What a load of nonsense!
The police, it appears, abused their position and made a mistake. Sadly, these two events combined paint a terrible picture of the police; a picture that wouldn’t look half as bad if only either one of these things had happened.
If we believe the police had viable intelligence that they couldn’t ignore, then there is just the apparent mistreatment of the family they invaded. If we believe the police, then their intelligence sources must be questioned severely.
The cynic in me wonders whether this is a PR exercise that is going as intended. What if Blair’s colleagues though “Let’s attack some Islamist-looking innocent Muslims, let’s rough them up and accuse them of something spurious and then any potential immigrants will think twice about coming to this country and we’ll have less terrorism.”
It wouldn’t surprise me for all the extra cynic-ness I am having to lay on.
I hope for the benefit of England and the UK that I am so far off the mark that I cannot see the mark. Sadly, the alternative is not much better!
And this, really, is my point. Whatever the police have or have not done, they have definitely demonstrated, yet again, that they are no longer competent. The BBC continually talks of the loss of trust between the so-called Muslim community and the police (which is just nonsense, but don’t get me started), but what about the loss of trust between everyone and the police?
It is not unusual for a long-term government to struggle, and eventually topple. What is unusual is for that falling government to have politicised the civil service to such an extent that the police — the guardians of liberty and enforcers of justice — are being dragged down with them.
June 13th, 2006 at 11:24 pm
Ridiculous.
The Police are in an impossibe situation due to the ‘multi-culturalism’ that Labour and the Conservatives have forced on us, if the Police don’t stop things like the 7/7 terrorist attacks they are useless and incompetant, but if they do make a few raids based on incomplete intelligence to try to tackle terrorism they are blamed for that as well.
To catch drink drivers the police have to test some innocent people but most of us accept the hassle is worth it, its the same with terrorism, the risk of not acting is far greater than making a mistake.
June 14th, 2006 at 1:15 pm
The 7/7 attacks killed 52 people, which is less than the number of people killed every week on British roads. Yet we do not see shock and outrage at the number of people who die on our roads (and when we do, politicans are accused of nanny statism).
Are these lives less valuable? No. They just don’t make headlines.
If shooting and beating an unarmed man is a proportional response to the terrorist threat then why not force us all to drive at ten miles an hour? It would save more lives at less cost to liberty.
Close to one thousand people are murdered in the UK every year. The police are disproportionately responding to terrorism for political reasons. Keeping us safe doesn’t figure into the matter.
June 14th, 2006 at 3:21 pm
It’s not the raids I object to, it’s the awful way in which it appears it was carried out. Punishment beatings are not something the police should be involved in. And if they beat up every person they breathalysed, I think everyone would be up in arms…
June 14th, 2006 at 5:54 pm
Yes, but, most people who get pulled over for a breathalyser don’t resist it, do they?
:-)
June 14th, 2006 at 6:03 pm
Mark, what a crazy arguement. Something bad happens, so we should allow other bad things to happen.
I do care about the number of people dying on the road, and many other people do also, but there isn’t an easy solution, we should always be looking for improvement and that is happening, accident black spots often cause the road to be altered in various ways.
The terrorists might have only killed 53 people this time, but that was a low number compared to what it could have been, the bali bombings killed over 200, 9/11 killed over 3000, if terrorists succeeded in letting off a chemical or dirty nuke it could kill tens of thousands.
Yes a lot of murders and rapes are going on in this country, but thats a result of 50 years of an unholy alliance between anarchic libertarians and leftist commie liberals.
And its something that needs to be changed.
Gav, is it proven the Police gave them a beating? I don’t think so, and it wont be.
June 15th, 2006 at 8:39 am
Dave, it isn’t proven yet, but there’s no reason to think it won’t be. De Menezes…
The police are increasingly towing the government line and using the terrorism act to disrupt public rights of way, political heckling, peaceful protest and now, possibly, peaceful sleeping.
Don’t get me wrong, Islamists represent the biggest danger to England and the West in general, but we cannot solve it by turning the police into bullies. They must uphold the law!
June 15th, 2006 at 5:13 pm
“Something bad happens, so we should allow other bad things to happen.
My point is about proportionality. One life is worth no more or less than another, and we must be consistent. The response to terrorism hasn’t been consistent, it has been well over and above the response to other threats for which we would never consider such a loss of liberty.
In our own lives we take risks. This is about politics, not the real threat level posed by terrorism.
As a matter of interest, the US tried to build a dirty nuke and found that the radioactive matter would be so dispersed those affected would have to remain at the site for 12 months without moving to suffer long term harm.
“Yes a lot of murders and rapes are going on in this country, but that’s a result of 50 years of an unholy alliance between anarchic libertarians and leftist commie liberals.
