocking illiberalism of New Labour at its worst - but police powers of this nature are also highly likely also have some direct, negative impacts in terms of the position of the police in the community and, in the long run, the ability of the police to do its job.
Put simply, the use of powers such as Section 44 will in many cases be experienced as profoundly unjust by those members of the public involved (the vast majority of those stopped under the act, remember, had done nothing wrong). Being stopped by the police under any circumstance is, potentially, bad enough. Why have they stopped me (again, which is the woeful experience of many people from ethnic minority groups)? I've done nothing wrong! But under normal conditions police officers can attempt to explain why the stop took place, what their grounds for suspicion were, why they felt it was necessary to take action. If no grounds are needed, this makes explanations much more difficult, if not impossible. In most cases the use of Section 44 must have boiled down to 'because I felt like it' or 'because you don't look right' - what other criteria would there be for making a stop under this legislation rather than under the other powers police have as their disposal?
Section 44 made lawful activity in public places subject to the whim of police officers, removed a vital check on the behaviour of the police, and made the demonstration of procedural fairness on the part of the police much more difficult, not least because this widely used legislation was in and of itself deeply unfair. It must have harmed the relationship between the police and people from communities across the country, imperilling the cooperation police have to have in order to function effectively.
Obviously the above runs the risk of white-washing 'normal' police stop and search practise, which is far from perfect in many many ways. But Section 44 really pushed the envelope in a wholly undesirable direction. And as far as I'm aware it proved almost entirely ineffective at actually catching any terrorists - the arrest rate (for all offences) for Section 44 stops was 0.5% in 2009/10. The conviction rate must have been miniscule.
But I think there is a pretty big silver lining to all this, quite aside from Theresa May's announcement. It is a perfect demonstration of the ways in which good police practice in ethical and normative terms - here, using stop and search powers sparingly, in situations where good reason is needed and reasons are explained to the people stopped - coincide with what the public consistently say they want the police: fairness, neutrality, respect and the demonstration of proper procedure. Legislation should be framed to encourage these behaviours not, as Section 44 did, discourage them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)