“When evil-doing comes like falling rain, nobody calls out ‘stop’.
When crimes begin to pick up they become invisible.
When sufferings become unendurable, the cries are no longer heard.
The cries, too, fall like rain in summer.”
Bertolt Brecht
The world holds reverence to those who have died or suffered in wars of the past. Not just the soldiers, but those persecuted and murdered, the drowning victims in a sea of violence. We have seen from the aftermath of war the advent of peace and reconciliation. The leadership of Nelson Mandela was the light that lead South Africa out of the darkness of Apartheid. The military Junta in Argentina were tried and punished after their rule of force and abduction. From the outside declarations of peace and forgiveness hold dear the properties of human dignity and grace. But is it possible for a nation or a generation to be absolved of their guilt or to exorcise the demons of their past?
We do not comprehend the invisible paths of horror; we only read it second hand. In Germany, World War Two and the Holocaust continue to scar subsequent generations and often through choice. Relatives of Nazi architects including Katrin Himmler (great-niece of Heinrich) wrote a fierce and critical memoir of her uncle. Albert Göring, who helped save Jews from persecution, retained his name as an act of guilt. For a long time the people of post-war Germany were silent and avoided their murky past. Though Hitler was the leader, much of the hell was performed by ordinary citizens, something they were not willing to recall.
In France, we hear the patriotic stories of the Resistance, yet for a long time people neglected the truths of Vichy France and its acquiescence and collaboration. The horrors are all too evident in Rwanda where much of the pre-genocide population still reside in camps in Eastern Congo. Afraid to go home and afraid of reprisals. The silence harbours an innate guilt, but why did subsequent generations apologise for their parents or grandparents’ role in a previous conflict. Could it simply be an acceptance that in the same position these people believe it could have simply been them too? In Germany, schoolchildren are bussed to concentration camps to learn their history with their own eyes. Is it simply to reinforce their guilt. Kantian philosophies do not incriminate a child from its parent’s actions, yet Germany, in particular, still carries its cross.
Future generations are often better at re-examining past events and even putting them in a context. The ‘Truth and Reconciliation’ trials in South Africa and Liberia show the goodness of human nature and the journey a country has to take before it can rebuild. The horrors of Cambodia and the Marxist revolution by Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge still linger. Cambodia is rebuilding itself after decades of economic hardship and developing itself into a tourist hotspot. Yet the wonders and attractions do not heal the fragments that hide the killers from the victim’s children. It is easy for nations and people to forgive but it we cannot detract from the invisible scars that will forever exist.
Thursday 24 March 2011
Wednesday 16 March 2011
In the Police I trust.
The public sector and local government will be bracing itself for the forthcoming budget given by George Osborne. If the coalition government’s plans to wipe out the fiscal deficit within this Parliament are to materialise then savings bringing spending to around 40% of GDP will be the main target for Treasury officials. It is on these occasions that public services feel the pinch and try to demonstrate their worth and mitigate any government cuts. Perhaps the most difficult, particularly from the Conservative’s perspective, is a reduction to the policing budget. Tough crime and penal policies have always been part of a Tory’s diet and a cut in police numbers would appear to be contrary to party beliefs. Under Mrs Thatcher, police recruitment increased by around 30% and was vital in her battles against striking miners.
David Cameron met recently with the former Los Angeles Police Commissioner, William Bratton, to discuss crime and policing strategy. Bratton worked for the Boston Police Department (BPD), the New York Police Department (NYPD) and, until recently, the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD). In all three posts he has managed to reduce crime in cities notorious with high drug and violent crime rates. His experience and judgements are intelligible and his justifications would make any politician stupid to ignore him.
For many years New York was ravaged by violent organised crime syndicates that disrupted the lives of its population. Bratton’s ideas were based on a criminology paper by George Kelly and Ray Wilson called the ‘Broken Window Theory’. Kelly and Wilson placed a brand new car in a rough neighbourhood and left it for 24 hours, when they returned they found there had been no damage at all. The next time, they broke a window and again left it for 24 hours. When they returned they found the car had been vandalised to the extent that nothing was retrievable, even the tyres had been stolen. The theory was that if the Police were ignoring minor crimes, and targeting serious criminals, then these petty crooks will be undeterred by the law and eventually fall into a life of tougher crime.
The ‘Broken Window’ was evident in many cities across America in the 1970s. In New York police didn’t stop drinking on the streets, gambling, graffiti or the infamous squeegee men that cleaned car windows at traffic lights. Statistics found that of the three million people travelling on the subway each day, 200,000 people were evading the fare. Bratton set out his taskforce to root out such delinquency by finding the source and stopping it in its track. As he stated, by stopping people from drinking on the streets you are stopping a potential fight or stabbing later on in the evening.
