Work as if you live in the early days of a

Better Nation

Archive for category Crime

Let’s not pretend that we don’t understand the rioters

Aug 9

Posted by Jeff in Crime | 23 Comments

I sometimes tell a story from my High School years that still gets a good laugh. It involves myself and a few friends throwing snowballs at cars from a fence at the bottom of a big grassy hill in a park. We had a pretty rubbish aim but for one poor driver, each snowball hit the target – the driver-side window which was rolled down halfway. We thought nothing of it after the cheers and carried on until we heard a roar from behind us. Said driver was careering down the hill towards us, having driven his car (deliberately) through the fence at the top of the hill in a rage. My friends ran off to the side and got away easily. I, stupidly, ran up the hill, one slip no doubt resulting in a well-deserved beating from this man. A series of garden runs followed to get away and we survived intact. What great fun. We were fourteen.

The violence and thuggery that we are seeing on London’s streets is of course a far cry from throwing a few snowballs; however, we disrespected this man’s car as much as the rioters disrespected a family’s furniture shop last night and we disrespected wherever it was he might have been going as much as rioters are disrespecting the impact of families being homeless.

The activity over the past few nights has been mindless but it is tiring and frustrating to be the same person for the entirety of our lives and getting out of our minds is something that we all do. Getting drunk on a weekend night, playing Grand Theft Auto, blasting music at top volume, grooving like a maniac on the dancefloor or even just going to the cinema. Escaping ourselves has become a modern necessity and for some people that escape is less easy than it is for others.

I’m no psychologist so I won’t embarrass myself by trying to talk about the correlation between a lack of strong parental figures and a disrespect for private property, police and other people and the frustration and boredom that that can bring but families that have broken down in some way shape or form have to come into this somewhere. A marriage tax allowance won’t fix it but the police asking the public ‘Where are your kids?’ is getting closer to a solution.

Don’t get me wrong, the violence and damage that was visible last night, the two nights before and, no doubt, for the next few evenings is indefensible and intolerable. It is a choice of whether you’re with Cameron, Boris and May or the rioters and I am firmly with the former camp, whatever they choose to do. I’ve believed for a while that gangs of youths up to no good should not be indulged with the softly-softly policing approach that is no doubt employed with good intentions but, rather, these groups should be hit for six by a no-nonsense police hardcore to get them off the streets, interrogated individually to understand what drives them to cause problems and then solutions proposed by the state accordingly.

I see no reason why similar tactics shouldn’t be employed tonight including, if need be and safely employed, water cannons, tazers, rubber bullets, the army and tear gas. Kids throwing snowballs is one thing but David Cameron is back at the helm now, a COBRA meeting is taking place as I type and the kids need to know they don’t run the streets.

So, mindless violence? Yes. Understandable? In our heart of hearts, it has to be a yes.

Cast your mind back to when you were in your teens and I’d be surprised if, even a tiny bit, you couldn’t appreciate how fun it might be to play cat and mouse with police and be on tv each night.

So you thought it was all over?

Jul 19

Posted by The Burd in Crime, Holyrood, Society, Sport | 1 Comment

Eek!  Whatever happened to the close season?  Less of a stop, more of a pause really.  The last football season ended with the Scottish Cup final played on 21 May and the new one starts this Saturday 23 July – eight short weeks apart.

There’s something faintly obscene about this rush to return to winter pastimes in mid summer.  And given the inglorious end to last season, and events this summer, a longer period of contemplation and respite might have done us all the world of good.  But no, common sense and football are distant companions these days.

The legislation might have been put on hold for more considered deliberation but the JAG – that’s Joint Action Group for the uninitiated – on Football has met and agreed 40 – count em! – points of action which aim to “improve the game”.  It’s a slightly misleading headline, because having scoured the recommendations on your behalf, dear reader, nowhere do I see proposals to clone Kenny Dalglish.

No, these recommendations aim to improve the conduct of football by players and spectators alike.  Some of it is so obvious the burd is frankly perturbed that it isn’t already commonplace.  Indeed, it is remarkable that after years of huffing and puffing by the powers that be, to the effect that the computer says no, the SPL has agreed upfront to significant changes in the scheduling of matches.

