Arming the Police

In the light of the tragic shootings in Manchester today many commentators and reactionaries are calling for the Police to carry fire arms as they do on the continent but is it really time?

The armed Police record is constantly called into question such as the Barrister who was shot 3 times whilst on a rampage on his roof or the case of Mark Dugan which sparked last year's riots. Even in the case of Raol Moatt, a clearly dangerous man who was on the run has had his death analysed by many different bodies and discussions as to whom was in the right.

Further to this is the Tomlinson case. A man with a heart condition was knocked to the ground (and killed) by a scared and desperate Police officer. What happens if you arm that officer with a pistol?

Horror stories of police officers on a power trip abusing their positions and killing people who don't deserve it like the recent case in Jamaica of a police officer who killed an eight month pregnant woman and wounded her two sisters for "resisting arrest". I'm not going to lie, it will probably happen here to.

On the flip side though, the bad guys are carrying better weapons the terrorists! They're throwing grenades, using Uzis to shoot up cars and newsagents and we're sending our cops in with nothing but an ASP and pepper spray. We can look forwards to more incidents like today, where two unarmed officers are gunned down in the street mercilessly.

In defence of some of the incidents of over zealous police fire arm use and I quote a former Sergeant in the Met;

When you see a man with a gun threatening to shoot you or others, you shoot first.

It is also worth noting, again quoting the Sergeant;

When you aim at a man there are so many variables that can effect the bullet's trajectory, wind variations, dirt in the barrel... you may be aiming for the torso and you end up striking an arm or a leg.

Of course when my Grandfather told me that he was talking about shooting at German soldiers but he said the same was true of any fire arm and that it is often mistaken that Police have shot a man dead when the officer was aiming to wound.

I'm not suggesting that we should arm our Police officers up like those pictured or for an immediate rush of armed cops on the streets but I think the time has come that we, as a nation start to think about this seriously.  The streets of London are massively more dangerous than when my Grandfather patrolled Brixton, I wouldn't do their job in urban areas especially with these Postcode gang wars and the readiness of individuals to splash you over a wall knowing they'll get an easy stretch in jail and ultimate hero status as a Cop-killer. I think it is time for stiffer sentences and level the playing field and let the thin blue line be able to return fire when needed.

The Page 3 debate

I must admit I only caught a bit of the Page 3 debate on Twitter last night but I think I get the general gist of it, for it is an age old argument.

Basically, the pro page 3 lobby states that it is freedom of expression, a British institution, there are worse images available in lads mags etc.

The anti lobby says that it is degrading to women, brings sexually explicit imagery into the home as well as within the reach of children and is just not the sort of thing that modern enlightened human beings should be looking at.

I offer no solutions to this, only opinions and suggestions really.

Firstly, and much to teenage Chris' annoyance, I do agree with the point about the availability of the paper and the Sun's portrayal as a family paper.
(yep just heard a door slam in my head and Garbage has been cranked up- he's annoyed.)
I don't read the Sun, nor the Star or Sport (if you can read the Sport) unless I'm stood in a takeaway waiting for my order. I find it poorly written and embarrassing when trying to read Page 2's politics and Penny 22 from Gravesend is flashing herself at me. I feel judged by the proprietor in a family restaurant.

I also agree that such images should not be available in a "family" paper. I know that certain Lads mags like FHM and Loaded have an age restriction on the tills at Tesco but the Sun and magazines like Nuts and Zoo do not. Such images, and teenage Chris is definitely upset at me now, cannot appear on television before a certain hour or in a movie without a certain rating (12 or 15) do why should they be available in print to all ages?

In defence, there is the freedom of speech and publication and if you don't like it you have the freedom not to buy it. This is a little flimsy in the face of the age restrictions though.

I'd also say that, although it may be degrading and reduce women to the status of sex objects - sorry but that is how men can be wired- it can also enforce a positive Female image.

Now, hear me out on this...

If you look at models like Sophie Howard, Lucy Pinder, Lucy Collette (pictured) or others, they're all curvy models not the stick thin androgynous models of the catwalk. Also, the Sun's "no implant" policy means they are all naturally curvy.

The other thing is a lot of these girls do a lot of charity work and use their public appearances to raise public interest and money for worthy causes. Take for example all of the hard work Peta Todd has done for Help the heroes. Seriously, she's been tireless - seriously go check it out, she's an inspiration. There's also the tours as "forces sweethearts" to Iraq and Afghanistan. It's only through their wide circulation that they're able to do this.

