Hi Ed,
Yes, I was a bit snide about our police, I'm afraid. But they're in a
pretty poor state actually. Perhaps your police forces are better than
ours. Over here, there's no doubt that the calibre of the ordinary recruit
has been steadily going downhill for 30-odd years now. (They're even going
to appoint recruits who have minor court records.) In fact, we're tending
to have a police force which is a reflection of the overall job situation
-- that is, a widening separation between the bright and the not-so-bright.
(Like the army, too, thinking about it.) Because of the declining quality
of the average recruit and the shortage of good officers coming through
from the ranks, the Home Office started to recruit "fast-track" candidates
from the universities some years ago. After a minimum period "on the beat"
these get promoted into comfortable desk jobs very quickly -- much resented
by the ordinary "copper", of course. Once in position, these bright sparks
then start to bring in the latest fancy management doctrines. Then, when
they get promoted, and other fast-trackers take their place, the latest
fashion is brought in.
The result is that the old-time bobby has become ever more confused and
demoralised, and a further consequence of this is that the Police
Federation (that is, the trade union) has become increasingly militant.
Because policemen cannot go on strike, their militancy takes other forms,
such as wide-scale illness and massive early retirements for medical
reasons on the basis of stress -- and taking with them quite substantial
compensation. Recently The Times newspaper carried out an audit of
policemen in several boroughs in London and found only one-third on duty!
The rest were on leave, or ill, or attending courses, or something . . . .
Corruption is widespread, too, particularly in the large cities where drug
pushing is highly organised and needs the "support" of well-placed
policemen taking back-handers. Police forces in "sink estates" on the
outskirts of the large cities hardly ever patrol there, and racial attacks
on immigrants are rarely prosecuted. In some of the most poverty-struck
housing estates, the local councils employ private vigilantes because the
police are completely inept. In other places, vigilantism (euphemistically
known as "Neighbourhood Watch") is growing and many local hoodlums are
actually kidnapped and ditched elsewhere.
In Northern Ireland, the police force (the Royal Ulster Constabulary) never
enter Republican neighbourhoods except when driving through fast in
armour-plated vehicles. The peace there is kept by vigilante groups. Unlike
other city neighbourhoods where drugs are rife, there is no
drug-trafficking and hardly any crime. Drug traffickers get killed and
petty thieves and burglars are warned once and then, if they persist, are
"knee-capped" (shot in the leg or something similar). But, then, it'sd a
well-known secret that there are also similar no-go neighbourhoods in one
or two large cities in England where the police never enter, except in
coach-loads, and only then, to pick up bodies. Murders are rarely
investigated in those places.
Actually, I think that many ordinary London policemen are quite looking
forward to the May Day demonstrations so they can lay about them with their
batons with permission and relieve the boredom of their jobs.
Yes, I'm sure there are still many decent and conscientious policemen, but
they're a disappearing breed. There's little doubt in my mind, that the
policeforce, like state schools and the National Health Service is now
breaking down and will become increasingly privatised in the coming years.
All sorts of isolated "experiments" are taking place in all these public
services and, as morale sinks lower, there'll come a time when
privatisation will suddenly accelerate -- and then we'll be in an entirely
different world in which the inefficiencies of the developed nation-state
will be fully exposed.
Keith H
At 08:55 26/04/01 -0400, you wrote:
>Hi Keith,
>
>I will try to reply with more later, but for the moment I must say that I
>like the terms "spikeys" and "fluffies". The latter is an especially good
>term to apply to Canada's political left in its current state of absolute
>disarray. It was out in some force (if you can call it that) in Quebec
>City.
>
>I would add that I'm not so sure that the intelligence of the police is
>below that of many of the demonstrators. Watching the latter bounce around
>trying to bring down the Quebec City fence had me wondering if they were all
>body and no brains. One police officer who handled himself extremely well
>was Mike Gaudet, the spokesperson for the RCMP, whom I happen to know when
>he is not in uniform. He is a highly intelligent and socially conscious
>person.
>
>Ed
>
>> At 11:42 25/04/01 -0400, you wrote:
>> > The tear gas has cleared. The politicians and their advisors have
>gone
>> >home. The kids have gone back to their classes or wherever else they
>came
>> >from, though a few are still being held in Quebec City.
>>
>> Well, all may be quiet in Quebec City, but we (that is, Londoners) are
>> expecting the biggest riots yet, now being known generically as "S-26"
>> (after the September 26, 2000 riot in Prague) on 1 May. Enormous numbers
>of
>> police are already being trained and kitted out with riot shields and
>> batons and so forth. They don't stand a chance of keeping the peace, of
>> course, their intelligence being generally below that of the
>demonstrators.
>> Their plans (from what we learn in the media) are to protect about 200
>> monuments, McDonalds' and the like in the City of London and, to do that,
>> they are going to plant a few police in each place. The "spikeys" (the
>> generic name for the real trouble-makers) will wheel about
>> opportunistically, coordinating their activities with mobile phones, while
>> the police, only instructable from the centre, will be slow to react. I
>> think we can expect the worst riots yet. The whole thing is being charged
>> up to high voltage by the politicians. I wouldn't be surprised if someone
>> dies this time.
