This week marks the opening of the infamous Dr Gunther von Hagens exhibition: 'Body Worlds and the Mirror of Time', a collection of carefully preserved corpses whose bodies have been skinned and filled with a plastic that allows them to be shaped into a range of poses. The exhibition appears to be part science part art in aim, educating visitors on the ins and outs of the human body (such as how a diseased lung after a lifetime of smoking looks in its natural habitat) in a way only medical students are normally privvy to, whilst fostering a new appreciation of human anatomy in all its glory.
There is a reason, however, why Dr von Hagens' reputation is one of infamy, why he was only reluctantly allowed to put on his exhibition in London and why across Europe he is known as 'Dr Death' and, in his own native Germany, as Dr Mengele. The bodies von Hagens uses are at the centre of the controversy; bodies' whose background stories the Doctor prefers to say as little about as possible as he doesn't want any 'human' stories to detract from appreciation of the anatomy on show. He insists that every single one of them has been legitimately donated to science, but his detractors say different.
In 2004, German magazine Der Spiegel published an expose on von Hagens, whose laboratories are based in China and Kyrgyzstan and whom German authorities refused to recognise as a professor because he qualified for the title in the Far East. They accused him of using the bodies of Chinese political prisoners and aborted foetuses, victims of the regime's one-child policy, as well as of buying the bodies of the homeless and mentally ill from Russia with the added charge of not even consulting their relatives beforehand. The end result of the subsequent investigations, two years after his exhibition first came to the UK, was that von Hagens was forced to return several corpses to China after admitting they 'may have been' executed prisoners.
The public reaction, mirrored in the press has naturally been quite polarised. The anatomist's critics were quick to leap on the revelations to qualify their initial revulsion at the exhibition whilst his supporters defended him as an open minded pioneer of progress whose achievements could be used to gain a whole new understanding of the human body.
These reactions pretty much sum up my own mixed feelings towards the exhibition. On the one hand, how fascinating it must be simply to see other humans in this form; to study an Alzeihmers ridden brain not from a book or TV show, but from within the very skull it was encased all along; to see the posture of the basketball player and all the muscles, organs and bones once shrouded in the mystery of a thin layer of skin, paralysed in time as if just for our benefit. Yet, how sickening the feeling that the dead foetus and mother on show might ne nothing but props in a scientist's fantasy with absolutely no regard for their story; no regard for the baby who might have lived a long and happy life if only it were born in a country that valued that life; eve less regard for the woman whose family might still be asking after her, unbeknown to them that her body was sold off like meat in an abbatoir, to the highest bidder, after she met her end alone in a Siberian mental asylum.
There are wider implications of this ghastly cadaver trade though. Warwick University just spend hundreds of thousands of pounds purchasing some of von Hagens' bodies for their own medical students to study on. People across Europe have been paying good money to see these bodies, introducing a cash incentive for their exploitation and, in some cases, murder. What about stem cell research, the scope of which has now been significantly widened by the successful passage of the goverment's Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill? If it is morally repugnant to use the corpses of individuals for possibly ground-breaking research without their express consent, then what of growing and discarding human embryos for exactly the same purpose and under the same circumstances - especially if you believe, as I do, that the absence of unequivocal proof that an unborn child is not alive requires it to be endowed with the same right to life as the rest of us?
Tuesday, 28 October 2008
Tuesday, 30 September 2008
Why The European Constitution Has Imperilled European Security
I wrote this post for Eurodefense UK - www.eurodefense.co.uk
Few reforms are needed more urgently in Europe today than the forging of a coherent and, as far as possible, single EU foreign policy and yet few reforms are less likely to see the light of day in the current political climate. The blame for this must lie squarely at the feet of the European Council, ultimately responsible for trying to insert the proposals for an enhanced decision making process and an EU foreign minister, amongst others, into a confusing constitution that never had much chance of being approved by an angry electorate.
