This one’s fairly simple. Some communities are more cohesive than others. You’d be surprised how much a prosperous suburb with engaged residents has in common with an inner-city estate with a dominant (often minority ethnic) community. Sure, there are points of tension, but local officers at least know who to speak to. In places where there’s actually a community to begin with, a neighbourhood policing team can make a difference.
On the other hand, some ‘communities’ are chaotic, transient and divided. They’re riven by gangs and organised criminals. As tactics like stop and search and use of force become hotly contested, these communities become abandoned by police officers worried about losing their jobs. The community leaders who do exist are often hostile. A neighbourhood policing team’s at an immediate disadvantage – their role becomes more like counterinsurgency than policing. George Dixon wouldn’t have lasted five minutes. Well, he would, until the IOPC had him up for assault.
These are places which, unfortunately, politicians like to ignore. They pretend they’re policed by consent. It’s easier to blame the police for societal problems law enforcement can never, and will never, solve.
If you are interested in policing in the UK and all things Plod, I recommend Dominic Alder.
Wasn’t Michael Corleone also a “Community Leader”?
NickM – yes he was, a fictional one – but based on real persons, criminals who had power in communities, and were treated as honoured persons.
As for “minority ethnic” communities – in Britain that normally (but not always) means Islamic communities, and Islam (contrary to the false claims of the Western establishment) had a fundamentally different, opposed, philosophy and body of laws (Islamic law).
Policemen can “talk with community leaders” – who will, if honest, inform the policemen (they are unlikely to bother talking frankly to policewomen – why would they?) that people who leave Islam should be killed, and that people who mock Muhammed should be killed. Do the police intend to help with these tasks? How about in the collection of the infidel tax?
As for “chaotic communities” – does Mr Adler mean black?
If so, a sad change has come over black communities – for example in the 1950s Jamaica had a low murder rate, later on it had a very high murder rate.
A few years is not long enough for there to have been a major genetic change – so the change in black communities has been cultural, their breakdown is NOT genetically predetermined. Yes black people tend to have higher testosterone – but a person can control their reaction to that, they do not have to give in to it.
The same is true in the United States – where, within living memory, the black communities in cities such as Philadelphia were fairly law abiding.
Once it was the Irish in America who had a reputation for short tempers and violence – which is why (for example) advertisements for coachmen in New York City in the early 1900s often said “colored man preferred”.
You did not want to employ an Irishman – who (so it was believed) might get into arguments with other road users, or with you (his employer).
My Irish immigrant great grandfather and great uncles fought in the Union Army. They were volunteers who enlisted in Illinois state-raised regiments upon the outbreak of the war. They were motivated to do so in part because their of loyalty and love for a country that had recently given them a new start in life and in part because they believed that the institution of slavery was a moral abomination. Also because of their experiences as children growing up in a nation dominated by a foreign oppressor. My great grandfather was wounded an affected by his wound throughout his wife until he died young (age 56) due to complications thereof. One great uncle was also severely wounded, one died of diptheria contracted on the march, and one was killed in action in the Battle of Chickamauga. They were all in their early mid-20s. I have their “enlistment photos” showing them posing proudly (but with very serious expressions) in their brand new uniforms with their rifles at their side.
Just thought I’d post this comment as a counterbalance to the traditional cliched image of the brawling drunken Irish immigrant.
IrishOtter49 – quite so Sir, my own grandfather, James Power, was much the same – he served in both World Wars. He was very tempered – although I killer (war is organized killing). My other grandfather, Julius Marks, was damaged mentally by the First World War – by all accounts he came back a much worse man than when he had left for war, but James Power was not harmed – he was always ready with a smile. And, as he explained to me, killing or being killed – these are natural things.
My father, Harry Marks, was a much more violent man (although polite with it – he never used bad language) and physically very strong (one of his favorite moves, back in the 1930s, was to throw another man over his head, the opponent would land some feet away and at high speed – at the “Battle of Cable Street” he picked men out of the “Blackshirt” march, over the heads of the police officers, who were wearing traditional helmets, and into the crowd of Jews and Irishmen some feet behind him, things did not go well for Blackshirts who were flung into that crowd, assuming they were not knocked out by the throw itself) – very far from the stereotype of the weedy intellectual Jew (although, in spite of leaving school at 14, Harry Marks was an intellectual – very well read, and he could speak several languages).