>>
>> We seem to have a new tradition in the making -- Seattle, Melbourne,
>> London's Parliament Square, Quebec City, and now back to London. Spikeys
>> must be spending an awful lot on airline tickets in order to join the
>> home-grown and relatively peaceful "fluffies" in one capital after
>another.
>>
>> What's the answer? There isn't one within the present terms of reference.
>> How can there be when almost every major politician in Europe has been
>> tainted with suspicions of corruption on a large scale in each case --
>> Kohl, Schmidt, Mitterand, not to mention the relatives (such as the
>alleged
>> backhanders to Thatcher's son, Mark)? Political scandals follow one
>> another like cars off the production line. How can there be an answer when
>> important political decisions are taken in secret according to hidden
>> agendas (as is now occurring with Foot and Mouth Disease in the UK)
>without
>> consulting the experts and with no public debate?
>>
>> No wonder that only a minority of young adults bother to vote in General
>> Elections (only 44% of 18-24 yr olds last time, and probably about 33% in
>> the one due to be held in June). Within three or four more General
>> Elections, only a minority of the whole electorate will bother to vote.
>> This is not a short term phenomenon -- it has been going on for decades.
>> This trend, plus the riots, are clear signs that the present political
>> system is coming to an end and has got to change radically. This is
>> Chartism of the 19th century all over again.
>>
>> Keith Hudson
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> What’s it
>> >all mean? From the media reports, I gathered that much of the discussion
>> >among leaders focused on the politics of a more closely linked western
>> >hemisphere, not on the economics, though economics may well have
>dominated
>> >discussion in the back rooms. Politicians appeared to give particular
>> >attention to the so-called "Democracy Clause", which was intended to
>> >establish conditions that would exclude non-democratically elected
>> >countries from the FTAA. It would seem that, as long as a country could
>> >demonstrate that its leadership was elected, it was in, regardless of
>how
>> >elections were held or rigged, how power was distributed, and who had
>> >control behind the scenes. Dictatorships like Cuba, even if benevolent,
>> >were out. The economics will undoubtedly prove more troublesome. The
>> >protesters on the street were probably right in seeing the FTAA as a
>means
>> >of making it easier for corporate capital to move from the richer parts
>of
>> >the western hemisphere, mainly the United States, into the poorer parts
>> >where labour was cheaper and restrictive environmental and social
>> >regulations were fewer. However, the protesters were wrong in making
>this
>> >look all bad. Poor countries would benefit and so might the rich. For
>> >example, Jamaica is alleged to have become a major transshipment point
>for
>> >drugs moving from South America to the United States not only because
>the
>> >drug trade is extremely lucrative but also because young people in the
>> >vast shanty towns of Kingston can find little else to do. Giving them
>some
>> >alternatives and raising the standard of living even a little might do
>> >something positive in stemming the flow of drugs. Providing more jobs at
>> >home could also stem the brain-drain which Jamaica and other Caribbean
>> >countries are experiencing. As another example, people who must live in
>> >the huge and growing slums of Sao Paulo have a strong work ethic and
>will
>> >do anything legal or illegal, to keep themselves and their families
>alive.
>> >They try to learn English in little classes held at night to get jobs in
>> >downtown hotels. Even exploitative foreign investment would be welcome.
>> >Unions were out in some force in Quebec City. They do not want to see
>> >capital move from the United States and Canada to Jamaica and Brazil. It
>> >means a loss of jobs for their members and a further decline in their
>> >powers. However, the movement of capital to cheaper labour abroad has
>been
>> >only one of a number of factors accounting for the decline of unions,
>and
>> >not likely the most important factor. The industrial structure of
>advanced
>> >economies, the nature of work, and the character of employer-employee
>> >relations, have all changed greatly over the past few decades and would
>> >all seem to have eroded labour power. But the most important thing about
>> >the FTAA is that it is unlikely to result in anything very substantial
>by
>> >2005, the target date set at Quebec City. Indeed, it will probably not
>> >result in very much that could not happen under bi- or tri-lateral
>> >arrangements. There are just too many problems and differences among the
>> >countries of the Americas to permit the establishment of something
>unified
>> >and workable. They vary enormously in wealth, income distribution,
>> >education, the composition of populations, and other such factors.
>Efforts
>> >have been made to establish freer trade. The most notable example is
>> >Mercosur, the trading block which includes Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay
>and
>> >Uruguay. At present, however, Mercosur appears to be in some trouble.*
>> >The FTAA will most certainly not result in anything resembling the
>European
>> > Union. Member nations of the EU were originally much closer to enjoying
>a
>> >similar standard of living than are countries of the Americas. They have
>> >put years of work into fiscal restructuring. They were willing to
>> >relinquish important powers of governance, including monetary policy, to
>> >central authorities. There is no way that one can see anything similar
>for
>> >the Americas in the next few decades. * (See:
>> >http://www.stratfor.com/home/giu/archive/042401.asp#Cavallo) Ed Weick
>> ___________________________________________________________________
>>
>> Keith Hudson, General Editor, Calus <http://www.calus.org>
>> 6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England
>> Tel: +44 1225 312622; Fax: +44 1225 447727;
>> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> ________________________________________________________________________
>
>
>
___________________________________________________________________
Keith Hudson, General Editor, Calus <http://www.calus.org>
6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England
Tel: +44 1225 312622; Fax: +44 1225 447727;
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
________________________________________________________________________