New Year’s Day football for the Old Firm is a thing of the past – the traditional derby will now be played on 28 December.  The police will have a say on the scheduling of the post-split Old Firm clash, Chief Police Officers will be consulted before the fixtures list is published each year to identify and consider any problematic fixtures and there will be only one mid week fixture round after the annual split.  This last one is welcome news for fans who get fed up being expected to get from one end of the country to the other on a working evening, just because an SPL computer deemed it necessary.

Of course, all of this is fine and dandy in theory but while the JAG can try to control a range of elements, there is one – the weather – which is sadly still outwith its control.  It better not snow on 28 December or the weather gods will have the First Minister to answer to.

Other proposals smack a little of of being seen to act instead of just acting.  Apparently in order to co-ordinate better policing of games we need a new national football policing unit with a wee bung of nearly £2 million to help it on its way.  Couldn’t they just all pick up the phone and speak to each other before and after “key games”?

Moreover, did we need to drag the SFA to a big meeting to get them to agree to develop rules preventing comment by club officials on appointed referees before matches, to reintroduce a Laws of the Game/refereeing decisions area to its website and to develop a “formal reporting protocol” for referees to “ensure absolute clarity and consistency in the reporting of all match related incidents”?

But for the main part, these are well-meaning, thoughtful efforts not only to clean up the vilest aspects of our national game, but also for the first time, attempt to link its role and impact on some of our other less edifying national pastimes.  Many of the proposed measures take a long term view and consider how we can change the culture surrounding football so that it can make a better contribution to the common weal.

Especially welcome is recognition of the role of supporters and bodies like the Supporters’ Trust in reshaping this culture and also of the needs of the long-suffering, well behaved majority.  For example. the coaching badge will contain a spectator safety element in the future, supporters will get their own code of conduct, minimum standard provisions will feature in all ticket sale conditions, and a better understanding of the role and responsibilities of police and stewards inside stadia will be developed.  The burd respectfully suggests that the first lesson should be that shrugging shoulders disinterestedly when a complaint is made about offensive fan behaviour is not the required response.

Anyone hoping to see a permanent marginalisation of football to the sidelines of life should look away now.  The JAG recommends that “there is early identification of the role that football/sport can play when initiatives are being considered at policy level, and that consideration is given to the early classification of the type of programme involved (Prevention, Early Intervention, Enforcement, Rehabilitation), supported by accurate identification of the target audience – recognising that unacceptable behaviour occurs throughout Scotland.”  Nope me neither.

Roughly translated, football can play a positive role in a wider social policy context.  Thus, one of the recommendations suggests that offenders who are also football supporters should be required to attend football-based programmes as part of their rehabilitation.  Also welcome is the plan to undertake research into the relationship between football and domestic abuse, as are the proposals to restrict alcohol consumption.

But there is a gaping silence at the heart of this plan:  it fails to address the need for football itself to clean up its act.  For years now, players have gotten away with behaving badly:  the cases that reach our eyes and ears for drug misuse, inappropriate sexual behaviour, drunkenness, speeding and the like are only the tip of a very big iceberg.   For every role model who is the archetypal family man, there is a team mate who indulges in all the excesses a large wage and a privileged position confer.  Whenever one oversteps the mark, ranks are closed, excuses are made and indiscretions are glossed over.

To fail to address this aspect of football, to leave it to clubs to agree a single code of conduct for everyone in Scottish football, to not make a clear and firm statement on the need for those inside football to adopt a zero tolerance approach to violence, drinking, inappropriate sexual behaviour and law-breaking represents a missed opportunity at an open goal.

Tags: , ,

British political debate – RIP (1258 – 2011)

May 19

Posted by Jeff in Crime | 71 Comments

The slow strangulation of political debate in Britain continued apace yesterday with the depressingly tiresome ‘debate’ over Ken Clarke’s comments in a radio interview. Victoria Derbyshire’s hectoring of the Justice Minister and the furore that then engulfed a spluttering, garbled explanation of a nonetheless valid idea may just have sounded the death knell of decent triangulated policy discussion between politicians, the media and the public.

