English Democrat "Reprisal" is murder

There has been some interesting fall out (excuse the pun) from my last blogpost about the suggestion by English Democrat candidate for the Crime Commissioner post Steve Uncles that the Western powers should threaten Daesh (ISIL) with a Nuclear strike on Mecca the next time there is a terror attack in the West.

In the follow up of the debate on Twitter there were questions about my ancestor’s political affiliations and what I would do with Cyril Smith… The most disturbing seems to be Collective punishment.

A simplistic way of putting it is what happened to my Grandfather at school when the head teacher caned an entire class because someone had drained the radiator to fill their water pistol and as he lined them up he said “The innocent will suffer with the guilty.”

I will let you interpret the tweets for yourself and see if you come to the same conclusion as I have;

What do you think?

My interpretation, added to the original post about nuking Mecca during the pilgrimage as punishment does concern me greatly and leads to this “Collective responsibility” and took me to thinking about other examples of this in the past.

First one that popped into my head was the village of Lidice in the Czech Republic. Three Czech “terrorists” assassinated the German governor of Bohemia & Moravia Reinhard Heydrich on the 27^th May 1942 (he died on 4^th June). In reprisal for this terrorist act and to try to stamp out similar acts the German authorities liquidated the village of Lidice including executing all of the men, most of the children and sending the women to concentration camps. Buildings were flattened, animals were executed and even the dead were disinterred and their remains destroyed. In total 1300 people in the protectorate were killed in these reprisals.

Another example, sadly again from the World War Two era, are the executions of civilians for each German soldier killed ten local civilians would be shot. This happened in Greece (where whole male populations were liquidated) and notably in Russia with these duties falling to regular Wehrmacht troops not just the Nazi SS.

Although Mr Uncles has distanced himself by saying We can all agree that National Socialism is a terrible thing. I still cannot see the difference in the reprisal by nuclear weapon killing innocent civilians and the Karbiner 98 rifle shooting innocent civilians…

In the United Kingdom we have our own sordid past with the rounding up of women and children in South Africa during the Boer War, their property burnt and their internment at concentration camps where many died from disease and poor conditions. There is the reaction to the 1857 rebellion in India which saw British subjects, military and civilian being murdered and brutalised was avenged by British troops bayonetting civilians (including women and Children) in Delhi;

These were not mutineers but residents of the city, who trusted to our well known mild rule for pardon. I am glad to say they were disappointed reported the Bombay Telegraph.

Another report stated;

The orders went out to shoot every soul… It was literally murder… I have seen many bloody and awful sights lately but such a one as I have witnessed yesterday I pray I never see again. The women were all spared but their screams on seeing their husbands and sons butchered were most painful… Heaven knows I feel no pity, but when some old grey bearded man is brought and shot before your very eyes, hard must be that of a man’s heart I think who can look on with indifference.

All in the aim of ending “Terrorism” and protecting British/English citizens and rule.

In my mind, and I leave it up to the reader to make a final decision, there is little difference between these lamentable periods of history and threatening to launch a nuclear strike on Mecca as a reprisal for a terrorist action in the West.

The one constant between the Lidice, Feldpolizei, Indian Mutiny and Boer War examples AND a strike on Mecca is that a large/extreme number of people face or have been MURDERED in reprisal for actions carried out by a few.

My family have been involved in Policing for over a century with my Great Grandfather Walter joining the Metropolitan Police in early 1914 and the immutable faith in the notion of Justice has been passed down from generation to generation and the ultimately the biggest nuggets of knowledge have been –

1.) Don’t make idle threats
2.) Two wrongs do not make a right

Murdering civilians in their hundreds of thousands during a pilgrimage in Mecca is ethically and morally abhorrent and is on the same scale as the terrorist who blows up a bus of commuters and the Oberleutnant who orders a nearby village levelled because one of his men was shot by a terrorist. 

As far as Mr Uncles is concerned, the only difference is that ISIS are not signed up to the Geneva Convention so are seemingly exempt from its protection. I'm sorry to say that this is not how the convention works a                                          

My view on the Mark Duggan verdict.

The verdict into the shooting of Mark Duggan was announced yesterday to much furor. Basically the Jury agreed he had had a gun but must have disposed of it by the time the Police entered their final confrontation so he was unarmed when he was shot dead. The killing was wrong but the Police are not to blame.

This is a tragic result for his family and supporters but one that I support.

Let's be honest, by all accounts he was no saint, a self styled gangsta who was under investigation by Trident for gun crime and was suspected to be part of an attack. He had a gun that he picked up from Kevin Hutchinson-Foster and was seen exiting a cab with the weapon in hand. The fact that he threw the gun away (held in a sock to hide evidence if used like finger prints and powder) was obviously not picked up by the pursuing officers. He was ordered to stop three times (according to accounts) before the Police opened fire.

It is a decision that no officer takes lightly. My Grandad who was a policeman in the Met for many years and had served in the army during World War Two always maintained that you have to think on your feet and if the suspect or target looks like they have a weapon or are going to fire you should shoot - after all they won't hesitate to shoot at you.

My other grandad who was at the Seige of Meiktila in Burma said that when it comes to battles there are no cowards or heroes just men who react to situations and stimulus. These were trained soldiers, there were also trained pilots who mis-identified aircraft, shot down friendly planes - this sort of thing can happen. Training goes a long way but ultimately Police officers, like soldiers are human and react to their guts and emotions.

Ultimately the officer who fired the shots did so believing they had an armed felon making an escape to commit armed crime or even to return fire at them. When the trigger was pulled it was with the belief he was armed.

The court case has come back with a majority verdict of 8-2 that it was a lawful killing but the man was not armed. A lot of this is hindsight to say he was unarmed it looks like the Police didn't know that.

I understand that there are severe questions about the Police shooting an unarmed citizen on the streets but this was a criminal who was presumed armed and was running from the Police and the verdict was not reached by a judge, or the police but by a Jury of peers as any criminal or inquest is tried - the fairest way to try someone.