When the citizens of the EU were asked to rank the most serious problems facing the continent earlier this year by the German Marshall Fund, they naturally put terrorism and the credit crisis at the top of the agenda. However, a large majority also expressed grave concerns about the resurrection of the Russian bear and its use of its energy supplies as a weapon, not to mention its tanks and warships, whilst almost as many said they wanted closer relations with America and that NATO was still essential to their security.
It’s safe to say the ‘masses’ were on the money in their assessment of the most immediate threats to European security. Indeed, their concerns, along with illegal immigration, cyber-crime and climate change, have featured heavily in the French President, Nicolas Sarkozy’s drive to establish a new security strategy for Europe. Central to formulating a single European response to these challenges, therefore, has been the push to update the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP).
As they are, the policies have failed to unify the EU in its dealings with the rest of the world, rendering the Union inefficient on the occasions when member states do take a common approach, such as in the Balkans, and wide open to manipulation by foreign powers when they don’t, such as the United States during the Iraq war and Russia now. The reforms envisaged by the constitution went some way to addressing these problems: a single foreign minister to represent the EU abroad; a legal personality to allow the EU to conclude international agreements; EU-wide investment in research and development; an EU equivalent of NATO’s clause 5 committing all states to collective “aid and assistance by all the means in their power”; the agreement of all member states to make available troops assigned to other multi-national task-forces to European battle-groups too; as well as a refined decision making process with opt-outs for any member state opposed to any EU decision to deploy troops.
So why then, if European electorates agreed on the supra-national nature of the threats and challenges facing their countries and their governments agreed on a set of measures to tackle them, were the proposed reforms thrown out by the Irish this year when they voted in a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, seen by many as simply a watered down version of the constitution? The answer is simple. The EU’s attempts to package these paramount changes within a vast and unreadable document that few wanted made it impossible to pass them. Indeed a poll taken of voters immediately after the Irish referendum revealed that the majority of those who voted ‘no’ did so because they did not understand what they were voting on.
However, Europe’s electorates lost faith in their elites long before then. The reasons behind the French and Dutch ‘no’ votes on the constitution proper in 2005 were far less kind than the Irish and revealed a deep-seated resentment of European elites and indeed their own. And for what? A flag and an anthem that we already have and that nobody cares about. Since then, any attempt to do the sensible thing and try and pass the reforms necessary to create a single coherent foreign policy has been viewed with suspicion and contempt. Indeed if the Lisbon Treaty hadn’t been voted down by the Irish it probably would have fallen at a later hurdle. Of course, the peddling of half-truths and even outright lies by the Europhobic press in countries most likely to need a referendum on such treaties like Ireland and the UK hardly helps.
What hope remains for a single European foreign policy then? Ironically, it would seem that the security of the continent now lies in the hands of national leaders regaining their people’s trust and convincing of the merit and the need for a unified approach. The election of a President in the United States with a respect for the transatlantic alliance and an understanding of the importance of a multi-lateral approach to the world’s most serious problems would go a long way too.
Few reforms are needed more urgently in Europe today than the forging of a coherent and, as far as possible, single EU foreign policy and yet few reforms are less likely to see the light of day in the current political climate. The blame for this must lie squarely at the feet of the European Council, ultimately responsible for trying to insert the proposals for an enhanced decision making process and an EU foreign minister, amongst others, into a confusing constitution that never had much chance of being approved by an angry electorate.
When the citizens of the EU were asked to rank the most serious problems facing the continent earlier this year by the German Marshall Fund, they naturally put terrorism and the credit crisis at the top of the agenda. However, a large majority also expressed grave concerns about the resurrection of the Russian bear and its use of its energy supplies as a weapon, not to mention its tanks and warships, whilst almost as many said they wanted closer relations with America and that NATO was still essential to their security.
