Does anybody else recall reading this rather doom-laden analysis written by John Derbyshire?.
I seem to remember that Mr.Derbyshire was treated to something of a rotten tomato-splattering from much of Blogland in response to his heretical pessimism. Whilst I must admit that it makes for a sobering read (to say the least) there was one prediction which struck me as all too plausible:
“Actual crime — murder, rape, robbery, burglary, and assault — will skyrocket, but it will be illegal to talk about it.”
That plausibility began to look like distinct possibility when I read this:
“An editor whose newspapers print lists of local crimes has claimed the police are trying to gag him.”
Now that’s not quite the same as making it illegal, but the impulse is apparent.
“Andy Jackson of Avon and Somerset Police said: “We do not want a blanket list of crimes because we don’t benefit from that.”
No, I’m sure you don’t benefit from that, Mr.Jackson. After all, if the tax-cattle are exposed to the reality they might begin to wonder what the hell they’re paying you for.
“We wanted to present it in a responsible way so readers weren’t alarmed by large volumes of crime.”
Note: no denial that there are ‘large volumes’ of crime, merely a plea for the statistics to be presented in a responsible manner (whatever that means).
And so it begins. And Mr.Derbyshire, if he ever reads this, might feel just a little vindicated.
[My thanks to Chris Tame of the Libertarian Alliance for the link to the BBC story above]
“Actual crime” does not seem to get much of a window these days. Considering the lipservice that politicians pays to it, I would have expected a lot more to be done about it. It just leaves me with an open mind and a closed fist.
Especially since HMG has denied you in the UK from the right to use anything else with which to defend yourselves, and even a fist is fast coming into disrepute. That slippery slope is tilting ever faster right into total and abject enslavement.
Recently the Philadelphia Daily News had to formally apologize to the “community” for publishing on its cover a set of photos of wanted alleged murderers.
The reason?
No white faces. No kidding.
A reporter associiated with a related article in the issue was forced out as well.
Is this some kind of a joke? The cops should trying remembering who it is who pays their salaries. Perhaps also they themselves should try pointing out to government that they can no more prevent crime than the fire brigade can prevent fires starting and the ambulance service can prevent road accidents and heart attacks. But that might mean an admission of failure on the part of said government that they are failing in their assumed responsibility to prevent crime.
Ought – as Kant said – implies can. ‘Society’ can’t protect you from crime, hence it is absurd to say that it ought to.
I like Steve’s comment! Very intelligent.
I think we could make a deal with the police – if we agree, just as Steve says, to see them as more like firemen and ambulance drivers [quite reasonable too], then they, the police, could get a bit more humble, and start being friendlier and kinder to victims, which would then be much more clearly a key part of their job, and an easily achievable part.
It’s no use the police acting all self-important and impatient with the victim because their job is to go out and catch the criminal and the victim is taking up their time…. and then moaning it’s not that easy to actually catch criminals.
Of course it’s not that easy to catch robbers, and we may not want to lose liberties to make it easier – so let’s be a little kinder with the police…. on condition they’re kinder with us when we get robbed.
Deal?
Has anyone here not registered a crime against them? The only reason people contact the police these days is to get a crime number for the claim. As the price of insurance soars less people bother to claim for vehicles in case it affects the premium.
I have been burgled twice, claimed once. Had 4 vehicles stolen, claimed 0.