I also like to believe, and call me an idealist, that his colour had nothing to do with it. It just happened, on this occasion that he was black and I truly believe that if there was a white man it would be the same result,

I feel sorry for his family and at the loss that they feel, it must be terrible, but the courts have given their response and I believe, for what it is worth, that it was the right decision. I also echo the calls from Clegg, Cameron and the Met Commissioner that there should keep calm and keep things to the courts and not repeat the scenes of civil disorder from 2011.

Nick Clegg's response to Gary McKinnon announcement

Here follows Nick Clegg's response to Theresa May's announcement in the commons yesterday:

---

In opposition, we were unequivocal: Gary McKinnon should not be extradited. I said at the time that he was too vulnerable to be uprooted from his friends and family and sent across the Atlantic, and if there was a case to answer it should be here in the UK.

So today I am absolutely delighted by the Home Secretary’s decision to withdraw his extradition order.

I want to congratulate Gary and his mother Janis on their deserved victory. They have campaigned tirelessly and I pay tribute to their strength and determination.

But there was another significant moment as well: the Coalition Government has announced that we will seek to amend the US-UK extradition process to make it fairer in future.

We’re adding a so-called “forum bar” which will mean that British courts can decide to block a request for extradition if it is in the interests of justice to try the case here. This will increase the overall transparency of our extradition arrangements and will better balance the safeguards for defendants.

We will let you know more detail in due course on this announcement because today is about Gary. Today is a day for celebrating

Conservative Letter to stop EU law integration

In 1731 Captain Robert Jenkins had his ear cut off by the Spanish Coast guard sparking off the War of Jenkin's ear that ran from 1732-48.

In 1860, during the Opium war, Private Moyse of the 3rd East Kent Regiment was captured and executed for refusing to Kow-tow to the local Chinese Mandarin causing massive consternation amongst his piers and indeed in the Realm.

Britain has always guarded the sovereignty of its citizens and their rights abroad. They are citizens of this realm and subject to the justices of the Monarch and her ministers plain and simple.

It is along this same line that 102 Conservative MPs, including Chatham and Aylesford's own Tracey Crouch MP, have written an open letter (published in yesterday's telegraph) to David Cameron imploring him to use the "opt out" over Europe's "Pan European code of crimes" - an attempt to bring in line all of the member state's justice systems.
There is also the issue of the European Arrest warrant.
We want the UK Supreme Court to have the last word on UK crime and policing, not the European Court of Justice.

It finishes with:

We should maintain our national standards of justice and democratic control over crime and policing - but let other nations integrate more closely if they wish.

This isn't a revolt. Nor is a threat merely a plea to the Prime Minister.
As a salve to the irritating problem of the pro-European Lib Dems in coalition it suggests that we as a nation can still opt in on parts of the 130 point plan that will benefit the Country with regards to combating crime and international terrorism but Britain as a Nation should be responsible for its citizens.

I've always found Crime to be abhorrent, probably because I'm descended from a long line of Police men, who have served the nation for about a century. It is for this reason that I've always found Crime abhorrent and I can agree with the idea of getting member states together to pool resources - data, finger prints and DNA of convicted felons which could help solve cases abroad.

However the State should be responsible for its own laws (Drawing up and implementation) and every state is individual in its law creation as each has been created and molded by its own history. It should be out of the hands of the European Parliament as is the sovereignty of the British Citizen.

Britain is not a non extradition country and I am sure that if the German Polizei were to request a British citizen for arrest and deportation and could provide enough evidence to support the arrest, it would happen. It would be out of the EU's mandate to be able to action this overstepping British Sovereignty over its own citizens.

In short, I agree with the letter - bet no one saw that coming - and this wouldn't be a case of Britain being obtuse. If anything Europe should be about cooperating not integrating fully.

Benefits to be cut for Criminals - Pros and cons

When I was a younger man I would have welcomed the Government's new measures.

Those who commit crimes will have their benefits cut.

Seventeen year old Chris would totally agree.

"Hear, Hear!"  he would have said briefly looking up from his Star Wars cards. He was a little more right wing than I am with an immovable belief in the letter of the law and his superiors. He was the voice that wanted to see martial law declared during the riots, deployment of live rounds against the Student protests...

He was thoroughly odious person at times - I'm no longer that person, although I sometime hear his voice.

The Government proposal to cut benefits from criminals sounds like the policy he would have written.

The policy plays to a populist bandwagon of people who watched the riots and wanted action and retribution. It shows the government are listening and the state will strike with vengeance to show the criminal masses there is a cause and consequence and you will pay for your crimes and hit them where it hurts - their wallets.

On paper it is a good scheme, demonstrates the law and will act as a deterrent and according to local MP Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) whom I tweeted on the subject on Sunday, suggested it would be run in tandem with stiffer custodial sentences.

My younger self is ecstatic - greater punishments, order restored to chaos.

As I said though, I'm not him anymore. A few questions have been raised.

* Benefits are there to help the poor, not just to pay the utility bills but also to support the families and their children. In Medway we have seen a rise in the amount of children going into care and a rising cost to the tax payer and to local councils. By taking away an adult's benefits you will also be effecting their children and families. The Innocent will suffer with the guilty.  Can the Conservatives really back potentially taking food out of the mouthes of children?

* If the stronger custodial sentences kick in you will also be taking away a parent from the family, something the "Political Experts" think is vital to a stable family. Is that not contradictory?

Also if in Prison for a long time they are not working.

* The Prison system is already broken, overcrowded and in need of serious reform. Where are we to house an influx of long haul criminals? This is something that the public forget. As the warden in Shawshank redemtion said the Public only want money spent on higher walls, more cells and more guards but the State doesn't have the money to do that. Prison reform is low on its list of priorities.