It’s safe to say the ‘masses’ were on the money in their assessment of the most immediate threats to European security. Indeed, their concerns, along with illegal immigration, cyber-crime and climate change, have featured heavily in the French President, Nicolas Sarkozy’s drive to establish a new security strategy for Europe. Central to formulating a single European response to these challenges, therefore, has been the push to update the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP).
As they are, the policies have failed to unify the EU in its dealings with the rest of the world, rendering the Union inefficient on the occasions when member states do take a common approach, such as in the Balkans, and wide open to manipulation by foreign powers when they don’t, such as the United States during the Iraq war and Russia now. The reforms envisaged by the constitution went some way to addressing these problems: a single foreign minister to represent the EU abroad; a legal personality to allow the EU to conclude international agreements; EU-wide investment in research and development; an EU equivalent of NATO’s clause 5 committing all states to collective “aid and assistance by all the means in their power”; the agreement of all member states to make available troops assigned to other multi-national task-forces to European battle-groups too; as well as a refined decision making process with opt-outs for any member state opposed to any EU decision to deploy troops.
So why then, if European electorates agreed on the supra-national nature of the threats and challenges facing their countries and their governments agreed on a set of measures to tackle them, were the proposed reforms thrown out by the Irish this year when they voted in a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, seen by many as simply a watered down version of the constitution? The answer is simple. The EU’s attempts to package these paramount changes within a vast and unreadable document that few wanted made it impossible to pass them. Indeed a poll taken of voters immediately after the Irish referendum revealed that the majority of those who voted ‘no’ did so because they did not understand what they were voting on.
However, Europe’s electorates lost faith in their elites long before then. The reasons behind the French and Dutch ‘no’ votes on the constitution proper in 2005 were far less kind than the Irish and revealed a deep-seated resentment of European elites and indeed their own. And for what? A flag and an anthem that we already have and that nobody cares about. Since then, any attempt to do the sensible thing and try and pass the reforms necessary to create a single coherent foreign policy has been viewed with suspicion and contempt. Indeed if the Lisbon Treaty hadn’t been voted down by the Irish it probably would have fallen at a later hurdle. Of course, the peddling of half-truths and even outright lies by the Europhobic press in countries most likely to need a referendum on such treaties like Ireland and the UK hardly helps.
What hope remains for a single European foreign policy then? Ironically, it would seem that the security of the continent now lies in the hands of national leaders regaining their people’s trust and convincing of the merit and the need for a unified approach. The election of a President in the United States with a respect for the transatlantic alliance and an understanding of the importance of a multi-lateral approach to the world’s most serious problems would go a long way too.
Friday, 19 September 2008
Is it fair to villify the bankers?
'The week that shook the world' is the modest term being used by one of my favourite online publications, 'The First Post', to describe this week's events starting with the collapse of Lehman Brothers Investment Bank. The economic turmoil and mass panic that has ensued has inevitably led the press, hungry for the 'goodies and baddies' formula that sells their papers by the dozen, to pin the blame on whoever they hastily declare to be guilty within minutes of the news breaking. No prizes for guessing who they decided to pick on.
Will Self of the Evening Standard, for example, said: "All you bankers have had your fat years. Now get ready for some very thin ones."
Alice Miles wrote in The Times of "compensations in watching the comeuppance of the hubristic and the avaricious".
Now, anybody who knows me also knows that I'm not in the business of painting multi-millionaire investment bankers as an innocent and victimised minority. Indeed I must confess that when I first saw the pictures of all the newly unemployed brokers on the front of the papers, I reacted with a distinct sense of schadenfreude rather than the compassion my better judgement mandates of me.
I also agree that the corruption, greed and complaceny that has poisoned the City over the last couple of decades, following its rise to pre-eminence during the Thatcher years, is predominantly to blame for this crisis. However, the sadist, self-righteous and personal nature of the media's attacks with their "Don't let the spivs destroy Britain" headlines has truly made me wince over the last few days.