As I say, I've got no solutions just a few considerations. I do think however that an age limit is a good idea.

Tim Farron in the Telegraph today

In today's Telegraph, libdem president Tim Farron had his words slightly twisted and misquoted but what he said was very valid.

Firstly, affordable housing is much needed. This isn't just for the hundreds of thousands of young people who cannot afford to even take the first step onto the property ladder and lost into the black-hole of renting or those who, like me, had to tragically wait for a relative to die to be able to afford it.

It would also be invaluable for encouraging the growth and work of the lagging construction companies, more so than the puny measures at the moment which relies on homeowners having enough money to improve their houses. Lets face it, that's only going to be in affluent areas and Medway and other large urban areas are not going to be able to afford it.

We need to build 250,000 social and affordable houses by 2015. - Fact

I would also argue that we need to continue the Coalition's work in bringing "Abandoned" and unused houses back and refurbish them for new owners and tenants.

Tim goes on to suggest that funding could be found by Quantitative easing from the bank of England with Social housing bonds being handed straight to local councils and housing Associations.

Suddenly out there alot of people are worrying about the rise in council housing across the nation. Why shouldn't there be? Here in Medway it has been revealed that 17% of house residents having no bread winners and the CAB suggests that the average debt of someone who has come to them is £40k!
On top of that the average price of a house, like mine, in Gillingham with three bedrooms in a terrace is somewhere between £100-150k to buy and to rent a 4 bedroom house very similar to me its £1400 pcm! With jobs so scarce that 174 people applied for 22 places at the new Strood Tesco you can see that housing is something that people need help with.

I also think that Tim is right that the South east is where it is going to have to fall. Now I can hear other parties scoffing etc but lets be honest; the south east is beautiful, I love the Weald and rural Kent but unfortunately we do have a huge population density and something needs to be done otherwise urban centres like Medway, like Maidstone - will have slums in them and we're straight back to the Victorian era.

I did find the articles "concern" at Tim's statement about coalition with Labour interesting too. Its as if they're are trying to paint the party as another leftist threat. What was said on the topic was;

I don't see why not - of course we can work with either party, it's up to the British electorate - whoever is the most popular party has the right to form a government and we won't hinder that.

Which is what Nick said after 2010 election. If either party approaches to form a coalition we're listening, surely that's a given? Doesn't mean that we are pro Labour any more than we are Pro Tory.

There is also the criticism of the Coalition and the Conservatives. Now, I don't think that it is an attack, nor is it Tim flag waving in an attempt to attract votes for the up coming presidential election or even dare I say it(?) future leadership prospects, (I'll discuss this in another blogpost soon!) but indeed just a Libdem standing up for Libdem values. After all - we aren't the Conservative party and we have an opinion - Tim is just voicing it.

It may well be that the Prime Minister is trying to move in that direction (right) He can pick and chose his ministers but he cannot pick and choose what is in the Coalition Agreement. So that means Heathrow ain't happening. Neither is any edging away from our commitment to be the greenest Government ever.

If this is a shift right, it really is just a bit silly

Its not an attack just a statement of fact from the Libdem perspective.

So lets put down the faux right wing anger and stirring that, personally I thought, ran in the under current.

I for one, back Tim on this, for what it is worth, and agree that we are a Coalition of two different parties, with different views and its good - no wait it is better than good, lets say FANTASTIC to hear a vocal Libdem on the subject and outline differences and future policies.

Video: Nick Clegg's statement on Dropping Lords reform

Nick Clegg's press release on the end of Lords reform, the Coalition and the Liberal Democrat party.

Cleggers

Life is all about having fun, and one of the things a  lot of people have trouble with, including in political circles, is the ability to laugh at yourself.

My friend has a habbit of sending me Clegg jokes and I thought I'd share a couple:

I went in to Libdem HQ to buy a couple of Candidate badges. I went up to the desk and ask the receptionist if she has any Libdem merchandise.

Sorry we've sold out she said.

I know, but do you have any badges.


Next one:

Nick Clegg walked into a branch of HSBC to cash a cheque. As he approached the cashier he said;

Good morning, could you please cash this check for me?

Cashier: It would be be my pleasure Sir. Could you please show me your ID?

Clegg: Well I didn't bring any ID with me as I didn't think there was any need to. I am Nick Clegg the Deputy prime minister!!!!

Cashier: I'm sorry sir but with all the new regulations, monitering of the banks because of impostors and forgers ect I must insist on proof of identity.