* What of the man who steals a loaf of bread to feed his family? Its an age old dilemma but it still goes on, would you take his benefits away even though his family is already starving and send him to prison? 

We are meant to be reaching out to the people in the nation, the ones who don't believe the state cares for them and that Politics is broken and for the rich. Yes we need to demonstrate the state and law is there and MUST be adhered to but taking away their benefits or housing is not the way, it will only cause more resentment as the Rich trample the poor, so it will look.

Yet again the Government seem to be pushing through a popular policy that will get support but without much thought for who will suffer or the consequences. Might be time to "Stop, listen and think again."

Dave vs. Nick; Alterations to the Human Rights act.

Since the Conservatives gained a majority in parliament there has been a worry that the Human Rights Act may suffer a redraft or complete revision. The first was when Priti Patel asked in PMQ's;

"When will the government overturn the Human Rights act?"

More than a few Libdems began to worry what they had got themselves into but all went quite on this front until recently, with the bout of Civil disorder which gripped the country. Reports of offenders hiding behind the Act and using it to escape justice has lead many to question its use in public life and legislation it is, in the words of Jack Straw;

"A Villians' Charter."

David Cameron has in the past called for the act to be scrapped completely in the past ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1560975/David-Cameron-Scrap-the-Human-Rights-Act.html)  and then on 21st August Mr Cameron wrote an article on change and what the Coalition was going to do to try and rectify the situation. (http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/266219)

There are some concerning sentences;

There are problems in our society that have been growing for a long time: a decline in responsibility, a rise in selfishness, a growing sense of individual rights come before anything else.

Or

I am determined we get a grip on the misrepresentation of human rights.

and...

sense of personal responsibility that has been eroded over the years by many things, ... to the twisting and misrepresenting of human rights.

These are all quite vague and alarm bells are ringing in the Liberal world that the Right are going to meddle to everyone's detriment. After all the Individual has the right not to be trampled on by the state and that a person's rights are there to be protected before it is trampled on by the larger state.

It would make sense that the riots and the civil disorder act as a catalyst or spark to bring about change to the act, when public feeling is against the perpetrators. It is a way to get public and media support, the kind of reaction that looks like an understandable knee jerk. We've also seen these in the form of evictions of
rioters from Council housing and harsh sentences that have come out in subsequent trials.
The Spectator also points out that Cameron may be playing to the crowd somewhat... He talks of fighting Europe to rectify the European Court of Human Rights - Boo Europe!!!
He neglects to say that actually they are two different bodies. To alter the ECHR you need the backing of 47 member states rather than the 27 involved in the EU.

Worried? I was... then Cue.... NICK CLEGG!


Nick's comments in the Guardian are very reassuring. He sounds like the reasonable half of the debate, explaining what his interpretation and the party's stance (hopefully) will be standing for rather than the rant of the right playing to the crowd. He outlines that the act has been misused in the past and very famously lambasted in the media, often used by money hungry lawyers who will take a hyped up cases. It is these loop holes need to be closed, the act needs to work for everyone
and that the balance of between individual rights to the rules and laws of society balance needs to be readdressed. He also talks about the paranoia of officials who do not want to break the human rights act, the Policemen who went to go and get a KFC meal for a fugitive who claimed it was his human right, law enforcement is scared not to act at times and enforce the law. We as a society will continue to lose out if law breakers are able to call upon a misrepresented act.

He reassures the party faithful that we stand for strengthening the commitment of the human rights act and the rights of the small person against oppression by the state. He talks about the way that the act has helped people already;

Preventing local authorities from carrying out surveillance of law abiding families,

Removing the innocent from the DNA database,

Stopping rapists from cross examining their possible victims.

He states;

The reality is that those who need to make use  of human rights laws to challenge the decisions of the authorities are nearly always people who are in the care of the state: Children's homes, mental hospitals, immigration detention. They are often vulnerable, powerless or outsiders and are sometimes people for whom the public feels little sympathy. But they are human beings, and our common humanity dictates that we treat them as such.

In a similar vein to his article in the Orange Book, he talks about reform of the ECHR but from within the system with everyone's support and for the benefit of everyone. These are our rights, the law should benefit the many not the few and that the state should be able to act to protect the majority.

In short I am more confident in the changes knowing that Nick and the parliamentary party will not back changes in specific rights (Theresa May's aim), or alter the way we work with the ECHR, which appears to be Mr Cameron's aim or even to leave the convention altogether which is an aim of the far right and some backbenchers! If we were to back down on these, if we allow the Conservatives to achieve any goals that would threaten the very existence of Human rights and personal freedom from state interest - We might as well pack up and go home, it is the very foundation of the party and THE cornerstone that once removed will bring down the house of Gladstone, and rightly so.

He has managed to get the commission into a "Bill of rights" almost solely with Liberal Human rights lawyers Phillipe Sands, Lord Lester and Helena Kennedy! This will guarantee that we will keep our rights and that the party will maintain its dedication to rights and Liberalism laid down in Mills and Liberal philosophers who
followed.

Whilst David Cameron postures and talks of the Right's aims and wishes, whether he is playing up to the crowd or whether he truly believes that this sort of change is what is needed, I can feel safe that Nick's words explain the bluster and his calm and reassuring article belays all fears that a state where the Government and its bodies DO hold ALL the power will not and cannot exist. He once described the party as the heirs to Mill, Lloyd George, Keynes, Beverage and Grimmond, I hope that we can carry on their grand legacy of Liberalism and not succumb now to external pressure.

Parliamentary Knee Jerks- Are we endanger of making the situation worse?

Yesterday, with the return of Parliament David Cameron and the government have begun laying the foundations of restoring Civil order and the rule of law to be imposed but... and I don't believe that I am asking this... Are some of the knee jerk reactions going too far, not curing the problem and even making it worse?