People were very critical of this style of policing because evidence suggested that ‘zero-tolerance’ policing was pushing crime to outskirts of the city. It is also seen as very authoritarian and suspicious of human behaviour. As Bratton put it, this style of policing is in the wider interest of society. The Police did not have a good reputation within ethnic areas of cities, and the violence directed at people like Rodney King did not help ameliorate such relationships. He suggests that Police need to control the behaviour of society because crime itself is only caused by one thing; human nature. These are influenced by the economy, demographics and racism but it ultimately derives from the individual. By placing Police on the beat it was repairing relationships in places historically deemed as no-go areas. Cops on the dots not only created compassionate policing but it helped to stop the source of crime.
Ideological lines are always drawn involving crime and punishment. Liberals despise the thought of giving up certain liberties for the good of everyone, but these theories have shown that they have been effective in driving down all types of crime in cities with unhealthy pasts. Putting people in prison is in fact a good thing for society. It not only removes certain people from society but endorses a combination of policing and the criminal justice system i.e. juries.
This is the dilemma Mr Cameron has. Crime is known to rise during recessions, particularly low level, but by cutting Police numbers he could be doing more damage than he wishes. Policing has evolved immensely in terms of technology and statistics, but these alone will not see people stop their errant ways.
David Cameron met recently with the former Los Angeles Police Commissioner, William Bratton, to discuss crime and policing strategy. Bratton worked for the Boston Police Department (BPD), the New York Police Department (NYPD) and, until recently, the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD). In all three posts he has managed to reduce crime in cities notorious with high drug and violent crime rates. His experience and judgements are intelligible and his justifications would make any politician stupid to ignore him.
For many years New York was ravaged by violent organised crime syndicates that disrupted the lives of its population. Bratton’s ideas were based on a criminology paper by George Kelly and Ray Wilson called the ‘Broken Window Theory’. Kelly and Wilson placed a brand new car in a rough neighbourhood and left it for 24 hours, when they returned they found there had been no damage at all. The next time, they broke a window and again left it for 24 hours. When they returned they found the car had been vandalised to the extent that nothing was retrievable, even the tyres had been stolen. The theory was that if the Police were ignoring minor crimes, and targeting serious criminals, then these petty crooks will be undeterred by the law and eventually fall into a life of tougher crime.
The ‘Broken Window’ was evident in many cities across America in the 1970s. In New York police didn’t stop drinking on the streets, gambling, graffiti or the infamous squeegee men that cleaned car windows at traffic lights. Statistics found that of the three million people travelling on the subway each day, 200,000 people were evading the fare. Bratton set out his taskforce to root out such delinquency by finding the source and stopping it in its track. As he stated, by stopping people from drinking on the streets you are stopping a potential fight or stabbing later on in the evening.
People were very critical of this style of policing because evidence suggested that ‘zero-tolerance’ policing was pushing crime to outskirts of the city. It is also seen as very authoritarian and suspicious of human behaviour. As Bratton put it, this style of policing is in the wider interest of society. The Police did not have a good reputation within ethnic areas of cities, and the violence directed at people like Rodney King did not help ameliorate such relationships. He suggests that Police need to control the behaviour of society because crime itself is only caused by one thing; human nature. These are influenced by the economy, demographics and racism but it ultimately derives from the individual. By placing Police on the beat it was repairing relationships in places historically deemed as no-go areas. Cops on the dots not only created compassionate policing but it helped to stop the source of crime.
Ideological lines are always drawn involving crime and punishment. Liberals despise the thought of giving up certain liberties for the good of everyone, but these theories have shown that they have been effective in driving down all types of crime in cities with unhealthy pasts. Putting people in prison is in fact a good thing for society. It not only removes certain people from society but endorses a combination of policing and the criminal justice system i.e. juries.
This is the dilemma Mr Cameron has. Crime is known to rise during recessions, particularly low level, but by cutting Police numbers he could be doing more damage than he wishes. Policing has evolved immensely in terms of technology and statistics, but these alone will not see people stop their errant ways.
Friday 11 March 2011
Football's red card.
Injustice is immeasurable, especially when you’re playing or watching football. There is incalculable suffering as a referee blithely waves on after a blatant foul or penalty. There is an innate acceptance and often schadenfreude when inexcusably bad decisions go your team’s way. Yet, the perceived visceral way we play the game is increasingly becoming more hostile and damaging. Football, particularly in the British Isles embraces the ruggedness and physicality of the sport with the civility of fair play and sportsmanship. Football has always received criticism through the ages of hooliganism, budget opulence and the continuous disappointment of our national side, yet the ungracious and sporting decadence is unfurling into an ugly and conscious stain across the tiers of our game.
