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.

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.

Foreign principles.

Foreign politics and diplomacy does not normally take a front seat role in determining the news agenda. In fact, it does not really affect the great persuasions of the electorate when people come to vote. International events have caused politicians to resign and have certainly stained the careers of many in government; Eden over Suez and Chamberlain over Norway (though he is renowned for Munich). The Arab Spring, which may well define a new age of Middle Eastern politics, is posing many questions of our diplomats and the philosophy of international relations.

The main role of an Ambassador or anyone within the diplomatic corps based abroad is to be the eyes and ears for their government back home and to promote their country’s interests in their posting. The dilemma for any politician is that often these relationships and trades can come back to question their judgement and their own moral compass. A few weeks ago, when Egypt’s strongman, Hosni Mubarak, appeared determined to remain in the power, despite the widespread protests, the words from Western leaders’ evoked calmness and peaceful demonstrations; there were never forthright utterances to go. This is where the ambiguities lie; if bilateral relations are friendly and prosperous then it is not in a politician’s interest to clamour revolution or submission. It would appear spiteful and particularly short-sighted.

Many people have questioned British, American and Italian links to Libya but who was to know what was to happen? Colonel Gaddafi had been welcomed back into international theatre, and despite some odd cameos at the UN, he appeared happy to give up his nuclear/chemical weapon capability and reintegrate into the world of trade. The nature of these Arab revolutions was not expected thus it puts politicians in great difficulty. The obvious question is why did we trust them in the first place? The issue with dealing with any international statesman or woman is that they will always pursue their own interests, good or bad. It is inevitable that some countries do not endorse your views, but it is often in the ‘greater good’ (economically) to establish relations with such people. This is far removed from the ‘realpolitik’ of Cold War policy i.e. ‘my enemy’s enemy is my best friend’, where despots were tolerated because they weren’t communists, we have moved into a new era.

No longer do countries have to seek solace in wooing historical partners or America for favours, if they have minerals then they can turn to China. China’s foreign policy in the past ten years has been based on trade and investment only. No political meddling. The previous strings attached to aid and introduction of democracy are no longer binding. Africa and developing nations can establish growth via the Far East. The failed coup, involving Simon Mann and Mark Thatcher, in the tiny but oil wealthy nation of Equatorial Guinea highlighted the difficulties establishing long term and fruitful relations had changed. The contrived knowledge by Western governments was enough for the autocratic leader to turn to China; Western meddling was no longer an ultimatum. Even the tyrannical Robert Mugabe has held on in his economically dead Zimbabwe.

Values and principles are desirable in any circumstance when offering the hand of friendship, but often – and history reflects this – it is not the only way. In a rapidly changing and multi-polar world, British and Western politicians no longer hold the ace card. Often the undesirable can be an acceptable alternative.

True greatness - Ronaldo.

Sporting greatness is an aspect of society that still holds reverence to talent and natural skill. Sport scientists and sociologists have pointed out that in today’s world it is possible to succeed to the top with a balance of determination, fitness and in some cases a bit of luck. Sporting historians and fans alike will point out that sporting greats are the people who didn’t just amaze us with their ability; but endeared us to their personality. It is why people would rather watch Usain Bolt to Tiger Woods (at his best), or why Shane Warne is considered the best spinner, above Muttiah Muralitharan. They say that India comes to a standstill when Sachin Tendulkar comes to the crease and the world watched and listened when Muhammed Ali entered the ring.

Football is difficult to contend with nowadays, with its vast wealth of coverage and scrutiny. People deem it an insult that David Beckham is the most capped outfield player for England, yet they do not seem to take into consideration the nature of football that he played in. People may reflect on the statistics and the appearances; but they must consider the joy and gratification of the audience.

Ronaldo Luís Nazário de Lima, one of the greatest footballers of the modern era retired from professional football today. We knew him as Ronaldo and though later as ‘Fat Ronaldo’. His legacy will be recorded as the top goal scorer in FIFA World Cup history (15), with a trophy cabinet as wide as his belly.

Ronaldo should be recognised beyond his success. He represented the idea of what a star should be. He possessed pace, positioning and above all else his lethal finishing. He had a penchant for beautiful ladies and indulging in late night outings before matches, but it didn’t seemed to affect him on the day.