This isn’t even about the issues any more, the game (for there is no other word for it) that politicians must play now involves the following rules – ‘you shall be pressed, prodded and probed 24/7, good ideas will be largely ignored, and if you step outside the parameters of what we consider to be appropriate, even for one moment and as a result of an innocently garbled explanation, we will seek to destroy you’. Twitter is the main culprit of course, that rolling, trolling vessel of visceral huffiness was in full swing yesterday, and depressingly so.

There is a group out there who want, perfectly understandably, for rape, all rape regardless of circumstance or supposed mitigation, to carry a heavy sentence. Ken Clarke is arguing that, to free up prison space and court time, some lesser crimes can carry a shorter sentence if a guilty plea is offered, and some rape cases may fall within that range. It’s a great opening for a great debate and, amidst the outrage, I have read some interesting, thought-provoking pieces on either side of the argument. 

I can’t say this is an area that I have much prior knowledge of but I have to say that I lean towards Ken Clarke’s approach to the problem. It’s all very well holding out for the strictest of punishments for those who commit rape but with lamentable conviction rates of 4%-6%, that doesn’t seem to be working so well. A clearly distressed rape victim was also on the same Radio Five Live show that Ken took part in and her point was that her attacker was released too early and allowed to commit a similar crime. A harrowing account and it is difficult to argue against but a shorter sentence being better than no sentence is a valid, if not necessarily always convincing, argument the other way.

As for the comments that Clarke made and the rebuttal that all rapes are as serious as each other, that is surely not the case when any crime has a sliding scale of seriousness that can be applied and requires a judge and jury to make sense of, not to mention a sliding scale of punishments that can be given out. Highly emotive the subject matter may be but the country, and the media in particular, needs to find a way for our political leaders to discuss issues without facing directionless outrage and knee-jerk calls to resign. Again I lament the garbage, the noise that Twitter fuels itself with day in and day out. Some say politics doesn’t ‘get’ the Internet; I simply say the Internet is often too immature for politics. 

That’s not to say that politicians are entirely blameless. Ed Miliband is probably thinking that he had a good day yesterday because he managed to request that a Cabinet Minister resign at PMQs. Frankly the Labour leader should be ashamed of the cynical opportunism that he has displayed and the race to the bottom that he is partaking in. 

During the Labour leadership contest, Ed stated that “when Ken Clarke says we need to look at short sentences in prison because of high re-offending rates, I’m not going to say he’s soft on crime”. Where was that open-mindedness and willingness to be constructive yesterday when the news cameras were rolling and cheap soundbites were on the table? I’m a voter up for grabs but I was failed to be inspired by Iain Gray in opposition and I remain uninspired by Ed Miliband’s alternative to the coalition so far. Labour needs to learn that attacking the Government of the day is only one side of the coin, they need to promote what their alternative argument is or else voters like myself will assume there isn’t one.

So how does this come about? Well, the best that I can come up with is that some people just enjoy being outraged. If someone claims to be angry while still believing that Clarke considers all rape to be a serious crime then I don’t know how that can be reconciled. Either that or some people have a pre-conceived notion of who and what a Conservative is and they will take any opportunity to cement that view. People may say ‘but we didn’t put words in Clarke’s mouth’ but what did he say? That date rape and sex with someone underage are different to forced, violent attacks against the person’s will? Well, they are different, hence their having different definitions and different words required to describe them. Should that difference be reflected and recognised the courts? Is a date rape attacker less likely to commit the crime again after a few years in prison compared to a more physically violent attacker? Obviously I don’t know but that’s part of the necessary debate that should be taking place but many, Ed Miliband included, are ducking it because they’d rather just paint Clarke as a bogeyman.

For me, this is a different situation to a similar furore surrounding former Conservative MSP Bill Aitken earlier this year, the difference being that that situation seemed to involve a suggestion of what women were doing in a certain area anyway giving the impression that they were partly at fault for what happened to them whereas today’s debate is strictly surrounding what sentences should be handed out for which crimes. Bill certainly had to resign, Ken absolutely does not.