A big cause of the civil unrest was the inability to listen to the people in the streets and a growing feeling of separation between the Government and ordered society with this separate culture that has grown up. As questions flew from around the house it was becoming obvious that retribution was the main theme along with compensation for those who lost property etc.

Now I completely agree with this. Those who had their property and business' damaged completely deserve compensation and I fully support the Government's policies and aims to help them. I can't imagine the hardships that are in front of those people, to be made homeless and lose everything and have to rebuild their lives. They do deserve justice and those that are responsible do deserve to be punished and shown that society has laws, whether you acknowledge the rule of the society's law or not. However the truth of the matter is that the Prison system cannot handle the massive influx of prisoners that will be put in and in the long run the revolving door policy will mean many are back on the streets by the end of the year. The prison system has long been in need of reform and reworking and now when it really needs to have space for a large influx there is none and it won't get fixed overnight.

Other punitive measures were bandied around such as the removal of social housing and benefits. This, on the surface seems fair, yet at the same time turfing the already poor out onto the street will solve nothing and if anything will cause those who already hate the government and law hate it even further. The same would occur with the removal of state benefits. After all they will get their money one way or the other through nefarious means if necessary. It would be better to show clemency at this time or even an alternate form of punishment. Would it not be better to get them to pay their debt to society by making them perform community service and clean up duties for their benefits so that they still get paid what they need, get punished and the community that they helped to destroy has hands to repair it?

Another question that worried me, and was nicely sidestepped by the Prime Minister was;
"Will those that were involved in the riots and are not to British citizens be deported?"

"Those who do not have a right to be hear will indeed be removed." - meaning any illegal immigrants will be removed.

The scary face of it was that anyone who isn't a British citizen, does that count for Commonwealth citizens or EU citizens?

I'm undecided on this issue. After all if you don't want to take part in British society and the way we live then yes Dover is that way...
However, this is someones home and I fear it as a right-wing knee jerk to get rid of Jonny Foreigner and that pushes me back the other way but that may be a reaction to my lifelong studies of Germany 1933-45. As I say, I'm undecided.

The one that I thought Nick Clegg would stand up and say something on, was the threat to freedom of speech. During the riots there was a brief freeze on Blackberry instant messaging to slow the coordination of the riots. Now there is talk of policing or banning Twitter and Facebook. This would be a direct attack on our freedom of speech. Yes it is awful that social networking and media has been abused by those who want to bring terror and crime to our streets but what of the rest of us who watched on in horror?
What of the commuters who are reliant, in Southeastern's ineptitude, on Twitter for update on travel information? Or Kent Police on dispelling the rumours and lies about riots in Maidstone and Chatham?

It was up to Tracey Crouch, Conservative MP for Chatham and Aylesford, to be the voice of reason and point out how Twitter and Facebook had helped to dispel these rumours. surely the majority of innocents should not suffer because of a handful of trouble makers? It is as if the Government feel that social networking sites are to blame for the riots and that before Twitter there were no riots. How were the riots in the 80's or Poll tax riots coordinated? What's next? Banning Mobile phones?
I think maybe keeping an eye on what is being said and preempting the rioters is a good thing but again there are times when the wrong end of the stick could be grasped by the authorities and a well meaning jab at sarcasm could be seen as inciting.
I once said to my baby daughter; If you break Daddy's model tank he will kill you - It doesn't mean I'm going to commit infanticide!

Other measures, such as giving the Police more powers to get groups to remove their hoods and masks, although an attack on freedom of action is clearly necessary. The Liberties of the individual have indeed outstretched the liberties of the group. The needs of the one are outweighing the needs of the many which is wrong.
The Police have come under a lot of stick in the past, if they are too gung-ho they are being oppressive, if they hold back for fear of public persecution they are being cowards and ineffective. Clear lines need to be drawn up and used so that they can react accordingly as the situation dictates.

Tracey Crouch MP

It would also seem that these people have no respect for the state and why should they? As Charles Kennedy has said, British Parliamentary democracy is impenetrable to the average citizen, even for some of us who are interested in it! For many all the parties are the same and Westminster filled with dry old grey suit wearing old men who have little interest in anything other than lining their own pockets.Politics needs to go back to being for the people and MPs need, like David Lammy, Tracey Crouch, Mark Reckless even Nick Clegg and David Cameron did, go out on the streets.

More importantly these people need to be shown what society is and that it includes them and that they can no longer do what they wish. It must start in schools where for too long pupils have got away with doing nothing if that is how they choose. I remember from my time at school that some pupils who didn't want to work got detention, if they didn't go to that more detention, if they avoided that they were suspended - a free week off! Something needs to be done to encourage kids to pull their own weight. Also Parents need to take an interest and be involved with their kids, they seem to just let them run the streets or get away with not doing home work, being rude to elders or people in authority. It is like society in parts of Great Britain have degraded. A cause must be found and treated like rather than lopping the head off this Hydra only to find in a year or two another one pops up.

It is easy to swing to the right on issues like this. I'm urging instead of swift and terrible justice, the careful considered approach that with a hearts and minds aim will win back this lost group to society and the rule of law rather than alienating them further. We must understand the cause so that it will never be repeated.

Medway riots - More to come?

For a good report on it see the KM website http://tinyurl.com/3myyls9
(photo credit to the KM too.)

So last night the touch paper was lit in the heart of Medway as 15 trouble makers brought London fire to the streets of Medway causing limited damage to property and
the destruction of a few cars.

Luckily the powder was dry and failed to ignite last night but will it happen again and would the result be different?

Medway is a large urban conurbation with a great mixture of people, many of whom earn less than £30k p/a per household (Ours is one) and have similarly hit by the cuts. We have bored kids and youths on the streets, a small gang culture and large open highstreets with alleyway escapes all around. Medway is ripe for riot and civil disorder should the paper be lit if these were the only criteria.