This is not only because bankers are still people with families to feed and mortgages to pay(despite their many shortcomings)nor the fact that it is hard to deny that the success of the City is what kept this economy so strong for so long right up until the crash. Rather, it is because the last thing any of them were actually worried about when the story of the biggest crash since 1929 broke was the suffering that would be felt across the country as a result.
Where were these crusaders, apart from the odd legitimately concerned journalist, when the City's excesses led the nation's wealth gap to widen into a chasm, when the bankers - now villified by all - were paying less tax than their cleaners on their salaries and no tax on their bonuses, and when the rest of us were being hopelessly priced out of the housing market? There might have been a day's headlines to be sure, but nothing compared to the vitriol heaped on benefit 'scroungers', unruly youths and unwelcome immigrants that filled the tabloids' pages on a daily basis.
Those were the days when it might have been appropriate to pour scorn over the financial sector and even then it was the system and woeful lack of regulation that was to blame rather than the people themselves (not that I doubt that investment banks have had more than their fair share of sociopaths amongst their ranks). Now though, is the time to be getting behind those who have lost their jobs and their employers who have lost everything else. For should they continue to fall down the big black hole they admittedly dug for themselves, there is little doubt that the whole country will follow right behind.
Will Self of the Evening Standard, for example, said: "All you bankers have had your fat years. Now get ready for some very thin ones."
Alice Miles wrote in The Times of "compensations in watching the comeuppance of the hubristic and the avaricious".
Now, anybody who knows me also knows that I'm not in the business of painting multi-millionaire investment bankers as an innocent and victimised minority. Indeed I must confess that when I first saw the pictures of all the newly unemployed brokers on the front of the papers, I reacted with a distinct sense of schadenfreude rather than the compassion my better judgement mandates of me.
I also agree that the corruption, greed and complaceny that has poisoned the City over the last couple of decades, following its rise to pre-eminence during the Thatcher years, is predominantly to blame for this crisis. However, the sadist, self-righteous and personal nature of the media's attacks with their "Don't let the spivs destroy Britain" headlines has truly made me wince over the last few days.
This is not only because bankers are still people with families to feed and mortgages to pay(despite their many shortcomings)nor the fact that it is hard to deny that the success of the City is what kept this economy so strong for so long right up until the crash. Rather, it is because the last thing any of them were actually worried about when the story of the biggest crash since 1929 broke was the suffering that would be felt across the country as a result.
Where were these crusaders, apart from the odd legitimately concerned journalist, when the City's excesses led the nation's wealth gap to widen into a chasm, when the bankers - now villified by all - were paying less tax than their cleaners on their salaries and no tax on their bonuses, and when the rest of us were being hopelessly priced out of the housing market? There might have been a day's headlines to be sure, but nothing compared to the vitriol heaped on benefit 'scroungers', unruly youths and unwelcome immigrants that filled the tabloids' pages on a daily basis.
Those were the days when it might have been appropriate to pour scorn over the financial sector and even then it was the system and woeful lack of regulation that was to blame rather than the people themselves (not that I doubt that investment banks have had more than their fair share of sociopaths amongst their ranks). Now though, is the time to be getting behind those who have lost their jobs and their employers who have lost everything else. For should they continue to fall down the big black hole they admittedly dug for themselves, there is little doubt that the whole country will follow right behind.
Tuesday, 2 September 2008
Diagnosis by google and the man who ate too much fish
So, on Monday I had to go to Accident and Emergency. Nothing serious, but worth getting checked out to assuage my own over-active paranoia. However, before going to the A&E I went to the walk-in clinic in Soho - kind of like an emergency GP's office - to make sure that it wasn't something that could wait a few days to go see my actual GP about.
After spending an hour waiting to see someone, and having to subsequently cancel my evening with two old friends to which I had been looking forward for some time, this little Irish lady popped her head out of her room and called my name like it was an item off an Indian takeaway menu. Nevertheless, I followed her in and I told her what was wrong. Now what followed was possibly the least confidence inspiring experience I have ever had in a doctor's office.
