We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
A Civitas report on crime, ominously called The Failure of Britain’s Police, argues that forces of law and order have lost control. Police in Britain are so overwhelmed by the sheer volume of crime that even recent extra recruits are making no difference according to the report published today.
The comparison with New York figures is startling. In 1991 there were 22,000 robberies in London. In 2002 there were 44,600, an increase of 105 per cent. In 1991 there were 99,000 robberies in New York City. In 2002 there were 27,000, a decrease of 73 per cent. To draw equal with New York’s achievement, London would thus have to gain no fewer than 178 percentage points in its fight against street crime.
The report concludes that to halt the rising levels of street crime, substantial increases in numbers of policemen, as seen in New York, are necessary. Zero tolence policing is called for to set clear boundaries and re-take the public places from anti-social elements.
However, that has not been the Home office’s priority. Their approach is predictable:
In the face of staggering volumes of crime, the police and the Home Office are reduced to ‘bringing crime under control’ by legalising or decriminalising many offences on the grounds that they aren’t so bad after all.
Oh, and here is the government’s story about crime figures. Crime is 9 per cent down and believe this, if you can:
These figures show Government measures to reduce crime are working. Crime is continuing a downward trend and the risk of being a victim remains at its lowest level for 20 years.
I know whether I feel safe in London or not. How about this radical solution – allow people defend themselves!
At my last-Friday-of-the-month meetings chez moi, my computer – and especially its round-the-clock Internet connection – tends to degenerate into a tragedy of the commons illustration.
And thus spake Antoine at Brian’s Friday…
…and his adoring audience rejoiced
But sometimes I come across vaguely good stuff this way. This, which found itself on my screen as things began to wind down last night, is quite good. It is a Richard Littlejohn Sunpage, and sports as its main headline the following: “You’re Salford Shi’ite and you know you are.” That’s about the British Muslim captured in Iraq, fighting against Britain.
That headline is the world crisis in one phrase. Daft Muslims do daft things, and by the time the abuse has settled, all the other Muslims have been insulted.
Next to that story was another, in a grey box on the right hand side. That looks like a Samizdata story I said. Yes it does, said someone else closer even than I to the heart of things Samizdatarian. So here it all is. It doesn’t deserve to be swallowed up in the pay-per-view maw of the Murdoch archives.
If he were a few years younger, Patrick Hamilton would be on the front line in Iraq today.
A former paratrooper, he is a Falklands veteran and served seven tours of duty in Northern Ireland.
He spent 25 years in the Army ready and willing to lay down his life for freedom and justice.
Today, he must be wondering why he bothered. When Mr Hamilton, 52, saw his 16-year-old daughter Catherine being menaced by a gang of hooligans, he rushed to her defence.
She was being threatened by a gang of teenage boys and girls who followed her back from her part time job at McDonald’s, in North Shields, Tyne and Wear.
Mr Hamilton gave chase, grabbed hold of one of the gang and tried to make a citizen’s arrest.
When police arrived, he called out: “I’ve got one, I’ve got one.”
But the police weren’t interested in nicking the troublemaker or going after the gang.
Instead, they arrested Mr Hamilton, handcuffed him and drove him away in a police car. He was held at the local police station for an hour before being released without charge.
Mr Hamilton, who now works as a college lecturer teaching youngsters who want to join the police or armed forces, was livid.
And rightly so. He said: “I can’t believe the police treated me and my family like this. It’s disgusting. I can’t believe the police protected these scum.”
I can.
The police have gone from being on the side of the law-abiding, through being neutral, to actively siding with vermin.
Mr Hamilton’s arrest is par for the course.
The Old Bill can’t be bothered to go after thugs, either because they’re frightened of getting a kicking, or because they’re scared of the Left-wing, legally-aided lawyers who infest our so-called justice system.
So they take the easy option and nick the good guys.
Tens of thousands of British servicemen and women are risking their lives in Iraq because they believe in freedom and justice.
But, on the home front, exactly what kind of “justice” can they expect?
It could be a long war.
I’ve just been watching the weekly highlights of the Johnny Vaughan TV show which is on BBC Nobody-watches-that 3. One of his guests was complaining about how depressing the Oscars show was. Said Vaughan:
“I had to switch over and watch some war coverage just to cheer myself up.”
