So after this nightmare of bad attitude by police and military what you get
is the answer to all of these problems. Privitize and do away with the
only control that the average person has (elections). Well that is an
elitist assumption if I ever heard one. Do they have a draft in the
English military? Oh yes the other bad thing was education. Unions came
in for a little compliment but not much. Well over here privitization of
health care has caused a local medical teacher I know to recommend that the
best deal for his specialty is the military or socialized medicine. Not
much pay but the perks are good and the early retirement provides payment
for medical school expenses and gives a capital nest egg once retired for
further work. You can also do research if you are so inclined. Oh yes and
they are officers. Gee Keith are you really that much of an aristocrat?
Or has English culture just folded up its collector's tent and gone awol?
Maybe they need to drag old Jeremy through the streets of London and let him
see what he has created and then bury him.
By the way I know a nice young couple that has just moved to Bath and is
interested in choruses.
Regards,
REH
----- Original Message -----
From: "Keith Hudson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Ed Weick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2001 4:39 PM
Subject: Re: Musings on the FTAA
> 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]
> ________________________________________________________________________