At first, everything was going normal. She checked my vitals and asked all the right questions, but then it came to making a diagnosis - or even just a rough estimate would have been helpful. After reading all my symptoms that she had scribbled hastily on to her little notepad for the third time, she said: "oh my God, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know. If I were you, I'd go to A&E, but I just don't know."
Now, you can imagine how I, the patient who had been panickly saying those exact words to myself for the last hour, felt on hearing these words. Fair to say, I was starting to have my doubts about the ability of this particular nurse practicioner. Yet lo and behold, she had an idea. Perhaps I had misjudged her. Maybe she did know her stuff all along and I was just being too hard on her.
So, I stood next to her and watched as she typed my symptoms into google and then proceeded to scroll through each website that came up, most of which were internet forums dominated by random people discussing the details of their own exotic illnesses to each other. For a brief moment she thought she had struck gold when she found one post listing all the same symptoms as me. Alas her hopes were dashed as she read on and discovered that the author had in fact been complaining about mercury poisoning he had contracted through eating too much fish.
So, I finally put our brave friend out of her misery, informing her that I now definitely would be going to the A&E where I could see, you know, an actual doctor. She asked for my number (try not to get too hot under the collar here - it's not what you think) so she could check on my progress because she was "just curious" as to what the hell exactly was wrong with me. Luckily she has not yet called me, so either she forgot or she finally found the answer she was looking for on google. In any case, she has saved me an awkward conversation and an unwanted reminder of the dilapidated state of British medicine today.
God bless the NHS!
After spending an hour waiting to see someone, and having to subsequently cancel my evening with two old friends to which I had been looking forward for some time, this little Irish lady popped her head out of her room and called my name like it was an item off an Indian takeaway menu. Nevertheless, I followed her in and I told her what was wrong. Now what followed was possibly the least confidence inspiring experience I have ever had in a doctor's office.
At first, everything was going normal. She checked my vitals and asked all the right questions, but then it came to making a diagnosis - or even just a rough estimate would have been helpful. After reading all my symptoms that she had scribbled hastily on to her little notepad for the third time, she said: "oh my God, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know. If I were you, I'd go to A&E, but I just don't know."
Now, you can imagine how I, the patient who had been panickly saying those exact words to myself for the last hour, felt on hearing these words. Fair to say, I was starting to have my doubts about the ability of this particular nurse practicioner. Yet lo and behold, she had an idea. Perhaps I had misjudged her. Maybe she did know her stuff all along and I was just being too hard on her.
So, I stood next to her and watched as she typed my symptoms into google and then proceeded to scroll through each website that came up, most of which were internet forums dominated by random people discussing the details of their own exotic illnesses to each other. For a brief moment she thought she had struck gold when she found one post listing all the same symptoms as me. Alas her hopes were dashed as she read on and discovered that the author had in fact been complaining about mercury poisoning he had contracted through eating too much fish.
So, I finally put our brave friend out of her misery, informing her that I now definitely would be going to the A&E where I could see, you know, an actual doctor. She asked for my number (try not to get too hot under the collar here - it's not what you think) so she could check on my progress because she was "just curious" as to what the hell exactly was wrong with me. Luckily she has not yet called me, so either she forgot or she finally found the answer she was looking for on google. In any case, she has saved me an awkward conversation and an unwanted reminder of the dilapidated state of British medicine today.
God bless the NHS!
Sunday, 24 August 2008
Obama-Biden: Pleasant Surprise and Wise Choice
Back during the primaries, I cited this pairing as my idea of the dream ticket - not because I could foresee it happening, but because I liked the look of Biden just as much, if not secretly more, than Obama, mainly because of his foreign policy experience. I was, therefore, thrilled to hear him announced as running mate, even though I never realisitically expected him to get it.