However, despite a certain dislike for Medway council in recent months and for their poor spending record they have done a fairly good job at reducing the impact of the cuts so far. With only £15m cut over four years they have so far tried to reduce the impact to the citizenry. Youth services are still running well and engaging people. Our Borough councillors are engaging the people and appear out with them at things like the Medway Mile, or local events such as Cllr Osborne and the Labour team out at the Luton and Wayfield funday. Politics is that much more accessible in Medway and so people feel they do have more of a voice.

The youth and gang culture isn't as well established in Medway as it is in London. Yes there have been incidents of organised fights and graffiti tags in Medway (notably the Chatham Boyz) but in reality they aren't that big a problem yet and more about fighting each other than organised crime. However they should be managed now before they do grow. At the moment Medway kids are happy to just hang around and cause small amounts of damage, maybe have a ruck with away fans on football days especially after a few beers but this is fairly well controlled by the Police and there hasn't been a serious incident for quite some time.

I'd like to say that there is a great attachment of the community to their pubs and businesses in Medway but there is in Tottenham, Hackney, Enfield, Croydon et. al. It is a small minority that are causing the problems in each of these cases. It is possible that they could be egg on a larger group. If anything it'll be a group from London or elsewhere who will start it hoping that Kent Police will have its reserves tapped to assist in South east London.

Finally, Kent Police are not the Met Police. They handle things differently and, yes I did say the other day that you rarely see Police on the streets of Gillingham but in this case it is probably going to pay off. There are few stop and searches, no Police shootings, no one group feeling oppressed by the Police and so have no problem with them or a desire to give them any trouble.

Despite all of Medways problems and it sharing a lot of problems with London boroughs I think Medway will not suffer the same fate as London and Birmingham. The council and the local Police do need to maintain a steady hand and keep an eye on the situation but real leadership needs to be shown on the national level and I'm interested to see what Theresa May and David Cameron are going to do to make sure there isn't a fourth day of violence on the streets of Great Britain.

On the London riots.

I was going to try and spend today writing a balanced piece about the riots on Saturday but instead I have been watching BBC News 24 and following the Twittersphere as the riots and disorder spread across London and now as far as Birmingham and are threatening to spread around the country. I'm even taking precautions in my own home and Medway is not a likely place for the disorder and I am hoping we are far enough out of the city centre that if it does kick off we will be shot of it. Also if any would be looter is thinking about hitting my house, fair warning; You will get a bat to the face.

The streets of London have very rapidly descended into  mob rule. Police cars have been burnt, residences and businesses have been burnt down, 215 arrests have been made, railway stations closed and everyday citizens are losing their livelihoods and homes. What are the causes of this and what are the solutions?

The initial trigger to the initial disturbance in Tottenham was a peaceful protest over the shooting by Police officers of Mark Duggan, 29, on Thursday. Currently the information in the public sector is that police acted on information from Operation Trident and stopped a minicab. Three shots were fired, two by police, the one by Mr Duggan struck a police officer's radio. Members of the community and family of Mr Duggan organised a protest and request for information at the local police station. As time went by tempers freyed and a small minority torched a couple of parked squad cars and then it all flowed from there. There were arguments that this was caused by elements who felt that they are victimised by the Police and even on the basis of race and frustrations just boiled over. Who could say?

Now... Enfield and Brixton were struck last night now Hackney and Peckham, even Bromley, Croydon and I received a text from a very good friend in Lambeth has text me that riot police have just moved into Elephant and Castle. Now violence is opening up in Birmingham and there are unconfirmed rumours of things happening in Leeds. I have been forced to ask;
What the hell is going on in this country?

I've been trying to wrack my brain for reasons why this is happening and how things have got this bad and I've listed them below. What I can say is this...
Now is not the time to be partisan about this and look for who is to blame, be it the Coalition for their cuts, Labour for causing the financial situation, the Liberals for backing down over EMA and tuition... none of this matters. What matters is that society has obviously failed a whole generation who are so detached from what society and community should be that they think that what is going on is completely acceptable and THIS has to be tackled across parties and by all parts of society.

So what has caused this?

Lets talk about the cuts first. Now I know the Austerity measures are tough, I suffer them and I know many who do.Communities across Britain have been asked to give up vast amounts of money and time and it is hard. It isn't a task that any Government wants to undertake but it needed to be done. The problem rises from the fact that Westminster seems so removed from the city streets and households, most of the cabinet are millionaires and don't have to suffer the privations of the everyday citizen... How can they understand what we are going through?
Others find Politics so impenetrable and dull that they feel it has no relevance to their lives, something Charles Kennedy warned us about in his book; The Future of British Politics.
People are angry and feel frustrated that they don't have a voice and that even their local councils, which they elected this May also don't seem to be listening. Could this frustration and rage have overflowed into the riots?
It is indeed possible BUT at no point has any placard been waved or cause announced short of the original demonstration.

What of this lost generation? Now, it couldn't have escaped your notice that when you wander through town centres or on estates you'll see large groups of youths just hanging around. I've seen them, at work and at home, when I grew up I did a similar thing at times. Where I work we often get youths just coming in to pass the time, others and a specific group come in regularly, cause damage and antagonise our staff. This isn't necessarily because they are bad kids or are urban criminals its just they don't have anything better to do and so act out of boredom. I grew up in a very rural village and there was literally nothing to do most days so when I wasn't playing on the PC or reading a friend and I would go out and walk around the public footpaths and relax in the sun on various bridges and chat so I can sympathise with them in a way. However my thoughts never turned to acts of crime!
Still the majority in this case see something exciting happening and immediately want to jump in and get involved. They saw how easy the protests were in the autumn, saw Laurrie Penny's "People's riot" on Oxford street and more importantly they saw how powerless the Police were to deal with it. One ex Police officer also referred to the revolving door justice system of the UK. How many of the 215 will serve any kind of sentence? The prisons are overflowing and re offending is becoming frighteningly common. Lets be honest its only the ring leaders who will get a stiff sentence in a media fuelled frenzy and then in a few years time, with barely a whisper of condemnation they will be released early.
The mob knows this. What have they to fear?