Clegg: Just ask anyone here at the bank and they will tell you, everybody knows who I am.

Cashier: I am sorry Deputy Prime Minister but these are the bank rules and I must follow them.

Clegg: But I need this cheque cashing today.

Cashier: Well there is something you might be able to do. One day Colin Montgomery came into the bank without ID. To prove he was Colin Montgomery he pulled out his putting iron and made a beautiful shot across the bank into a cup. With that shot we knew him to be Colin Montgomery and cashed his cheque.
Another time Andy Murray came in without ID. He pulled out his tennis racquet and made a fabulous shot where the tennis ball landed in my cup. It could surely be no one else. So sir, what can you do to prove that it is you and only you, as the Deputy Prime minister?

Clegg thinks for a while and finally says; I honestly can't think of a single thing I am good at.

Cashier: Will that be large or small notes Mr Clegg?



Last one:

Angela Merkel arrives in Paris airport and reports to customs.

Customs officer: Nationality?
Merkel: German
Customs: Occupation?
Merkel: No just here for a few days.

A Royal scandal!

For the second time this month a member of the Royal family has been caught out in a state of undress and causing "embarrassment" to the Queen and the Royal family.

Personally I think it says more about today's culture than the Royal family. Take for example let's look at what happened to the Duchess of Cambridge. Kate was on holiday in a hot country and wanted an even tan so she did what millions of women have done and took her bikini top off. The Royal couple were in a private compound as well so hardly in Public.

Now, how is that a Scandal? The biggest scandal for me is that a member of the paparazzi got close enough with a camera to take the picture. If you're within Camera range you're within rifle range and the country could be mourning the loss of the second heir and his wife. Someone should be looking at that.

Further to this is that the photographs would not have been taken if there wasn't a demand within the Public domain. Why though? Will your life be really that enriched for seeing her topless? The same goes for any Hollywood or z-list reality "star" romping around naked?

I know the teenage boy in me is screaming at me but sorry little dude I grew up and so should society really. By even paying these pictures any attention we're encouraging mercenary photographers to be unscrupulous and invade people's privacy. Would you like someone to photograph you on holiday or publish naked pictures of your wife for the whole world to see?

I hate to reinvoke the ghost of Princess Diana but it seems as if a repentant media learned nothing. The woman's privacy was invaded at every turn completely unsolicited and now history is repeating itself and not just with Kate but with her sister Pippa. Let us be honest Pippa is a very attractive woman but she isn't a royal, nor a celebrity, just a normal human being so why hound her?

As for Prince Harry; he's what? 27 years old, single and free. Why can't he go on a lads holiday to Vegas, get a little sloshed and misbehave? I'd say that I disapprove of such behaviour but I'm only jealous!

Compared to some of his ancestors Harry is a saint. The Prince Regent's behaviour is well documented, one of Victoria's sons (I forget which one) is implicated as Jack the Ripper by some theorists (he wasn't), Edward VIII is accused of sympathy with Hitler etc...

My point being, this is nothing, nothing but an attack on a young married couple's privacy and when or if you see the pictures I hope a small amount of guilt will nag at you for being curious enough to look.

Nick Clegg stands up for common sense for Chatham

Yes that's right.

Nick Clegg is fighting for common sense in Chatham and many places like it by standing against Boundary reforms.

How can Chatham railway station not be in Chatham & Aylesford constituency?

How can Luton & Wayfield, in the heartland of Chatham be part of Gillingham & Rainham?

These arbitrary moves have been carried out without many people being consulted based on current population size.

On the up side, it cuts some 60 odd MPs from Parliament and mean each MP is equal meaning in net terms each voter is now equal.

But the price is splitting up communities just to make up the numbers, it is like creative accountancy that by estimates will leave David Cameron's Conservatives twenty seats better off. How is that fair?

Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats have seen this arbitrary carve up and its effect on Communities and ---

Sorry as much as I want to continue in this vein I cannot. Although the arbitrary splitting of communities is an excellent argument against reform the main reason for Libdem opposition is in retaliation for the Tory rebellion against Lords reform.

OK, Lords reform doesn't seem like an essential reform but neither is boundary reform. Both are in the name of change, change that is supposed to make Britain fairer. Lords reform has and will be exceptionally important to us, it's something the Conservatives (and World War One) stopped us last time and now a handful of Tory rebels have blocked one of our key policies, one of the key agreements in the Coalition negotiations.

So maybe Clegg and the party are arguably being childish but they're also standing up for places like Chatham and surely that is worth at least a "thanks"?