The immediate response to him in the press has been predictable in terms of the pros and cons assessment of Biden and what he will bring to the ticket. Only one commentator though, Justin Webb of the BBC, has mentioned what for me is the biggest risk of Obama´s choice: people starting to wander if the ticket should not be the other way round. As admirably mature as Obama´s decision was, bringing in a popular, headstrong, wise and very experienced Senator who is more than a match for McCain in his own right, has ironically made Obama look like something of a rookie.That said, I am not too concerned. Once the campaign is in full swing, Obama won´t hesistate to remind people who is calling the shots and his maturity will shine through. Besides, a fresh open minded approach is exactly what the US needs right now.
In many ways, Obama´s selection of Biden is very much like Kennedy´s choice of Johnson for running mate in 1960 - an experienced and accomplished political operator who knows Washington better than anybody. However, there is a warning in that too. Johnson and Kennedy strongly disagreed on foreign policy with Johnson lacking Kennedy´s in depth understanding of foreign affairs and innovative approach to dealing with the Soviet Union. Fortunately, this time it´s the VP who has all the foreign policy nous and as long as Obama is serious about making the right decisions for the country he´ll pay close attention to what he has to say.
The immediate response to him in the press has been predictable in terms of the pros and cons assessment of Biden and what he will bring to the ticket. Only one commentator though, Justin Webb of the BBC, has mentioned what for me is the biggest risk of Obama´s choice: people starting to wander if the ticket should not be the other way round. As admirably mature as Obama´s decision was, bringing in a popular, headstrong, wise and very experienced Senator who is more than a match for McCain in his own right, has ironically made Obama look like something of a rookie.That said, I am not too concerned. Once the campaign is in full swing, Obama won´t hesistate to remind people who is calling the shots and his maturity will shine through. Besides, a fresh open minded approach is exactly what the US needs right now.
In many ways, Obama´s selection of Biden is very much like Kennedy´s choice of Johnson for running mate in 1960 - an experienced and accomplished political operator who knows Washington better than anybody. However, there is a warning in that too. Johnson and Kennedy strongly disagreed on foreign policy with Johnson lacking Kennedy´s in depth understanding of foreign affairs and innovative approach to dealing with the Soviet Union. Fortunately, this time it´s the VP who has all the foreign policy nous and as long as Obama is serious about making the right decisions for the country he´ll pay close attention to what he has to say.
Saturday, 12 July 2008
Why police chiefs should not be elected
The issue of elected police chiefs is one that has been broiling for some time. The Tories have been a fan of the idea of creating American style sherrifs for a while now. Last year, Sir Simon Milton of the LGA officially proposed direct elections for Chief Constables, a proposal endorsed by two of the three main London Mayoral candidates in May's elections, including the eventual winner. Now, even the Home Secretary has got in on the game. Sensing that more and more people are converting to the cause, she has decided to do an Italy, changing sides just as it becomes apparent who's going to win.
Alas, so desperate to follow popular opinion wherever it may go so she can lead it, I fear she is making a terrible mistake, even by the Home Office's standards. Chief Constables and Commissioners must not be directly elected any more than High Court judges or military officers. Public safety is too important to be decided by a show of hands, which is why I baulked at an article written in the First Post (see link) today by Daniel Hannan - oh how I loathe that man! Hannan's whole argument seemed to rest on one survey result from 2001, carried out in nine constabularies with a dose of Ian Blair bashing to boot.
Coming off a little like a host of Family Fortunes, he reported how the survey indicated that the constabularies viewed "recruiting more ethnic minority officers, cracking down on sexist language, [and] improving their relations with the gay community" as their core priorities. Carrying on his faultless Les Dennis impression, he added that when extended to the local population of each constabulary, the survey said: "catch more criminals". Now even if we ignore the ridiculously open ended nature of the question that makes it impossible to fairly compare the answers given -somehow I suspect the Police consider catching criminals not so much a priority as much a raison d'etre- the answers do paint a worrying picture of what we could expect in any Police Authority election. How do these people know that improving police relations with minority communities, often vital sources of police intelligence in sensitive investigations, and eliminating discrimination within forces themselves to ensure that only the best qualified individuals get the best jobs, is not integral to catching more criminals? And how many right-thinking (as opposed to vote seeking) officers would place catching criminals as a higher priority than preventing crimes in the first place?
