What is the job of an Opposition MP? To hold the government to account. And this applies double to a shadow minister. So why was Damian Green arrested - and arrested under counter-terrorism laws?
His supposed crime is “aiding and abetting misconduct in public office,” by which we can translate into English as “receiving leaks from civil servants”. But it’s not like this is (a) a new thing, or (b) that only civil servants leak - after all, the ship of state is the only ship that leaks from the top…
On being released after being held for nine hours, Damian Green said:
I emphatically deny I have done anything wrong.
I have many times made public information that the Government wanted to keep secret - information that the public has a right to know.
In a democracy, opposition politicians have a duty to hold the Government to account. I was elected to the House of Commons precisely to do that and I certainly intend to continue doing so.
No-one who believes in parliamentary democracy can agree with this arrest. It’s not like he has been involved releasing information that we don’t have a right to know. The BBC has a list of the relevant leaks:
The November 2007 revelation that the home secretary knew the Security Industry Authority had granted licences to 5,000 illegal workers, but decided not to publicise it.
The February 2008 news that an illegal immigrant had been employed as a cleaner in the House of Commons.
A whips’ list of potential Labour rebels in the vote on plans to increase the pre-charge terror detention limit to 42 days.
A letter from the home secretary warning that a recession could lead to a rise in crime.
Exciting stuff, huh? A terrorist could have made really good use of that information! Not.
What does make no sense is the government denial that either Gordon Brown or Jacqui Smith - the Home Secretary - had any prior knowledge of the arrest, even though dvance warning was given to David Cameron, Boris Johnson and both the Speaker and Serjeant at Arms of the House of Commons. So they thought to tell all these people, but not the Home Secretary or Prime Minister of the arrest of a senior MP? Rubbish.
David Cameron is standing behind Damian Green, because he has done nothing wrong. His arrest for receiving leaked information is the hallmark of a police state. He’s not a terrorist, he’s a politician. And he was doing his job.
The National Black Police Association invited the wrong David Davis to speak at their conference. They had wanted former shadow home secretary David Davis, but instead invited David Davies, another Conservative MP with an interest in law and order (being a member of the home affairs select committee and a special constable).
And a speech they didn’t expect to receive:
To me, it’s a shame membership of the NBPA is open only to those of black, Asian or Middle Eastern origin.
It could be argued that this is explictly racist, in that it bars white people, and implcitly racist in suggesting they care less about racism.
Indeed it could. You certainly couldn’t have a National White Police Association without being accused of being racist, so why should it be acceptable to have an ethnic minorities only one?
Rather than basing an association on race, religion, or gender and not allowing any officer to join as a matter of course they should be an association for equal treatment of all police officers. For as long as white officers are excluded, the NBPA are racist.
It seems that because they are black, they feel that they cannot be racist. But racism isn’t just white to black, but can be in any and every direction.
David Davies was right to say what he has, and the reason the NBPA didn’t like it because it’s a truth that they didn’t want to admit, and didn’t think that anyone would dare to point it out to them.
The saying “lies, damn lies, and statistics” has never run truer than now, with the Home Secretaries statement that a 22% rise in violent crime - such as serious assault, murder, attempted murder and manslaughter - still means that crime is going down.
Why and how can Jacqui Smith make this claim? Because, apparently, “police forces across England and Wales have been under-recording serious violent crime for at least a decade”. Which is precisely what we the people have been saying.
Yet it’s just an exercise in paper-shuffling, as what has happened was
the result of new guidance given to police in April on how they define and record the crime of “GBH with intent”.
Previously, and for at least ten years, many forces had recorded that crime under a lesser category if no “grievous bodily harm” had been incurred, whereas the question of intent should have taken priority.
To pour more cold water on the claim that crime is falling:
If it had not been for the guidance… the 13 forces which had submitted estimates said that they would only have seen a 5-per cent year-on-year increase in GBH with intent.
So violent crime is up anyway. Just by a smaller amount.
One question that isn’t answered is the obvious one: why aren’t the same designations used by all police forces? Surely that would have been the intelligent way to do it…
Can we now trust any statistics published by the government? The answer is simple: even less than before. Unfortunately, sometimes their is no choice.
Eight minutes per hour. Eight out of sixty. 13.8%.
Home Office data for the 43 police forces in England and Wales show that just 3.8 per cent of police time was spent on patrol in 2007-08.
It means that in a typical 12-hour shift worked by an officer, an average of only one hour and 39 minutes is spent on the beat.
Time spent on patrol has fallen in recent years. In 2004-5 it accounted for 15.2 per cent of police time, but the figure declined steadily to a low-point of just 13.2 per cent in 2006-7, before recovering very slightly last year. (The Telegraph)
Absolutely ridiculous. Our police service should not be so hampered by red tape and paperwork that they spend such a ridiculously low amount of their time actually walking the beat and actively protecting us.
They must be freed of paperwork, of which filling out paperwork related to incidents taking up about 50% of their time*. When paperwork is this important to a policeman’s time, one can but fear for our safety.