First he fought for the Communists in London – later against them, when he broke with them (over their order to harm a woman) he picked up the conference table and throw it at the committee, several of them were badly injured. He kept firearms for personal protection – but I do not know if ever used them, he did have a couple of bullet wounds – but that was from refusing to pay Protection Money during his days owning a club and other things (it made no difference – he still did not pay, what is the point of people who can not even shoot straight). All sadly long gone – Harry Marks fell victim to the Slater/Walker fraud (as so many people did) – far more money is stolen with a pen than with a firearm, and he never really recovered from losing everything he had spent his life building up.
But then “Murder Incorporated” in New York was largely Jewish – they made a point of being polite and dressing nicely (but not in a “flashy” manner – quite restrained), Officer O’Reilly (another stereotype) could walk right past the person who had committed the murder he was investigating – and not give the “some Jewish accountant – or whatever” a second glance.
I meant very EVEN tempered about James Power – I never witnessed him get angry and people who served with him (people I met via the British Legion – I used to stay with my grandparents every summer as a child) said he never did get angry.
I am prone to anger, as my father was (although I do not have his physical strength or coordination) – but my grandfather thought that was a weakness, “you need to be able to kill someone – WITHOUT disliking them”.
As for “diverse communities” – i.e. divided communities, which Dominic Alder (correctly) implies are-not-communities-at-all.
The Harvard sociologist Robert Putnam did extensive research on such “communities” and found that what Dominic Alder implies is true – they are a mess, people in them distrust (to put the matter mildly) people from their own ethnic groups – not just people from other ethnic groups, “diversity”, a “mixed community”, is a disaster – it is like a Hobbesian “war of all against all”.
However, Robert Putnam suppressed his own research – for year after year.
And when he did finally publish it – it came with a pep talk (written by him) about how these were just problems for now and, eventually, diversity would have benefits.
He never produced an atom of evidence for that claim.
On the difference between Protestant Irishmen and Catholic Irishmen (“James” is a Catholic name in Ireland – just as how you SPELL your name is important – “Gerry with a G is Catholic – Jerry with a J is Protestant”), my grandfather never regarded Protestant Irishmen as foreign oppressors – after all everyone without an “O” in the name is “foreign” to some extent (“Power” like “Burke” or “Nagle” indicates Norman ancestry) and even among the “Os” (the O’Neils and so on) you will find Protestants – they idea they all came over in the early 1600s is drivel – you can see the islands off the coast of Scotland from Ulster in Northern Ireland, the same people have always lived on both sides of the narrow sea – the Scots are an Irish tribe. As for the British Crown, plenty of Catholic Irishmen served that – and not just in both World Wars (they always had).
But there are differences – a “Redneck” (a Protestant Irishman – specifically an Ulsterman from the north) will let you know they are angry with you, they will bellow with rage, their neck will expand and go red, they will demand that you fight them one-on-one – here-and-now, and they will carry on punching you till you go down (ignoring any blows you land on them – even if you stab or shoot them, they may not notice – they are just too angry). When you do go down (and you will) he will scream at you – “get up – get up and fight!” – and when you do not, he will leave in disgust – still screaming with (impotent) rage.
The Catholic Irishman (my grandfather’s family were from Waterford – once famous for Waterford Crystal) will smile and buy you a drink and another drink – and tell you funny stories, and tell you how much he likes you, and when you leave the bar – he and his mates will kick you to death and dump your body in a bog.
It is much more effective. Very much more effective.