'Catching Criminals' makes for a great soundbite and indeed soundbites are what win elections: 'The Economy Stupid' and 'Tough on Crime, Tough on the Causes of Crime' come instantly to mind. But the level of jurisprudence, reponsibility and integrity required for such a vital role in our society cannot be condensed into soundbites. Furthermore, the critical decisions that Chief Constables take every day on everything ranging from tackling anti-social behaviour in town centres to counter-terrorism must be objective not political. The pandimonium that would inevitably arise from a Chief Constable feeling pressured to put his/her core constituents before their professional opinions is unimaginable. No sensible person would ever suggest subjecting our leading Generals to popular election because they dare not think how different the war may have turned out had General Montgomery been kept from the front because he lost an election to an opponent pledging to kill more Germans. To say that Police chiefs should be treated differently is to say that pubic safety is not as important as national security when in fact, as anyone who was around on 7/7 knows, the two are heavily intertwined.
However, this not to say the police should be accountable only to themselves. The core requirement of any liberal democracy that the state remain under civillian control at all times means that they will always be subject to a degree of political decision making. But this is because the police service is not responsible for making the law, but only for implementing it, leaving legislation to those who were elected to perform that very purpose. This is right and proper as any population that does not expect to get a say in the formation of the laws that govern them is living in a dictatorship.
Those same elected officials though rely on the independent expertise of the Police to enforce those laws if for no other reason than to make sure those laws are effective, so they can keep their seats come election time. The people have already had their say. Put another way, I'll vote for brain surgery to kept available on the NHS, but when it comes to the doctor performing the operation itself, I want the guy who finished top of his class at Medical School not top of the opinion polls in my local borough.
Alas, so desperate to follow popular opinion wherever it may go so she can lead it, I fear she is making a terrible mistake, even by the Home Office's standards. Chief Constables and Commissioners must not be directly elected any more than High Court judges or military officers. Public safety is too important to be decided by a show of hands, which is why I baulked at an article written in the First Post (see link) today by Daniel Hannan - oh how I loathe that man! Hannan's whole argument seemed to rest on one survey result from 2001, carried out in nine constabularies with a dose of Ian Blair bashing to boot.
Coming off a little like a host of Family Fortunes, he reported how the survey indicated that the constabularies viewed "recruiting more ethnic minority officers, cracking down on sexist language, [and] improving their relations with the gay community" as their core priorities. Carrying on his faultless Les Dennis impression, he added that when extended to the local population of each constabulary, the survey said: "catch more criminals". Now even if we ignore the ridiculously open ended nature of the question that makes it impossible to fairly compare the answers given -somehow I suspect the Police consider catching criminals not so much a priority as much a raison d'etre- the answers do paint a worrying picture of what we could expect in any Police Authority election. How do these people know that improving police relations with minority communities, often vital sources of police intelligence in sensitive investigations, and eliminating discrimination within forces themselves to ensure that only the best qualified individuals get the best jobs, is not integral to catching more criminals? And how many right-thinking (as opposed to vote seeking) officers would place catching criminals as a higher priority than preventing crimes in the first place?
