The face of Britain

[davidn]

It's somewhat ironic that at about the time I was handling lead-firing projectile weapons for the first time, getting a feel for their responsible use and causing a great deal of distress to leftover food packaging somewhere in the woods in Virginia, a new rampage was flaring up in sleepy old Britain and bringing the debate about owning guns (which we don't really have) up once again.

To quickly summarize the situation, Raoul Moat, who apparently had 200% more head than face, was released from prison and shot three people (then may or may not have robbed a fish and chip shop). After a week-long search involving what would seem to be the majority of the British police force, he finally did himself in during a standoff after hearing that Paul Gascoigne was on his way to the scene. Despite the fairly obvious conclusion that this person was fairly undesirable, a Facebook page was set up after his death under the title "RIP Raoul Moat You Legend!", and a man from the radio got in contact with its creator to find out... why.

Witness the stupidity here

If you can stand to get through more than a couple of minutes of that, then I think you'll agree that even if you're normally perfectly liberal, it's enough to get you to instantly want to drop all government benefit and make it illegal to be from Burnsley.

Comments

[e-to-the-ipi.livejournal.com]

The sad part (maybe) is that next to none of these are deaths of politically inconvenient -- it's just stupid, stupid mistakes. Menezes was going to be the next name I mentioned (along with the reason my views on gun control extend to the police, in all but the worst of circumstances.) A large problem at present is that the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) is toothless (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_Police_Complaints_Commission#Resignation_of_the_Police_Action_Lawyers_Group_from_the_IPCC.27s_advisory_board), like the Press Complaints Commission. Although it's not totally their fault: it was the Crown Prosecution Service that decided they did not have a case here. There are two key reasons: the first autopsy did indicate death by heart attack, which it would be hard to establish was due to police, making a manslaughter charge hard to convict. And one doesn't really want a policeman being sued on a case that's rather flimsy and very very debatable. This is why assault was brought, I presume, the last time: assault does not require proof of cause of death. In fact, they generally don't regard these things as unavoidable. Just hard to punish.

They don't claim to be squeaky clean, or generally try to claim the right to control peoples' lives; they aren't the ones producing the laws.

Incidentally, this seems an ideal moment to recommend tracking down Four Lions, a recently released film. It's Chris Morris's debut, and it's rather amusing, about four British Jihadis. Hilarious, and great fun.

I'm not sure I'd totally agree with this being pseudo-anarchist: but then, I do tend to classify myself as anarcho-fascist from time to time. Though I'm really more of a Democratic Socialist

[lupineangel.livejournal.com]

Ian Tomlinson and Jean-Charles de Menezes were just stupid mistakes, true; however, I'm assuming Harwood mistook Tomlinson for a G20 protester, which was why I made the 'politically inconvenient' comment. Menezes being mistaken for a terrorist is slightly different in that regard, because the police were briefed that he was likely a suicide bomber en route to carry out an attack (there's a difference between someone whose political views differ from your own and someone who presents an active danger to the people around him), so he probably doesn't fit that definition, though his death definitely falls into the realm of 'stupid mistake'.

The first autopsy did indicate death by heart attack; however the forensic pathologist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Ian_Tomlinson#Freddy_Patel) who performed it is noted for having come under fire before for alleged misconduct and/or misreporting of facts in previous cases. The implication is that such misreporting happened in Tomlinson's case, with a view to exhonerating Harwood; even if that isn't true, the appearance it generates isn't exactly reassuring.

As for the 'squeaky clean' thing, the police don't produce the laws, true, but they are the ones that enforce them. Politicians might claim the right to decide how we should all live our lives, but the police force are the ones that make that control a reality. (Not that I don't hold politicians to a similar standard, mind you; but by now you'll appreciate that my position is quite an anti-authoritarian one, regardless of the source of that authority. It's not that I don't appreciate people using power for good - it's just that I don't trust them not to turn that power against me where my personal opinions and approach differ from theirs. In short, once people gain power, they have a tremendous tendency to lose respect for, and then empathy with, the people they have power over, and that in and of itself makes me uneasy with it, and thus them.)

