« Crime: Lies, damned lies - and crime statistics? | Main | A question of gravity »
December 11, 2004
A new tranche of rights?
Maybe I'm becoming too cynical, maybe I'm so used to being told that Whitehall, the legal profession, the politicians, and the rest of the nannying crew all know better than I do what is good for me, what I should think, eat, smoke, or inject. So when one of them comes out and says something intelligent and intelligible it comes as something of a shock to the system. When it is the Commissioner (about to retire!) of the Metropolitan Police, it's worth taking a closer look!
Well, the moon has not changed colour, the seas have not dried up, and the usual howls of dissent all seem to have gone remarkably silent! It was even announced that an MP - Conservative no less - was to table a Bill (as he's a Conservative it probably won't get passed into law - but it's worth a try.) which will give householders the right to use whatever means at their disposal to defend their homes, property, and so on. Of course, it stops short of authorising actually killing a burglar - and it should - but it sets out a right to defence which is currently sadly lacking in our law and in our courts. Sir John Stevens, the Commisioner of the Metropolitan Police has placed himself on record as supporting this - and arguing for a law which will stop the practice of arresting the householder who dares to injure or restrain some wrong-doer.
What a pity Sir John is retiring; his successor designate is so wrapped up in the Politically Correct culture engulfing the Police that we can expect little of this sort of common sense from him - rather the reverse. Equally the Chief and Assistant Chief Police Officers Association (aptly abbreviated to CACPOA) will need to change their official stance on this matter which is currently that no one should defend themselves - as to do so may constitute a "breech of the peace"! In accordance with that thinking one could be arrested for being attacked, after all the attack constitutes a breech of the peace does it not, and the victim is certainly guilty of being attacked! He or she may even have provoked it by looking too well off or at least in possession of goods or cash the attacker wanted.
No sooner had this news broken upon us stunned citizenry than our Illustrious Leader was leaping up to contradict his own Lord Chancellor (he of the Dome fiasco!) and announce that his government was "looking into" the entire matter. As you may imagine that ignited a full debate - and led to the spectacle of the Conservatives exchanging the usual "yah! boo's!" over the dispatch boxes in the Commons with this vacuous little oik whose government was, in the Times, no less, reported as being incapable of making any decisions in Cabinet. Lord Butler it was who attacked them on that, citing the fact that they have now so many "special advisers" that they have difficulty knowing reality from fantasy at No 10.
The recent article in the Spectator - picked up by a few of the less Labour loving papers - about the gentleman arrested for carrying a pocket knife and a baton in his briefcase is a good case in point. The officers of the law decided that he was a potential terrorist and carted him off at great expense and inconvenience to the Charge Office and made a huge song and dance out of it. Surely a few simple checks - like is he who he says he is, is the car registered in his name, does his employer vouch for him - could have avoided all the drama and avoided creating the impression that the police are only after soft targets (like anyone who looks well off or a "toff" and not like a "working man") who will enable them to keep their "targets" up. After all, if you target a member of an ethnic minority, there's a whole drama immediately, but target a white male motorist and the chances are he won't have a "brief" he can contact, he won't know his rights and he'll pay up any fine just to get shot of the delay. Of course he'll be upset, but that only makes him an easier target.
Well, we can live in hope. Perhaps the MP's Private Members Bill will succeed, perhaps it won't, but it does seem that the political establishment is starting to wake up to the fact that the public has had enough of this soft touch approach to criminals, and that can only be good news all round! Who knows, the government's own review may actually bear some fruit as well. In this day and age it probably pays to carry out a reality check regularly - especially after the politicians and the Civil Servants have had a go at and pronounced upon anything!
Posted by The Gray Monk at December 11, 2004 11:10 AM