“Bill the Butcher” (libeled in the lying propaganda film “Gangs of New York” – for example the riots in the 1860s were largely against BLACKS – the Catholic Irish attacked black orphanages and so on – although YES they had been horribly provoked by high taxes and conscription – I am NOT trying to justify either high taxes or conscription, still the film does turn the riots, and everything else, on its head) never killed anyone – he was called “Bill the Butcher” because his name was William (well of course it was – he would be a William) and he was a butcher – he ran a butcher shop. He also died years before the Civil War – and people like him were PRO Lincoln (not anti Lincoln – as the film pretends). And yes, his volunteer fire fighters acted like a street gang at times, that-much-is-true.
He was a prize fighter (bare knuckle fighting – very hard) – and he defeated a Catholic Irishman, not in a street battle – in the ring.
So a man was sent to shoot him dead, the man took his mate with him (two men with guns are better than one when facing an unarmed man – look up how General Henry Wilson died, after the memorial service – two armed men against an unarmed man, Wilson had been shot before, but in combat, as he used to say to reassure people “do not be alarmed – I was not born looking like this” – he had been shot in the face, by the way – he was NOT an “Orangeman” – you have to be Presbyterian to a member of the Orange Order, Henry Wilson was Church of Ireland – Anglican).
Anyway “Bill the Butcher” named the men who had shot him, it was a dying declaration (on his death bed) – and the men proved their own guilt by trying to flee the city.
However, a corrupt jury found them not guilty anyway.
Corrupt juries in New York City are not a new thing.
When did the Protestants of Ireland, specifically in Ulster, become different from Protestants in Scotland (or in the south of Ireland for that matter) – I would say that the key date is 1712.
In 1712 Protestants in Scotland lost the right to choose their own ministers of religion – the Church of Scotland went over to “top-down” appointments.
But in Ireland the Presbyterians and other Protestants (there have always been many different churches) were not the established church – the Church of Ireland (Anglican – that half-way-house between Protestant and Catholic) was the established Church and continued to be till (I think) 1869.
So local communities of Protestants continued to choose their own ministers of religion in Ireland – and they took that habit with them to America.
In 1776 these Rednecks (Protestant Irish – that is what a Redneck is, although they have forgotten – and they have assimilated many other people into their frontier culture, including members of Indian tribes they intermarried with) were the backbone of resistance against the British Crown – and their ministers of religion were the “black cloaked regiment” that was considered the heart of the revolt (they tend to be forgotten because they did not tend to be wealthy people – and did not get elected to much, although that is partly because they did not tend to run for office, they just wanted to be left alone).
They soon fell out with the new government as well – hence the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794. They had not guessed that “no taxation” really meant “no taxation – without representation” (had they understood that – they might have stayed home in 1776), they came from the British Isles to avoid such things as the licensing (taxing) of whiskey stills, then the British Crown tried to do the same thing to them in America, now the new government did the same thing (meet the new boss – same as the old boss). Still Jefferson got rid of the tax – and it did not come back till the Civil War.
But they still win the medals in the wars, from the first war right to Vietnam.
And they tend to get betrayed by Washington D.C. – just as Ulstermen here tend to get betrayed by London.
They know they are going to get betrayed – but they always answer the call anyway.
Everyone dies – a person might as well answer the call for aid, and die betrayed – as die some other way.
Ouch I got it wrong.
The Irish Disestablishment Act was passed in 1869 (I was right about that) – BUT it did not go into effect till 1871.
The Penal Laws (a series of bizarre statutes mostly passed under Queen Anne in the early 1700s) – had been repealed by a series of Acts starting in the 1770s (Edmund Burke was the main force behind repealing the Penal Laws).
At one time you could not own a horse, over a certain value, if you were not Church of Ireland – or own a firearm (it was almost as bad as modern Britain), and your son could take your land off you (and from his brothers) by declaring that they had converted.
That caused bitterness in families over generations – the knowledge your landlord was (way back) a relative, descended from someone who had stabbed the family in the back (and now pretended that the family was not related to him – even if he looked just like you) – or someone who had bought the land from such a person – or bought the land from the government after a confiscation for revolt (Irish history is a history of “confiscations and counter confiscations” and various factions take the land and then take it back again – Edmund Burke)
Some of the Penal laws applied to Dissenting Protestants – and even after they were repealed, there was a lot of bitterness.