The 'pseudo-anarchist' comment was more referencing my own post - I didn't intend to speak on your behalf. Sorry if it came across that way. I am interested to know how you reconcile the position of 'anarcho-fascism', though, since to me, the two would seem to be diametrically opposed (abolition of hierarchy versus enforced unity under one person or group's vision). A group that sticks together and genuinely shares the same views is one thing, but I find it hard to imagine that working out on a national scale, simply because people have too much innate variety of opinions and approaches to be able to genuinely commit to that.

Also, I've not seen Four Lions, but thanks for the recommendation! I'll have to check it out some time!

D.F.

[e-to-the-ipi.livejournal.com]

Yes, I meant to mention the forensic pathologist, which is a huge problem.

"Anarcho-fascism" isn't a genuine position I hold, it's more a term I like to jokingly use to describe the tendencies I have towards taking an extreme position either on firm laws or firm freedoms. As said, I'm probably more of a Democratic Socialist, though realistically best summed up as a proud supporter of the nanny state. Mostly.

[lupineangel.livejournal.com]

Ahh, fair play; thanks for the clarification!

I can appreciate some things socialism does - helping people through benefits systems and so on, so we don't have to worry about people starving just because they lose their job (or whatever). I figure everyone has the right to life, which means they have to have a right to the means of life as well, which socialism seems to provide for a lot better than, say, pure laissez-faire capitalism. Personally, I think it's gone too far (in Britain, anyway), in that New Labour made a lot of laws that end up controlling too many aspects of people's lives for my liking - "this is en vogue now, therefore you'll all do it like this, because we're going to make it The Law!". Again, it's the distinction between a group behaving similarly through genuine agreement and a group behaving similarly because such behaviour is forced upon them. On the other hand, that assumes that New Labour were and are actually socialist anymore; I'm reminded of the joke that went around after the '97 elections, that you could rearrange the letters of TONY BLAIR PM and spell out I'M TORY PLAN B. :P

Thanks for putting your thoughts and points out here, though - I very rarely get the chance to engage in interesting, thoughtful and respectful political debate, much less over the internet, and it's much appreciated!

D.F.

[e-to-the-ipi.livejournal.com]

New Labour's really, really not socialist in the slightest. They were all about selling off nationalised institutions and involving private companies in running the government more. I mean, they're working on privatising Royal Mail!

Examples of ways more socialised policies would benefit the UK: privatising the rail services has been a nightmare as the multiple parts of track maintainance, stock maintainance, etc. However, the East Coast group, which was National Express East Coast until entering administration and being nationalised to keep it going, is now working excellently as a state-run line. And infrastructure should be state-run, because one of the key points of the social contract should be that your government is doing thigns for you. Like making sure you can get decently priced electricity, or public transport, or mail, or schools, or libraries. Also, ideally not deregulating banks as seems to be in vogue around here, even at present, making sure big business can not do whatever it likes to you.

Clement Atlee, in founding the NHS, established the cradle to grave welfare state, where the government would look after you if you fulfill your end of the social contract, throughout life. That's what the state should do.

Yes, being on the dole shouldn't give you more than working, but that just means you should make sure companies offer living wages!

This is the key point of leftism, and how it should work.

The state should provide. I've had a couple of nice examples of this lately: while waiting for some ridiculously long times through stupid beaureaucracy to see some NHS mental people. The doctor gave a nice explanation: "there are some holes, but you need to try and work your way around it and exploit the system as much as possible". [And we're just as unfond of the police as you are, by the way.]

Indeed, it's a pleasure. Oh, and I'd recommend trying to download and listen to the radio comedy show "Jeremy Hardy Speaks to the Nation". If nothing else, it explains ideas of the left more, but also, it's very very funny.