Over the past half century (and beyond) we have seen a consistent move away from libertarian ideals; rising government and fewer freedoms.
The closest this nation has ever come to the classical liberal ideal, in the 19th century, also had the lowest crime (2 per year for every police officer in Britain) and far fewer social problems than we have today. If you want to blame our current problems on someone, do not blame it on libertarians who have resisted our current situation more than any other group.
As government has become bigger it has become less effective at the things it should be doing. 9/11 could have been prevented if the relevant agencies hadn’t been so far separated in bureaucratic quagmire in DC. The early indications are that the same is true of 7/7.
June 16th, 2006 at 7:51 am
I think the reason for the lack of proportionality for the reaction to terrorism (as compared to say, drunk driving), is due to the very nature of it. There is not much you can do to prevent a terrorist from channelling Mohammed and blowing himself up if he’s got his mind set on it. There is no real deterrent (except, of course, if our governments grew some hairy balls and decided to punish them with their own superstitions, like, say using dogs and pigs to scare them).
There is (some) deterrent to keep drunks from driving. There are variables there that you can control. Longer jail sentences, higher fines, loss of licence, social disapproval, etc.
You can’t control a nutcase willing to blow himself up for 72 virgins.
Mark, completely agree, though, with your final statements.
June 16th, 2006 at 12:31 pm
“You can’t control a nutcase willing to blow himself up for 72 virgins.”
I think you’re right. The nature of Islamic terrorism in particular does push us towards pre-emptive action.
The best way forward, as I see it, is to concentrate on the funding side. We will never prevent lone individuals from orchestrating attacks but we might be able to make it hard for them to organise without creating heroes or martyrs.
June 16th, 2006 at 6:08 pm
I didn’t say it was libertarianism that caused our problems, I say its the combination of anarchic libertarianism and leftist commies, we have had the worst of both worlds.
The libertarians have promoted the out of control immigration while the leftists have disarmed us and made rules that we can’t defend ourselves.
Leftists give us high taxes and regulations making it harder for Brits to earn a living while libertarians want foreigners to come the jobs we ‘wont’ do..
Libertarians promote globalisation and freemarketism allowing the rich to get richer because the leftists have succeed it placing more rules and regulations on business making it harder for smaller businesses to compete.
Libertarians promote freemarket in food while British farmers get screwed by socialists EU subsidies, of which the French (and others) get more than us!
June 16th, 2006 at 9:01 pm
“Leftists give us high taxes and regulations making it harder for Brits to earn a living while libertarians want foreigners to come the jobs we ‘wont’ do..”
You’re entirely right that the “jobs we won’t do” argument is a red herring… and one I would hope to never hear a laissez-faire supply-sider make.
The justification for immigration and trade is founded in the theory of comparative advantage (developed by 19th century economist and Tory MP, David Ricardo).
You’re also right that the over-regulation of a work force creates an excess of demand for undocumented workers. We should fix this before expanding immigration.
As for out of control immigration, I am certainly not advocating allowing the current situation to continue. Tough laws, not enforced, are to no-one’s advantage. We need reasonable laws that we can enforce [such as to prevent criminals coming here] and that reflect the reality of globalisation. As countries become increasingly specialised we need to allow a fairly free flow of skilled workers.
“Libertarians promote globalisation and freemarketism allowing the rich to get richer
Are you a Cameroon now? The rich get richer by creating wealth so everyone is better off as happened under Thatcher.
“Libertarians promote free market in food while British farmers get screwed by socialists EU subsidies, of which the French (and others) get more than us!
The EU price of food is still far above the world price. Protectionism is a negative sum game. The farmers gain less than consumers lose (not to mention the effect on third world farmers who are getting screwed even worse. Additionally protectionism adds artificial strength to the Pound, making it harder for other industries to compete abroad. No businessman in their right mind would take money from profitable divisions to subsidise unprofitable ones, no matter what their competitors were doing.
Moreover, protectionism is immoral. It does not respect the property rights of consumers who should be free to trade with whomever they wish.
June 16th, 2006 at 10:20 pm
No, I am not a Cameroon, I’ve no problem with the rich getting richer in a fair enviroment what I am complaining about is the way we have big globalised companies operating as anarchic libertarians making huge profits while at the same time smaller businesses are subjected to so much regulation that they can’t cope with. Big businesses have got the resources to cope with expensive regulations a lot better than smaller companies.
The weird combination of global liberalism and local Marxism that is damaging to this country.
I don’t support the EU CAP, that was not the point of what I was saying. British farmers have been caught between two stupid ideas, French protectionism and totally freemarket nuts who are ignoring the whole draft of health and safety regulations that we are subjected to.
Although, I do think food supply needs some kind of protection, as well as energy supplies. We can’t become dependant on foreign and often unstable countries for those vital things.