On top of that they also know the Police are in a tight situation. A Police officer has to think twice before striking a member of the public. Job and pension are on the line. When my Grandfather was involved in a riot he was guarding the truck and was attacked by a couple of protesters and he was forced to lash out in defence and struck them with the starting handle of the truck! His Inspector at the time was impressed. Now he'd have lost his job and may have been arrested for ABH and assault. Also the Police don't know the areas well and groups are able to hit and fade in a guerrilla warfare style. At the moment actions are taking place across London and already officers are being drafted in from elsewhere to assist the situation.
Also coming back to problems with the Policing in their community. I have a friend who is stopped regularly in Brixton because he's of Afro-Caribbean origin, drives a black sports car with tinted windows, he has many friends who suffer the same. Some communities feel that they are victimised by the Police and when one of their own is shot and there is a five hour delay on simple answers to the questions of the community then yes anger will come out. Something Claudia Webbe was talking about on BBC Radio 4.

At the centre of all of this is the beating heart, the cold calculating brain, the criminal. Its one thing to be caught up in the mob mentality or acting out of boredom knowing that there is no line of recourse. Its another to be organising this sort of thing for material gain or just for the sake of doing this just to cause trouble and have a go at the Police.
On the 7th August Liam_1993 ( self described as Post Capitalist. Student Activist. Revolutionary Anarcho-Syndicalist. Lazy Bastard.) tweeted the following:

apparently #Enfield is kicking off, remember to mask up if your gonna join in, if your arrested, no comment.

I don't think I need to say anything further about this, except to echo David Lammey (MP for Tottenham) in saying that the most horrendous acts are not being carried out by locals but an outside group. This may not necessarily be true of Tottenham but definitely Enfield, Peckham and Harrogate.
There has also been reports of preprinted documents handed to looters and rioters of how to avoid arrest and what to do if arrested. Others have had petrol bombs which means that they have prepared for action this day and haven't acted on the spare of the moment.
 Yes the communication revolution has helped organise these things quickly but it is merely an aid not a cause.
There are also extreme incidences where a photographer has been bottled;

marmite_ marmite
Just seen a photographer being deliberately bottled, horrible. #hackney via @billykenber #LondonRiots (tweeted about 8pm)

Others, appearing on BBC news have talked about cameras being smashed and been threatened with weapons for valuables like telephones. Shops like Currys, Aldi, Lidl, MacDonald's all ransacked and broken into and not just the big companies that can afford it but little off licences and corner shops are having their lifeblood taken from them.

Who suffers from all of this? The Community. Family businesses will not be able to afford to reopen. Housing prices will drop, other buisnesses will not want to rellocate there, some will not rebuild their lost shops. More importantly the everyday civillian who has lost everything at the hands of the mob have no reason to stay. The minority are ruining it for the majority.

So what can be done? As I said earlier, now is NOT the time for party politics or points scoring. Comments like Ken Livingstone's ("I'm not trying to politically point score but its all the government's fault") or Dianne Abbott whittering on in the I about cuts are not helpful. What needs to be done is a cross party solution where we all sit around the table and actually listen to the communities, to the local councils and Police commanders as we try and figure out what the cause is and what solutions are available and not jump on a bandwagon and sally forth to vanquish another foe and getting it completely wrong.

Now is not the time for knee jerk reactions. My first reaction was to call for the army to reinstall order. This was done a century ago when rioters took parts of London and Liverpool, in fact in Liverpool a Navy Gunboat sailed up the Mersey and opened fire on strikers. This is not Syria though and if we started rolling APC's and Tanks down Peckham Highstreet then surely something would be amiss?

On the other hand it would send a clear message. After the LA riots a 7pm-7am curfew was installed with a shoot to kill from the military as a deterrent. Maybe such a curfew for the duration of the emergency is needed but that is up to the policy makers.

There were also compelling arguments for water cannons. Not just for their ability to disperse the crowds and allow the Police, Firefighters and Paramedics to do their jobs and help those in need but also to help put out the fires in shops, in cars and remove these focal points for the mob.

Ultimately it is a temporary solutions. What needs to be looked at is the youth of the country and what they want to do or not do. Their subculture has become so distant and removed from civilisation and society that scenes like this are OK, that taking part in actions like the riot is acceptable if not wished for! How could we have come to this? Something desperately needs to be done to reach this doomed youth.

The new Politics, the one we believe in, the more open and understanding politics that isn't overloaded with party rhetoric and tribalism needs to come into play and we actually need to listen to the people, what they want and what the government and councils can provide.

We also need Justice to prevail and be reformed so that those who break the law or conspire to public disobedience at this scale are punished properly and fully.

Elected Commissioners to support the Police? Not just pie in the sky.

One of the Liberal Democrat standpoints on justice has been to have an elected commissioner of Police, it is one that I agree with in principle and one I think needs especially now needs to be looked at seriously. This does fly in the face of my friend Councilor Tristan Osborne (lab) who wrote a very interesting 'blog post that is firmly against it and I will attempt to engage with his arguments further on.

You can read his 'blog post here...  http://musingsfrommedway.blogspot.com/2011/07/tory-police-plan-is-reckless.html

Currently each constabulary is run by a Chief Constable with whom all the power and responsibility rests. There is an advisory committee made up of independents and local politicians that have been appointed rather than elected. The Chief Constable should listen to the concerns raised by this group and their advice but like the parliaments of old their in puts are not necessarily taken seriously and budgets and priorities are set and controlled by the Chief and their staff. Police officers making their own decisions as to how the police force should be run. In theory that's what you want.

Who knows how to run the Police force better than the Police force? Do you really want some political lackey or busy body telling them how to do their jobs or how to spend their money? It'd be like the Soviet Commissars telling the ex Czarist army officers how to wage war... Chaos would ensue and you would end up with a situation where two different "heads" would be butting for supremacy and the only loser is the public.