'Catching Criminals' makes for a great soundbite and indeed soundbites are what win elections: 'The Economy Stupid' and 'Tough on Crime, Tough on the Causes of Crime' come instantly to mind. But the level of jurisprudence, reponsibility and integrity required for such a vital role in our society cannot be condensed into soundbites. Furthermore, the critical decisions that Chief Constables take every day on everything ranging from tackling anti-social behaviour in town centres to counter-terrorism must be objective not political. The pandimonium that would inevitably arise from a Chief Constable feeling pressured to put his/her core constituents before their professional opinions is unimaginable. No sensible person would ever suggest subjecting our leading Generals to popular election because they dare not think how different the war may have turned out had General Montgomery been kept from the front because he lost an election to an opponent pledging to kill more Germans. To say that Police chiefs should be treated differently is to say that pubic safety is not as important as national security when in fact, as anyone who was around on 7/7 knows, the two are heavily intertwined.
However, this not to say the police should be accountable only to themselves. The core requirement of any liberal democracy that the state remain under civillian control at all times means that they will always be subject to a degree of political decision making. But this is because the police service is not responsible for making the law, but only for implementing it, leaving legislation to those who were elected to perform that very purpose. This is right and proper as any population that does not expect to get a say in the formation of the laws that govern them is living in a dictatorship.
Those same elected officials though rely on the independent expertise of the Police to enforce those laws if for no other reason than to make sure those laws are effective, so they can keep their seats come election time. The people have already had their say. Put another way, I'll vote for brain surgery to kept available on the NHS, but when it comes to the doctor performing the operation itself, I want the guy who finished top of his class at Medical School not top of the opinion polls in my local borough.
Sunday, 8 June 2008
Knife crime
Knives have been a pre-eminent theme this week with the government announcing that from now on anyone over the age of 16 caught carrying a knife in public can expect to be prosecuted. As someone who had the privilege of working for the country's most senior police officers for six months, I think this is a terrible idea. Surely, the decision to prosecute for possession of a knife should be based on criminal intent and the circumstances of their arrest.
Anyone who thinks that such a response equates to being 'soft on crime' should look at surveys conducted by the ONS and the Youth Justice Board which show that one of the main reasons why children carry knives today is out of fear of being a victim of knife crime themselves. Are we really saying that the very children who are so in need of our protection that they have taken to arm themselves are, from now on, to be lumped into the same category as the gang members and bullies who prompted them to take these measures in the first place?
Furthermore, when the Police Service has to spend more of its time combating the stigmas of old that manifest themselves in the resistance to increased stop 'n' search and surveillance powers, not to mention the chronic under-reporting of crimes that most hampers the ability of police forces to do their job, are we really prepared to alienate a whole new generation of youngsters?
If that's not enough, think of all the paperwork that police officers will have to fill out for every random youngster they find carrying a knife, even for the most innocuous reasons. Should such officers decide merely to give these youths a reprimand so they can focus on real crimes, they'll be lambasted by their Chief Constable, and their force condemned by the Home Office, as a failure.
In short, Rod Morgan, the former chairman of the youth justice board and one of the government's advisers on youth justice, was wrong to label this measure as gesture politics. It's just bad politics.
Anyone who thinks that such a response equates to being 'soft on crime' should look at surveys conducted by the ONS and the Youth Justice Board which show that one of the main reasons why children carry knives today is out of fear of being a victim of knife crime themselves. Are we really saying that the very children who are so in need of our protection that they have taken to arm themselves are, from now on, to be lumped into the same category as the gang members and bullies who prompted them to take these measures in the first place?
Furthermore, when the Police Service has to spend more of its time combating the stigmas of old that manifest themselves in the resistance to increased stop 'n' search and surveillance powers, not to mention the chronic under-reporting of crimes that most hampers the ability of police forces to do their job, are we really prepared to alienate a whole new generation of youngsters?
If that's not enough, think of all the paperwork that police officers will have to fill out for every random youngster they find carrying a knife, even for the most innocuous reasons. Should such officers decide merely to give these youths a reprimand so they can focus on real crimes, they'll be lambasted by their Chief Constable, and their force condemned by the Home Office, as a failure.
In short, Rod Morgan, the former chairman of the youth justice board and one of the government's advisers on youth justice, was wrong to label this measure as gesture politics. It's just bad politics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