June 17th, 2006 at 12:54 pm
“The weird combination of global liberalism and local Marxism that is damaging to this country.
We are certainly not in an era of global liberalism. Quite the opposite, protectionism is on the march.
Governments want to avoid free trade for precisely the opposite reason you do. It forces them to cut tax and regulation. Free commerce is the reason why levels of tax and regulation vary so little between US states with very different political climates (there is only a one point difference between Massachusetts and Texas).
Organisations like the European Union and the OECD are aware of the dangers of tax competition and offer regular pronouncements on how to deal with it. They know it will destroy their social models.
As for safe supply, I suggest diversification.
June 18th, 2006 at 10:02 pm
Mark knows by now, I suspect, that I find his position a little too ideal — there’s no way the absolutely free market provides all the benefits that Mark associates with it — but it is better than our current solution.
The trouble is, Mark’s position misses the truth of cultural influences. Why, for example, do the Japanese have so much in average savings? Why do Americans have so little and why the Brits so much debt?
Why do Hindus in India not buy Pepsi? (Hint, it’s to do with the religion of the manufacturer)…
And this is the problem with limited resources being only available in unstable countries. Diversification will not happen as a result of market forces. Russian Gas, Middle Eastern/Venezualan/Kazak oil are unfortunately not safe sources (and Mark will suggest that the market will cope with any failures to provide in the long-term).
Economics, in these cases, is not enough — Dave’s right to worry about the effect of foreign governments’ policies on us. I do agree with Mark, though, that CAP is not one of those policies.
June 19th, 2006 at 2:06 pm
Gav,
I am intermittently accused of being an idealist, and a cold-hearted bastard - usually for holding the same opinion. Actually I’ve started using it as a definition for libertarianism.
In this case however, I think you got it the wrong way round. I am not being idealistic about the free market, I am being realistic about globalisation.
Let’s say we followed your plan and completely stopped immigration. In the first instance, we couldn’t. Unless we completely closed our ports to trade and tourists; unless we stopped our own citizens from leaving and unless we shut ourselves of from the outside world, we couldn’t.
However, we would prevent a lot of people we need from coming here. Half of the people working in the City of London are not British citizens. Our openness is the reason why London, and not New York, dominates the international financial markets (NY is still bigger due to the US domestic market). It is not just that we need an influx of specialists from around the world, which we do, we need the mix of cultures. Without it we would lose up to one third of the British economy.
I am not ignoring cultural differences (although the Japanese savings rate is quite easily explained by the economic climate over there - and I think Hindus stopped buying Pepsi because of US economic sanctions after India tested a nuke). Cultural differences are important.
However we should not aspire to cultural homogeneity. Britain has become a parody of her former self. We have protected the superficial elements of our culture - royalty, pageantry, cricket - at the cost of our deeper cultural identity - individual liberty, capitalism, duty and honour.
The best way to preserve a dynamic culture is to have an influx of new ideas. As with economics, people often fear the creative-destructive process. However, like asset strippers and corporate raiders, “ethnic strife” should be welcomed. Countries that have tried to ignore globalisation in economics and culture, like France, have suffered greatly for it.
I am not advocating multiculturalism. This is another segregationist policy from the Left that produces the very opposite of diveristy, it produces multiple cultures in isolation which really is dangerous. We need a melting-pot.
N.B. Markets do account for instability. The are usually criticised for doing so but they will put a higher price on a risky product than on a safe one. There will always be contrarian investors who will see if we are over-reliant on one source and invest in alternative. Of course markets act upon known risk, not unknown outcomes, so sometimes they will “get it wrong”. However, we should remember that markets have far more information available to them than governments do, so they get it right more often.
June 20th, 2006 at 4:58 pm
Sounds good mark, but the problem is you talk of all the advantages of your policies without the disadvantages.
I’ll give you some.
If it wasn’t for the mass immigration of the past 25 years we wouldn’t be facing an internal terrorist threat today. (The Irish terrorism was different, they didn’t want mass casualties and had realistic political aim).
15% of the British prison population are foreigners, therefor they don’t just come here to work, some come to take advantage.
What is the effect on the economy of that 15% of foreigners? out of 80,000 prison population that is 12,000 people, well the effect of that is absolutely massive in terms of insurance payouts, police work etc.
Not to mention the effect on the NHS of all the foreigners taking advantage who haven’t paid in.
I am very willing to accept that a full on libertarian society would work well, but this combination of libertarian mass immigration and our welfare state is a disaster.
June 21st, 2006 at 2:02 pm
“I am very willing to accept that a full on libertarian society would work well, but this combination of libertarian mass immigration and our welfare state is a disaster.”
I don’t disagree with you about that. We have to break up the welfare state first.