To the surprise of no-one the public is more concerned by crime this week than it was a week ago. Fancy that! and, equally, to the surprise of no-one, parliament was prepared to indulge any number of kneejerk nonsenses today. Hence the foolishness* about shutting down “social networking communications” during “times of unrest”. Parliament may need to be recalled to give the impression that something is being done; most of the time, in circumstances such as these, it may be best if it only pretends to be doing something.
You don’t need to be as preoccupied with civil liberties as I am to appreciate that there’s the potential for this kind of power to be desperately misused. Nor, for that matter, is it obvious that the police need additional powers to deal with events comparable to those we’ve witnessed this past week. How about using existing powers before declaring them insufficient?
Indeed in as much as the riots had a proximate cause, they owed something to the Met’s heavy-handed tactics. The full circumstances of Mark Duggan’s death may still be unclear so it’s possible, certainly, that the police used the correct tactics or that they had few more attractive options. Nevertheless, it would be no bad thing if the police shot fewer people.
Of course the rioters weren’t really very interested in Mr Duggan’s death. Moreover, while there seem ample grounds for thinking that other operational mistakes were made in the first hours of the unrest, it remains the case that there’s something to be said for a country in which the police are not heavily armed as a matter of course and in which they do not, generally speaking, operate in a paramilitary fashion.
So, like Anton Howes, I’m grateful that senior officers resisted the wilder calls for action and that politicians declined to call in the army. That doesn’t mean those responsible cannot or should not be identified and punished by the courts, merely that shooting looters is the sort of thing one expects to see in barbarous lands, not this country.
That being the case, the 33% of voters who say they wish the police (or army) had been authorised to open fire – using live ammunition – on the rioters trouble me almost (but not quite!) as much as the rioters themselves. They remind one that parliament, like the courts, are supposed to offer sanctuary from the mob, channelling and restraining its prejudices and protecting society at large against the kind of authoritarian temptations that arise at the first hint or outbreak of trouble.
Nevertheless, it’s clear that the government is in a tight corner. Rhetorically at least it will be forced to seem “tougher” on all criminal justice issues. In that respect it will be “listening” to public opinion (and the Tory “base”). Whether that actually leads to better, or more effective, policing is a different matter. But governments cannot afford to be outflanked by the opposition on law and order issues.
*A foolishness for many reasons not least since, regardless of practicality, it also prevents the useful dissemination of information citizens may use to protect themselves.
Comments