* 64% of a policeman’s time is spent on “frontline duties”, which includes paperwork relating to a incident. And 13.8% of their time is spent on patrol. You do the maths.
All frontline policemen are to be issued with Taser stun guns to confront and disable suspects. These fire a 50,000 volt charge though the body, disabling anyone who gets hit. Jacqui Smith, Home Secretary, said:
Taser is making a real difference on our streets, not only keeping the public safe but also protecting our police officers. I am committed to giving our police the weapons they need to get crime off our streets.
I do not believe that Tasers can make our streets safer. They give the police an extra weapon, yes, and one that is non-lethal. But the widespread roll-out of such weapons - for they are indeed weapons - encourages criminals to get them, or an equivalent, in order to maintain the status quo with the police.
What is wrong with the police having as their standard weapon what effectively amounts to a stick? All frontline officers do not require use of tasers. The more weapons the police have, the more criminals require in order break the law “safely” - and so more innocent people [and policemen] are wounded or die.
First they brought in the “plastic plod”, with little training and even fewer powers to put “a police presence” on the streets and save money at the same time.
Yet that failed. And yet they wonder why.
So they decided to go even cheaper, with civilian police. No, not special constables, who plenty of training and powers, but people whose only qualification is the fact that they have a little red, white and black badge which reads “Community Safety Scheme Accredited” in tiny letters.
They have no training, and their powers are limited to being able to:
issue fines for truancy, rowdiness, graffiti, dog-fouling and riding a bike on a pavement
take cigarettes and alcohol from teenagers
direct traffic, and
ensure abandoned vehicles are removed.
This is just asking for trouble and for confrontations. If one of these 1,406 “accredited persons” with their ickle badge tried to issue me with a fine, they’d get told in no uncertain terms where they could shove it.
What we need is actual police on the streets. Policemen and women on the streets promote a feeling of safety. Policing on the cheap does nothing except alienate people from the law.
Over the decade since that tough on crime supremo took over, police recorded crime is up 7% (1997-98 to 2007-08). And when you probe beneath the totals, crimes of violence turn out to be up much MUCH more…
What’s that? Ah yes, of course - we’re not allowed to make that comparison because during the last ten years, the Home Office changed its counting rules for recorded crime not once, but twice. Twice. Is it any wonder nobody trusts the stats? (Burning our money)
Measuring crime stats is imprecise anyway - and always underestimates the level of crime because it is simply recorded crime that makes these statistics.
There is always the “dark figure” of crime, the crimes that are not reported to the police for various reasons - such as fear of reprisals from the criminals and concern over whether the police could or would bother to do anything about it. And with the way that the police appear to do so little about it at the moment - appearing to be more concerned with thought crime - the dark figure is inevitably huge.
To add to this is the lack of respect that is now given to the police by many sections of society, as exampled by this story:
Two police officers were attacked by a mob in south London after they asked a 15-year-old girl to pick up her litter.
One officer was dragged to the ground and kicked while the other was bitten by a girl who jumped on his back. (BBC)
How can it be claimed that crime is truly down when police officers are being attacked in this way?
Unintentionally, I’m continuing a theme from last week - words that might cause offence.
I’ve read a couple of posts over the past week (from Nickopotamus and GeekLawyer) highlighting the news that the police themselves have taken action over a member of the public allegedly offending a group of individuals. An unamed 15-year old has been served summons by the City of London police under s5 of the Public Order Act 1986 -“displaying any sign …which is threatening, abusive, or insulting … likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress”.
What did the sign say then?
Scientology is not a religion, it is a dangerous cult
"I like the way he handles a broad range of subjects in an engaging and friendly manner. Definitely one of the good guys." - Croydonian
"Right-Wing blogging from a UK student. A fresh perspective on a plethora of events with a healthy interest in shelf-stacking to boot." - Cityunslicker
"One of the more depressing aspects of blogging and the modern world is seeing reams of text on a page. The Thunder Dragon's mixture of politics and fun posts, with good illustrations and quickly made points makes his blog an accessible and fun place to discuss and think about politics...
The Thunderdragon is one of the rising stars of conservative blogging" - Gracchi
"Already an A lister, technical whiz Thunder Dragon shows that not all A listers are stuck up stats groupies who’d sell their grandmothers for more traffic. And he’s on Iain Dale’s list for a reason – he’s simply a fine blogger, scoring highly on the ten point Dale criteria and with his finger always on the political pulse. He's also the technical brains behind Blogpower, along with Ian at Imagined Community." - James Higham
"The ThunderDragon consistently provides an interesting and enjoyable read - always entertaining and often insightful. His writing may even give us a foretaste of our political future. Stick with him. After all, time will cure his youth." - Tom Paine
"Thunder Dragon - Provocative and inventive, especially for this post about how to sort out the USA." - Matt Wardman
The National Black Police Association invited the 
The saying “lies, damn lies, and statistics” has never run truer than now, with the Home Secretaries statement that a 
Quiz time!
All frontline policemen are to be 
First they brought in the “plastic plod”, with little training and even fewer powers to put “a police presence” on the streets and save money at the same time.