The 1798 revolt was led by Protestants (Dissenting ones – although not all of them, everyone split) in the north – even though in the south hundreds of Protestants were burned alive (drive them into a barn, lock and bar the doors, and burn the barn – very efficient).
The revolt in the south was very strange – because of the alliance with the French Revolution forces, who HATED Catholics.
Had they won – the southerners would have found that their “friends and allies” from France would have turned on them.
Something that “Sergeant Harper” in the “Sharp” novels quietly understands.
A quarter of Wellington’s army were Irish – and all volunteers (there has never been conscription in Ireland – it has never been needed) – and most of that quarter were Catholic.
It was always been confusing – for example the Pope supported William of Orange at the Battle of the Boyne in 1790 – because Louis XIV (the Sun King) was a threat to everyone – and James II was a puppet of Louis XIV.
And the Dutch “Blue Guard” (the elite bodyguard of a Protestant King) – were mostly Catholics.
“And Jews?”
Well the old joke went like this – a man is walking along and a gang grabs him….
“Are you a Catholic or a Protestant?” – “I am Jew” replies the man – and after some confusion the gang asks “yes – but are you a Catholic Jew or a Protestant Jew?”
I say “old” joke – as it is out of date now, these days Jew counts as “Protestant”.
The “Catholics” of Ireland may no longer be Catholics (hence the vote for abortion and every other ANTI Catholic doctrine – they are no more Catholic than the Modernists in the clergy are), but they hate Jews more they have ever done.
Really hate Jews – Ireland rivals even Spain in this. Indeed I would argue it is much worse – as it is only one side of Spanish politics (the socialists) who really hate Jews, in the Republic of Ireland it is all the major political parties.
By the way – basic point of Catholic Church doctrine, there can be no absolution without sincere repentance – and a key part of sincere repentance is to seek just punishment for the terrible things you have done.
So every Hollywood movie gets it WRONG – a priest should not grant absolution (which comes from God – not from the priest himself) unless the person who has done terrible things seeks just punishment – saying a few Our Fathers or Hail Marys is NOT enough.
But then a lot of priests, and Bishops, also got it wrong – ignored this basic (yes – basic) principle – and granted absolution to child abusers and other such WITHOUT them voluntarily seeking just punishment, just moving them to a different parish to carry on their evil ways.
That undermined the church more than anything else.
It ignored its own principles – because the people in charge no longer really believed in those principles, or in the supernatural faith behind them.
Think about it – if a man truly believes that he will burn in Hell for all eternity for doing these things, will they do these things – no they will not. Which means they did NOT truly believe – they were without true faith.
It is not just child abuse.
“I have sinned Father – I shot an unarmed man dead”.
The correct response is – “of course you will be granted absolution, if you truly repent by seeking just punishment for your crime – I will personally visit you in your cell”.
NOT “say X number of Our Fathers”.
That is NOT how it is supposed to work.
Dixon only works if his beat is Dock Green. And England ain’t Dock Green anymore.
llater,
llamas
When I was first married and busy making kids, we lived on a meandering cul-de-sac with large homes and 1-2 acre lots. Our cul-de-sac was surrounded by similar cul-de-sacs. Homogenous in the extreme – all youngish sorts, most with one or more kids below high school age. Homogenous in values as well.
“Policing”, in such an environment, consisted mostly of everybody with an eye open around everyone’s kids. A firm look would generally stop bad behavior. A talk with a miscreant’s parent would suffice for the more serious breaches.
To me, the very homogeneity was the cause of the peace and order that resulted. What was “bad” to me was “bad” to most everyone in the area. There was a pulling-together to keep our area “good”, for one definition of good (which is all we needed.)
For that era and place, we were our own SNT’s.
As values homogeneity decreases, the usefulness of that approach – moral pressure – loses its power. At that point, you almost need a standing army with the power to punish physically in order to contain miscreants.
So, what llamas said.
llamas and bobby b – agreed.
Although in the film “The Blue Lamp” P.C. Dixon is shot dead – he was brought back from the dead for the television series.