BUT... and here is the big crux of the matter. What qualifies a chief constable? Now ignoring some of the tales my Grandfather told me about from when he was a Police sergeant including nepotism, old boys, Masons, Eton/ Oxbridge buddies which I'm sure are no longer true. A Chief Constable will usually have gone in as a beat cop, sat their exams quite quickly done a brief spell as a sergeant before moving up to an officer and then rotating themselves to as many secondments as possible to gather a wide range of different sections and then begun the task of being in the right place at the right time. It’s helpful if you know the right people or get yourself attached to the right cases etc. Then pow... if you're lucky and you've done your politicking well you're a Chief. How long were you a constable on the ground? More importantly how long ago was that? You may even find yourself a Chief Constable in a completely different part of the country? What knowledge of Devon and Cornwall policing would a Chief from London have?

Further more, and this is important especially since the Government announced cuts of 20% (http://gingerliberal.blogspot.com/2011/07/police-cuts-made-by-coalition-england.html), the budget and Police spending. Now left to their own devices a Chief Constable will make the decisions as to what to spend the money on. Now some Chief's, such as Chris Sims of Birmingham are trying to limit the amount of cuts to frontline officers by cutting non-essential services and bureaucratic staff, others will seek to limit the projected 15,000 odd job losses to "Natural Wastage" of retirement and resignations etc. Others may decide that yes... we need a new fleet of BMW patrol cars rather than the officers to drive them, or that more money needs to be spent policing Football matches or tackling alcohol related crime - according to the statistics BUT these may not be the concerns of the neighborhood or community. The Police can only work on crimes that are reported and if there is a gang terrorizing an estate that they don't know about then they won't tackle it. Civilians are often too scared to deal with the Police, it's not like the 50's where you can stop an officer in the street and talk confidentially... When was the last time you saw a Police officer in your street?

Who will they talk to? Another civilian. Now I agree that party politics should be kept out of this. There are times I think it should be removed from parliament and council as it all it seems to breed is this tribal tub thumping and the constant blue/red rugby game that seems to go on everywhere and the only losers are the constituents...

But an elected official, not necessarily on a county wide but definitely in a borough capacity to liase with the citizenry and direct the Police in how the public wants to see them act, what they feel the money should be spent on and services they feel should be maintained or cut. It would help police/community relations no end. An unelected "advisory board" just won't cut it, some members may be drawing from their knowledge of the communities others may be using it as a CV mark and not interested. If a single commissioner is out of the question at least make the advisory body elected by the people to represent the people's needs. Another half step would be to open up the accounts and practices to public scrutiny and questions. If the Chief Constable is sure of their actions let them publicize it and defend it on the open stage. Policing needs to be open, more so than ever. Their duty is to serve and protect the community but the communities don’t know they're there half the time.

Cllr Osborne is right to raise the question of corruption and that an elected member may be open to bribery etc. even to a greater extent than an officer in uniform. I think that it is down to the individual. A person in uniform can disgrace themselves just as readily as one in civilian clothes, but if a civilian is discovered they can be recalled, a uniform... you need to rely on them falling on their good sense and resigning.

Now is not the time for rash economic decisions and Cllr Osborne is right to rise the financial implications of this policy BUT I think, and I know sections of our party and the Conservative party, strongly believe that Police reform is needed and an elected Commissioner would go a long way to help path the gap between Police and Citizenry.

Short drop and a sharp stop - The return of Capital Punishment?

Today the spectre of Capital punishment has again reared its head to public debate as Guido Fawkes submitted an e-petition for its return. Ultimately it is a moot point as the UK has signed up with other European governments to Human right protocols that ban the state execution of any citizen no matter how the heinous the crime. However the debate is one that should be had from time to time if only to remind us how we came to where we are.

So why is capital punishment a bad thing? Aren't our prisons overflowing? There are no active deterrents now to real crime such as murder and child sex offences? Wouldn't seeing a few of these felons swing from the gallows put people off?
Well its all really final isn't it? Once you've executed someone they can't come back if you've cocked up during the investigation or the trial has been miscarried. Sometimes it happens. Take Amanda Knox in the Meredith Kercher case. The Italian Police seem to have been massively incompetent, what if she turns out to be innocent because of their mistakes, it would have been awful if another innocent life had been taken. Similar things have happened in the UK as well, there was a man that was held in prison for eight years for murder and turned out to be innocent. Even now there is talk of pardoning General Jodl who was hanged at Nuremberg for Crimes against humanity!

Secondly, who has the right to take a human life? Surely if the state decides and executes someone it makes the state no better than the condemned? I know its in the Bible but it also tells us that you shouldn't eat prawns. We would be robbing someone of their freedom and people can change, do they not deserve the chance for redemption and reform? One night, when my Grandfather was a Police sergeant in Brixton a man came in very shaken and admitted to butchering his whole family in a caravan in Kent. He said he didn't even know why he did it, he just snapped. Apparently when the Kent CID went to have a look the caravan was swimming in blood. This man arguably deserved to hang for the crime but he had never done anything previous or since and showed genuine remorse.

Finally Guido's petition is to bring back the Death penalty for heinous murders of children and Police officers - wow... So a Policeman's murder is more of a loss to his family than my death to mine? That's not equality. If you were going to bring back execution for the murder of a Policeman you'd have to do it for everyone. My loss, although not a great impact to society or the world in general would upset my wife and family in the same way and don't they deserve the same amount of justice? The petition is not aimed at creating a Soviet or National Socialist style justice system with routine executions being handed out by a vengeful state that is trying to keep the civilian's in check but it still has its flaws.