If anyone outside the coalition believes that the extension of plea bargains is a bad idea then argue it, if they believe we should pay for more prisons argue for it, if they believe rape (under any circumstances) is so serious a crime that it should carry significant jail sentences they should argue for it but if you sit back with no contributing ideas of your own and only choose to get involved when someone is perceived as having slipped up, then shame on you I’m afraid.

The bottom line is, at around 5%, conviction rates for rape cases are abysmal and I for one don’t believe that 95% of people who bring charges (predominantly women) are just making stuff up. The Conservatives first contribution to the area was to suggest men accused of rape should be anonymous which is a spectacular missed opportunity at fixing the main, substantial problem. That surely has to remain the focus of this issue if the scourge of rape and sexual assault, so long a taboo subject, is to be improved upon. 

Ken Clarke, albeit indirectly, is showing real grit and leadership by getting closer to the nub of the issue and is taking his argument to the public via the airwaves. Even if his plans are misguided, he deserves a coherent argument the other way at least, not his head in a vice and calls for resignation.

We need an evidence based approach to crime

Apr 25

Posted by Guest Blog in Crime, Elections, Holyrood | 5 Comments

We managed to hassle yet another candidate in the upcoming election into guesting for us here at Better Nation.  Today we’ve got Callum Leslie, the Lib Dem candidate for Mid-Fife & Glenrothes, writing about his experience of a hustings and the issues of crime and justice.

 

Callum LeslieI was at a hustings a week or so ago in my constituency, and the difficult question of crime came up.

The Tory candidate Allan Smith said that short-term sentences should be re-introduced, so that the public can see that criminals are being punished.

Clare Baker, Labour, said that minimum sentences for carrying a knife were the answer, as people were scared.

Tricia Marwick, the incumbant SNP MSP…well, I’m not entirely sure what she said. She talked about the SNP having delivered (disputably) 1000 extra police officers, and crime being at a 32 year low.

All of these answers are all very well. Very good politicians’ answers. However, not one of them actually said what they would do to reduce crime further, and how what they suggested would do so.

Allan and I clashed first on short-term sentencing. Typical Tory posturing, accusing community sentencing and other alternatives as ‘soft-touch’, when in actual fact they are far from it. Many offenders choose to dodge community sentences and go to prison instead, as they see it as an easier option. Community payback, where they have to be up at the crack of dawn, work hard all day, and be in their homes all evening. What’s the difference between that and prison? In prison they have better access to drugs. In prison they have more recreational time. In prison they can learn the skills which make them more hardened, violent criminals.

I have studied prison and the alternatives heavily throughout my education, and my argument is backed up by cold hard statistics – two thirds of offenders in Polmont Young Offenders Institute have been there before. 79% of people sent to jail for non-violent crime re-offend within two years.

Compare this with the alternatives, and depending on the scheme re-offending rates can be as much as 30% lower. Restorative justice in particular is effective with young offenders, as it forces them to understand the severity and impact of their crime through meeting the victim. A pilot of this in Northern Ireland saw re-offending rates a third lower than those put in prison.

The Labour and Tory policy of mandatory sentences for anyone carrying a knife, which the Tories seemed to have mysteriously backed down on, is simply ludicrous. Prison doesn’t work. All the evidence points to it. The Labour party can talk about peoples’ fears, and using emotive language all they like, as Clare tried to do at the hustings, but at the end of the day they cannot say that their policy will reduce crime. Prison isn’t a deterrent – if it was, re-offending wouldn’t be so high.

Where do they propose we put these 4000, and it is 4000, extra people? A Labour councillor waffled on to me afterwards about converting prison municipal buildings, but I doubt there is room for another 4000 people in our already overcrowded prison system. Our newest prison is already at around 120% capacity.

All this while the three other major parties are proposing a single Scottish police force (though the Greens are an honourable exception here). Margo MacDonald wrote here so eloquently why this is inherently wrong, but fundamentally it puts us all at risk. Estimates from the police themselves suggest that the single police move would cost 3000 to 4000 front line police officers their jobs, as they are laid off or moved into the backroom. So the Labour party want to put 4000 more people in prison, with 4000 less police officers! The people we should trust on this are the police officers themselves, who are overwhelmingly against this move, not the politicians who insist it is a good idea, and refuse to tell us how much it will cost.