I may just have stumbled upon the reason for Mr.Blair’s enthusiasm to occupy Iraq. Having successfully disarmed the British, he is now on his way to do the same to the Iraqis:
Guns are very common in Iraq. Even so, gun shop owners say business has risen by 25 percent over the past month, with cheap pistols priced under $100 in highest demand. The shops are not allowed to sell assault rifles, but store owners say hunting rifles are selling fast.
Well, well, well. The ironies are so rich that you could float them on the stock market. Oppressed, tyrannized Iraqis can apparently walk into a shop and buy a shooter with the same alacrity with which they would purchase a packet of pitta breads and ‘free, democratic’ Britons can be prosecuted for possessing a toothpick!
Much to ponder in this, fellow seekers, but a couple of conclusions do spring readily to mind: first, democidal despot he may be but Saddam Hussein clearly trusts his own people far more than Her Majesty’s Government trusts theirs. Secondly, whilst not wishing to disparage the value of RKBA, it seems that it is not a defence against tyranny.
[My thanks to Sean Gabb for the link]
Della writes in regarding a truly obscene yet far from unpredicable example of the statist mindset which places the state’s law above any notions of actual justice
First they ban any effective tool of defending yourself against rape, then they prosecute you if you actually defend yourself, now they are prosecuting people for using the most effective method of escaping rape:
“Melissa O’Donnell claimed the unidentified man attacked her as she slept in the spare room of his home in Inverness and she fled by car despite drinking that night.”
“She added: “About 30 minutes later he burst into the room and made a lunge for me. He started shouting and calling me names such as slut. He said I was trying it on with his friends. When he eventually left the room she grabbed her clothes and ran out, only to be grabbed again. Once more, she struggled free and managed to get out of the flat and run to her car, driving off with the door still open and David running after her.
After driving about 400 metres she felt she had escaped her attacker and stopped. However, he [the judge] conceded there were “extreme special reasons” why she drove while over the limit, and that was why he decided to restrict the sentence to a £350 ($560) fine and eight penalty points.”
That is £1408.11 and 32 penalty points per mile.
Although I do as a general rule disapprove of people driving after drinking, the fact is this women did not do any harm to anyone. In this case it is utterly ridiculous to prosecute the woman for driving after drinking given the circumstances. Exactly how else would she have been able to escape a 6’3″ man?
Either the court must reject her story, convict her and punish her fully… or they must accept her account of events that night and set aside the matter of her drinking and driving as not just trivial but fully justified in the circumstances.
And yet, by not banning her from driving upon conviction (for she never denied being over the legal limit), the Scottish state is saying it does indeed accept her version of events… and so the court has in effect prosecuted and convicted her for escaping from being raped.
Della
Cor, Gnasher, that’s a relief! Alert status down to Bikini Off or whatever they call it. The good guys are so far ahead in the War on Terror that they have time to spare to ban the Dandy.
New York is a place I have got to love in my all-too brief visits there, but one of its less endearing characteristics is the puritan bossiness of some of the folk who unfortunately get to run that city. Mayor Bloomberg has already succeeded in a total ban on smoking in private places like bars, regardless of the wishes of the owners of such private property.
Well, now they are trying to regulate the teaching of martial arts, as pointed out by a justifiably enraged Russell Whitaker over at his excellent blog.
What the hell is it with these people? Do they really, actually want us to have no means by which we can defend ourselves? Do they really want us to be like so many docile sheep?
The only logical answer, I fear, is “Yes.”
Addendum: definitely bookmark Russell’s site. Strongly recommended for those like me who are interested in everything from self-defence issues to space.
Yesterday evening I was present at a very interesting gathering that took place in the City of London.
It was, or at least appeared to be, a joint venture between the American NRA and the NRA of Great Britain (yes, we do have one).
I have not attended anything like this before. The format was that of a TV chat show which was hosted by a representative of the American NRA who fielded questions to, and took replies from, an almost entirely British audience. The event was filmed by an American production company and will, in due course, be edited into an info-mercial for distribution in the USA designed to press home to an American audience the folly and dangers of apparently ‘reasonable’ gun control measures.