Some might say there are people that are beyond redemption and impossible of reform. Take Peter Sutcliffe, Ian Brady, Ian Huntly or even Gary Glitter. These people are, in some respects, broken - a faulty wire as my Grandfather would've said. Some would even describe them as monsters, the kind of people who have done the worst acts that one human being can do to another. One serial killer, I forget his name, asked the judge to hand down the death penalty saying that he needed to be stopped and had tried himself many times but couldn't. Others such as Bundy were horrific killers who showed no remorse what so ever and no amount of psychiatric help would ever cure them. These people cannot be given freedom as their freedom WILL be used to take the freedom of life from others and the state should no longer fund their existence and that they should pay for their crimes and put out of their misery as you would a rabid dog.

Restricting execution to certain top drawer offences could be seen to be valid but what of death by dangerous driving? Could that be considered on a par as taking an axe to someone? Think about it, if you were on your mobile whilst driving and you caused a collision that ultimately killed someone you have taken a life in the same way as if you had cut them up BUT the difference is you didn't intend to do it. Where is the line? You have an angry and upset family calling for justice and you have a punishment. What if your crime would normally only carry a life sentence but the Judge decided to make an example of you or bowed to the pressure of public opinion or a media campaign? Justice would have many question marks hanging over it and the price is someones life.

There is a compelling argument in the affore mentioned cases and if execution was to be brought back for certain cases some would argue it to be a good thing but who are we to hand down death and judgement with hearts filled with vengeance? State's should also never carry the power to take the life of a citizen as justice can be affected by human error, passions and pressure from the press.

Keeping the investigation into Newscorp balanced.

As the News Corp case unfolds and the Murdochs and Rebekah Brooks are held to account by a parliamentary select committee I have begun to think about some of the dangers of the case.

The British people always need a villain, be it the Germans (at war and football), Nick Clegg (a former hero who fell to villainy- the best kind of hate figure.), Gary Glitter and Bin Laden. These are people that you can walk into any Pub or public venue and say "... what a bastard" and get a general murmur of agreement whether deserved or not.

The media will often attack them on front pages and reports, it becomes easy for people to be lead by the passions and centralise their anger on one target often losing track of all of the information involved aided by distortions in the media.

A current example of this is the growing call for David Cameron to stand down and resign over links between Andy Coulson and the mobile hacking cases at News of the World. It would be ridiculous to suggest that Cameron should be removed just because he has association. To be fair to David Cameron, when Andy Coulson was hired he had been sworn, on oath, that he had no involvement with phone hacking. As far as anyone should be concerned, at the time the man was not proven guilty. Accusations are not fact until proven.

At the time, despite these accusations, Coulson was a good choice for the role. (although maybe Cameron should have listen to leading Lib dems such as Clegg and Lord Ashdown!) The appointment has now proven to have been a mistake but despite the protestations of Ed Miliband- who is himself courting the media and scoring easy points against the government by echoing what the people want to hear rather than come up with an alternative economic policy, hindsight is the only thing proving it.
Beyond that, the removal of David Cameron as Prime minister at this time, for this reason would be detrimental to this country's economic recovery. Agree or disagree with the coalition's economic policy any delay or massive political upheaval cannot be good for the economy or in investment confidence in Britain.
After all for the meantime Nick Clegg would be running the country until the next Conservative Party conference in September when the leadership contest would be resolved and then there would be a shift in the dynamic in the Coalition agreement. Love it or loath it the fact that Cameron and Clegg get on in a personal capacity and share many of the same ideals helps keep the coalition together, without that dynamic it could descend into chaos and inter party fighting that could tear the agreement apart and possibly force a general election, something no one is prepared for and would again through economic stability to the wind, or a minority government. What we need is stability and a steady hand on the tiller. At the moment I think that there is the correct amount of debate and discussion in parliament to affect change that has been thoroughly thought our.

My other worry is that Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson are being painted up to be the main villains of the piece along with the Murdoch's. I think Rupert Murdoch has shown good amount of humility and an understandable lack of culpability with the main issues, after all he claims not to have spoken to the News of the World editor on a more than a monthly basis, after all it made up less than 1% of his global empire.

However Coulson and Brooks are being painted as the key "bad guys" - The danger of this is, yes they as editors were responsible for the conduct of their staff and if they were unaware that certain practices were being carried out then they were clearly incompetent and had no idea how their organisation was being run. However I fear the public will continue to bey for their blood and once they have been prosecuted then they will lose interest. Much like the MP expenses scandal, some of the worst were charged, publicly shamed, lost their seats or removed from power but the lesser players got away with it as the Public lost interest. Worse yet they will shout miscarriage of justice if they are declared innocent whether they are or not.

My fear is that everyone will be concentrating on Brooks, Coulson and the Murdoch's and forget about the people who actually carried out the acts or allowed them to happen and will have satisfied themselves with just the big scalps much like the Nuremberg trials, the top people all rightly dealt with by justice but those who signed individual orders, or carried out acts of brutality slipped the net.

Another fear is that this will turn into a guilt by association like the July bomb plot of 1944. Just because you have had dinner with Mrs Brooks, or had meetings with Mr Murdoch over the years you must somehow be linked to the scandal and have your name and office smeared by the association. After all Sir Paul Stephenson has gone from the Met and he was a much better head then Sir Ian Blair, and now so has his deputy on the basis of an as yet unproved rumour and pressure is mounting on Cameron to resign just for association with the Murdoch press. Something Mr Miliband has avoided despite him having 11 meetings out of 32 with News international yet the PM is feeling all the heat and now George Osborne is taking the flak as well for 18 meetings during the election.

What needs to be done is a sensible, non frenzied investigation that takes in all the possible guilty parties and prosecutes everyone who is guilty. There should also be a further reaching investigation to see if other newspaper groups are responsible for similar acts and legislation drawn up so as to make sure it never happens again. Clear guidelines need to be put down as to what is and isn't acceptable for reporters and also the way politicians and Police interact with the media as well as stiff penalties for those who break them.