Tricia Marwick did say she was “not convinced” by the case for a single police force, but refused to answer whether or not she had completed the consultation to tell Kenny MacAskill of her fears.

Only the Liberal Democrats oppose the single fire and police forces, which would destroy local strategies, cost jobs, and wouldn’t save money anywhere near what the other parties claim. It is irresponsible. It is playing politics with our safety, and our liberty.

NB: I feel it would be irresponsible of me not to mention the 5th candidate, Jim Parker from the Pensioners’ Party, who suggested flogging was the answer to anti-social behaviour. I shall leave that one to you to form your own opinions.

Callum Leslie is the Scottish Liberal Democrat candidate for Mid-Fife and Glenrothes, and is the youngest Scottish Parliamentary candidate in the country.

Bill Aitken should resign

Feb 20

Posted by Jeff in Crime | 11 Comments

Whenever someone starts a sentence with “I’m not a racist/homophobe but…” there is typically a torrent of racist or homophobic abuse that follows that opening, despite the limp protest. Nonetheless, I shall open this blogging journal with the following….

I’m not in favour of witchhunts but….

…. Bill Aitken really does need to resign as Convener of the Justice Committee in light of his comments regarding a recent spate of rapes in Glasgow city centre. If there wasn’t a transcript available the quotes would defy belief.

When it comes to the calling of a politician’s head I am usually more on the lenient, forgiving and/or understandable side. I didn’t believe that Peter Mandelson had to resign in either of the pickles he found himself in, I didn’t believe that Nicola Sturgeon or John Swinney had any reason to resign over the past year and I never even believed that Wendy Alexander had good reason to step down as leader of the Labour group in the Scottish Parliament. Indeed, I wouldn’t even have minded if that couple who faked the husband’s death in the canoeing insurance scam had been let off by a chuckling judge whose only reprimand was to call them a pair of cheeky scamps. Life’s complicated after all and almost anything goes as far as I tend to stand.

This situation with Bill Aitken is different. In suggesting there is a difference between the rape of a woman who is not a prostitue and and one that is, he has compromised beyond reparation his standing as the Convener of the Justice Committee and, if he was to be standing in the 2011 election, his standing as an MSP would be similarly impossible. A journalist was recently killed in Egypt while covering the riots in protest against Hosni Mubarak. I wonder how many people would accept the sentiment that he/she ‘had it coming’ given their line of work? Not many I reckon but, for me, there is little difference between that opinion and the opinion so freely offered by the Conservative MSP.

So, Bill has to go. However, it is not clear what job(s) the numerous calls for ‘resignation’ are specifically in relation to. There is surely little to be gained from the Glasgow regional MSP standing down from the Scottish Parliament altogether as a result of his comments, just over two months shy of an election. Leaving the Justice Committee is punishment enough and a sufficient example being made of the prehistoric mindset that any nation’s Parliament shouldn’t tolerate.

I have recently been of the view that politicians need to say what they think deep down more often, to not live in fear or favour of the media and to not tread a converging path to middle-of-the-road insipid vapidity, but that was with a mind to Conservatives or Lib Dems speaking out against coalition policy or any politician bravely starting an unpopular but ultimately worthy campaign. With these comments, delivered quite unbelievably direct to a journalist, Bill Aitken has shone a light into his innermost thoughts, not just on women but also on race, and has badly let himself and his party down. This is not a whoopsy, this is not a foot in mouth moment or a misspeaking. Indeed, it is not even clear what Bill is ‘unreservedly apologising’ for as the words are so plainly his views on the matter. With regards to the rhetoric, he even offered to “toughen it up”. Heaven knows what that would have involved. And how Annabel Goldie hasn’t already forced his hand is anyone’s guess.

There are too many bloggers who have already written on this to mention and the Facebook page calling for a resignation is approaching 1,000 members. Furthermore, Patrick Harvie will be raising a motion in the Scottish Parliament tomorrow calling for a resignation, a motion that Bill surely cannot survive beyond if it goes against him.

It is important that these efforts are successful and, for once, it is important that the resignation-callers get their man.