There are two questions that will always be asked in years to come. Firstly, what would have happened if a fit Ronaldo had played in the 1998 World Cup Final in 1against France? (he apparently suffered a fit earlier in the day and was only included in the final XI with minutes to spare). Secondly, if he hadn’t succumbed to crippling knee injuries, how many more records could he have broken?

Ronaldo wasn’t a brand, he was a religion. He had every schoolboy performing step overs in the playground and mystifying defences with his innate genius, all with that childlike smile. Perhaps the beauty of sport, unlike politics, is that the audience remembers their true greatness. Ronaldo’s destruction of the Compostela defence that left Sir Bobby Robson speechless and the Champions’ League hat-trick that left Man United fans on their feet applauding. It is hard to underestimate the bewildering talents of the man.

The life of Henry Moseley

Consequential theory in history, where academics forsee what could have happened has become very popular. What if D-Day had failed? What if the Cuban Missile Crisis went disastrously wrong? It is impossible to predict such events but it is interesting what scenarios could have befallen us. It also makes one think what would have happened if certain people had survived, would the world be a better place or worse?

The wasteful expenditure of life is written in poetic prose that encapsulated the horrors and the destitution of youth through the eyes of Rosenberg, Owen and Graves. It is something learnt by all school children in history and continued through life at Armistice Day and on Remembrance Sunday. I wonder whether people now look at town cenotaphs and recognise the dead. For some it is just a plaque scrawled with the names of thousands of men who died in a Foreign Field. When you study the individual names and the real people that died, it highlights their meekness, mercy and honour. It is true that many died in vain but it neglects their own private mortal history.

Commemorated at Helles memorial is a name unfamiliar with most people, but a scientist who made an impact in his short life. Henry Moseley was an English physicist who at the young age of 25 observed and measured through an X-Ray spectra that every element had a different energy signature, all relating to the number of protons within an atom; the atomic number. It was through these experiments that Moseley was able to decipher that at this sub atomic level we could work out the order of the periodic table and importantly, how many elements there were. Unlike atomic mass, atomic numbers are integers i.e. they categorically left no gaps meaning scientists could identify there were only 92 elements. As a scientist, Moseley did not have to enlist but did so through duty. He was tragically killed at Gallipoli in 1915 leading to the government to ratify that scientists would not be allowed to join the frontline. One colleague remarked:

“In view of what he might still have accomplished his death may well have been the most costly death in the war to the whole of mankind.”

Speculation surrounds whether Moseley may have received the Nobel prize for Physics a year later, but the amount he contributed to this world in his short life, like others, exacerbates the great loss to us all.

A class above? - Britain's politicians

The concepts of Parliament and the evolution of the British political system appear to be extremely atypical. The rules of Westminster are dominated by tradition and convention. There is something very British about it all, the fact that there is and has been great disharmony; and yet we seem to get on with it. It does of course have its merits, the fact it is very flexible and nothing is entrenched in a written constitution. Of course, many people – mainly on the left – would say it is inherently unfair on the minority. Andrew Neil’s television programme about British politics being run by an Etonian and Oxbridge mafia highlighted the fact that the traditional routes taken by previous politicians are now redundant and the aggrandising of the professional politician is now pervasive.

This new breed of politicians has climbed the slippery pole through internships and research posts at Conservative or Labour Party HQ, to become advisers and then establish themselves as politicians. The issue Neil saw was that this coterie were emerging all from elite institutions that were becoming breeding grounds for future Ministers. Cameron, David and Ed Miliband, Osborne, Balls and Hague all read PPE at Oxford and generally followed the same route into politics. The argument is this: do our politicians, all coming from wealthy backgrounds, lack a real understanding of what politics is about at the grassroots? These men are extremely intelligent and have a great understanding of political theory and ideology; but does it justify them to make decisions on behalf of people they don’t particularly understand.