Watching the Cricket World Cup on Sunday morning, the South African batsman Jacques Kallis asked England wicketkeeper Matt Prior if he had caught a ball he had edged behind. Prior acknowledged he had caught it and Kallis walked, a measure of trust and respect. Rugby Union and Rugby League are always highlighted as sports that aspire to a code of conduct through sport. The referee’s decision is final and players show reverence in every aspect of their performance.
Football headlines are driven by agendas like front page news, but some of the scenes we have seen of late portray a deeper vein of morose. Nick Hornby’s excellent Fever Pitch reflects on the additional passion injustice can bring, he also pointed out that 22-man brawls would be part of his ideal matches. This is the main argument that traditionalists use: if we interfere too much then the game loses that rawness that fans crave. It is true to an extent because what else would men have to talk about if things were more rigid. The problem is that such conservative dogmatism saw events like Heysel and Hillsborough unfold. News headlines and comment certainly give a platform for discussion but they are there to fill column inches, the same arguments arise every year.
We expect excitement at derby matches but the Old Firm game of last week showed the needless bellicosity. The problem with initiatives like the FA’s ‘Respect’ campaign is that there is so much money at stake that the FA cannot seek to uphold such programmes if the arbiters are unaccountable and problems themselves. Referees do not enamour themselves because of their turgid resolve but what are clubs and fans supposed to do if they keep on making mistakes? Technology is a potential game changer but there is again much debate on its induction and how pervasive its use will be.
Perhaps the main trouble we have in this country is the association with masculinity and war. Football is often characterised as a battle. British football as a culture on the terraces and on the pitch is entrenched with military fervour. Continentals deem our tactics as brave but stupid. Youngsters are taught from a young age the merits of winning not the art of playing. The statement a ‘man’s game’ holds resonance on British football pitches, but would mean nothing abroad. A change in this mentality would not turn us into a bunch of passive scarecrows; it would adjust the mindset to a degree of realism on the pitch and in the stands. Football does not necessarily need to convert to rugby and become gentrified, but it needs to recognise its fan base and duty to society. This culture of hostility and dishonesty is only polluting the beautiful game ugly.
Watching the Cricket World Cup on Sunday morning, the South African batsman Jacques Kallis asked England wicketkeeper Matt Prior if he had caught a ball he had edged behind. Prior acknowledged he had caught it and Kallis walked, a measure of trust and respect. Rugby Union and Rugby League are always highlighted as sports that aspire to a code of conduct through sport. The referee’s decision is final and players show reverence in every aspect of their performance.
Football headlines are driven by agendas like front page news, but some of the scenes we have seen of late portray a deeper vein of morose. Nick Hornby’s excellent Fever Pitch reflects on the additional passion injustice can bring, he also pointed out that 22-man brawls would be part of his ideal matches. This is the main argument that traditionalists use: if we interfere too much then the game loses that rawness that fans crave. It is true to an extent because what else would men have to talk about if things were more rigid. The problem is that such conservative dogmatism saw events like Heysel and Hillsborough unfold. News headlines and comment certainly give a platform for discussion but they are there to fill column inches, the same arguments arise every year.
We expect excitement at derby matches but the Old Firm game of last week showed the needless bellicosity. The problem with initiatives like the FA’s ‘Respect’ campaign is that there is so much money at stake that the FA cannot seek to uphold such programmes if the arbiters are unaccountable and problems themselves. Referees do not enamour themselves because of their turgid resolve but what are clubs and fans supposed to do if they keep on making mistakes? Technology is a potential game changer but there is again much debate on its induction and how pervasive its use will be.
Perhaps the main trouble we have in this country is the association with masculinity and war. Football is often characterised as a battle. British football as a culture on the terraces and on the pitch is entrenched with military fervour. Continentals deem our tactics as brave but stupid. Youngsters are taught from a young age the merits of winning not the art of playing. The statement a ‘man’s game’ holds resonance on British football pitches, but would mean nothing abroad. A change in this mentality would not turn us into a bunch of passive scarecrows; it would adjust the mindset to a degree of realism on the pitch and in the stands. Football does not necessarily need to convert to rugby and become gentrified, but it needs to recognise its fan base and duty to society. This culture of hostility and dishonesty is only polluting the beautiful game ugly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)