I think the problem of Neil’s examination is that he posed some questions but he didn’t really go anywhere with it. Surely we should be asking if there are so many old Etonians in the cabinet, then what happened to people like John Major and Gordon Brown. All these former Prime Ministers went through grammar schools, a selective institution that nurtured generations of pupils with a real possibility of high office. The irritable question that no one pointed out was that grammar schools worked, it was the secondary modern system that didn’t, creating a fault line that neither political party wanted to remain. It is a case that private education has maintained high standards whilst comprehensives had to adapt themselves to a universal education policy.

Perhaps it is just a case that this argument was more ‘explosive’ because of the news earlier on the day regarding the economy. For people struggling to make money in today’s climate, it may be seen as naive for Mr Osborne to blame the woes of the economy on the weather (How British!) The departures of the so-called working class influences of Andy Coulson and Alan Johnson only made the point a bit stronger. Historically, we must remember, it has been an easy gimmick to question someone’s experience or upbringing for political barracking; I don’t think this week’s analysis should detract away from that. Also after so much scrutiny regarding patronage and expenses, a great deal of effort has been made by all parties to regain public trust and enhance participation. As many commentators agree, the new faces within Westminster have a good grounding in the outside world and at a local level. I think ultimately we should be able to trust our politician’s judgement and their political record, not just their academic background because if you don’t like them then you can always vote them out.

America: she will bounce back.

It is becoming self-evident that Americans believe themselves to be in decline. Many are now thinking that the next generation of Americans will be poorer than their parents. It appeared to be inevitable that America would be caught up economically by the population-heavy likes of China and India but is it possible that there is a decline in cultural identity and that Americans are losing their ability to understand what being American is all about.

After America’s defeat of Soviet Communism that led it to become the world’s only superpower, it appeared not to have even reached its apogee. Over the next few years the world looked to America’s vision and leadership over global events. As American backed democracy helped paint the world in new shades of hope and freedom, the US-led coalition defeated Saddam Hussein in the first Gulf War; the American dream was living, loudly and proudly. September the 11th changed all that, it made Americans question why people would want to attack them and their country. The War on Terror showed that it was incapable of fighting all wars by itself and the rhetoric of omnipotence was as apocryphal as the enemy itself.

We now know that the Soviet economic plan was flawed and struggling before the words Glasnost and Perestroika entered our political discourse. Perhaps the immediate struggle is the idea that China, using a similar economic model to the US, is now competing to overtake her in political, economic and military stakes. Even Napoleon said ‘When China wakes, she will shake the world.’ America cannot begin to compete at the same economic revolution that is propelling China forward. The ideological battle of the free West against the shackled East appears to be fragmenting in round two.

Many Americans hold proud the idea that to be American was to be winner in the lottery of life; though it is something President Obama holds with a deal of relativism. People forget that these words were being uttered a century before by an Englishman in a similar position.

An abandoned factory in Detroit, Michigan.
http://www.urbanghostsmedia.com/2010/06/rust-belt-road-trip-75-urban-decay-pics/

Many Americans hold dear that being American is not a nationality, it is an ideal. A place where no one is judged, the land of opportunity; something we see every day when watching an American film. Is this what America is struggling with? The idea that it may no longer be ‘great’ and that is being usurped by foreign powers. The more acerbic members of The Tea Party movement saw the founding fathers and constitution as divine and cannot concede to inferiority, particularly if it is God-given. The great industrial hearts of Pittsburgh, Detroit and Cleveland – the factories of the Midwest – are rusting into economic grapes of wrath. Even on television, the anachronistic films starring John Wayne or Bruce Willis – the American good guys – are being replaced with a different view of America – Mad Men during its rise to The Wire showing its fractured soul. Even America’s own portrait is distorting.

Yet despite America’s political upheaval in recent years it is still the place where people want to go and fulfil their lives. It is still generating ideas that are transforming the way we live our lives i.e. Facebook, Google and Apple. The world is becoming multilateral and American ideas are propelling it forward, despite the economic setbacks of recent years. America must remember the dark hours during the Civil War and Pearl Harbour, it did emerge stronger. America is changing: ethnically, culturally and evolving politically; it must meet the challenges economically. The world doesn’t get excited over Chinese state visits or Indian trade missions; they look to Presidential visits and the excitement of going to America. America cannot be cleansed of its soul in a decade, the world owes it too much and it will fight back.