It was a remarkably well-informed audience. Many of them were former shooters and gun-owners and, without exception, they were able to recount, by reference to both historical data and relevent legislation, the way victim-disarmament had started in the 1920’s as merely sensible measures to remove the ‘most dangerous’ weapons from society and, over the years, chip by chip, step by step, measure by measure, the disarmament programme advanced up to 1997 when all handguns were prohibited along with every other potentially life-saving tool (e.g. pepper sprays). Emphasised too, was the political and legal slippery slope which has resulted in a situation in Britain today where acting in genuine self-defence is classified as serious crime.
On the face of it, this is an exercise which will benefit Americans not Britons but, on a deeper level, it will benefit Brits as well because events like this bring together those too-few Britons who still believe in a right of self-defence and spurs them on to greater levels of mutual education and political activism. That is how things change.
I detected not the merest hint of a defeatist atmosphere last night. Indeed, I think it is fair to say that the self-defence movement in Britain, albeit still small, has been galvanised to an unprecedented degree.
In the two weeks since I last wrote about the Ronald Dixon self-defence case pending in Brooklyn, New York, my blog seems to have become something of a clearinghouse for advocacy in Mr. Dixon’s support. Recall that I mentioned:
This is about as clear-cut a case of righteous home and family defense as I’ve seen recently in the U.S. This is also an unusual opportunity to overwhelm the Kings County (Brooklyn) District Attorney’s office with correspondance, demonstrating the reach of Anglosphere libertarian outrage.
Well, one of my blog commenters has reminded me of a brilliant solution which takes advantage of the free, no-registration TPC email-to-fax gateway service. To quote the annoying second-rate comic Carrot Top, presently featured in the DialATT adverts running on TV this side of the Atlantic, “it’s free for you, cheap for them”.
Politicians in all countries still pay much more attention to letters and faxes than they do email, if for nothing else than to weight the importance of the number of paper communications over that of electronic. I urge RKBA advocates to take advantage of this fact and deluge the Brooklyn DA’s office with polite but uncompromisingly non-grovelling support for Mr. Dixon.
Russell Whitaker
Blogger Russell Whitaker has spotted a truly iniquitous case regarding legitimate self-defence in the United States
Ronald Dixon moved to Brooklyn, New York, from Florida not too long ago. The 27 year-old softspoken network engineer, a US Navy veteran naturalized from Jamaica, did not expect to have to defend the lives of his infant children from a vicious scumbag home invader. But defend them he did. Now, he finds himself in jeopardy, not for the defense itself (yet), but for the use of an unlicenced handgun in that defense! I’ve written a longer piece on this issue on my own site.
This is about as clear-cut a case of righteous home and family defense as I’ve seen recently in the U.S. This is also an unusual opportunity to overwhelm the Kings County (Brooklyn) District Attorney’s office with correspondance, demonstrating the reach of Anglosphere libertarian outrage.
Russell Whitaker
I read an article a few weeks back, in the Guardian I believe, which consisted of a lament about the lack of originality or creativity in British TV comedy production these days. I cannot remember exactly who or what the writer felt was to blame for this state of affairs (America, probably) but I have my own theory. I believe that no comedy writer in Britain could possibly produce anything as farcical as real-life:
“Former Scotland footballer Duncan Ferguson is being investigated by police over allegations he assaulted a man burgling his home on Merseyside.”
It wouldn’t surprise me if every burglar, mugger and bag-snatch in this country is going to routinely claim to have been assaulted, confident in the knowledge that their claims will be taken seriously. Burglars are rapidly becoming a ‘victim’ class.
“However, the criminal has accused the 6ft 4in former Rangers player of assaulting him during the confrontation.
Merseyside Police are investigating the allegation and officers will speak to Ferguson in the near future.”
Even assuming the allegation proves to be true, I doubt that Mr.Ferguson will actually be prosecuted. At least, I sincerely hope not. But, what are the odds on the burglar making a claim for damages for alleged breach of his Heeeeeeewwwmin Rights?
For the first time in a long while I am prepared, temporarily at least, to suspend my animus towards the BBC. When they are prepared to publish an article called ‘Why Britain needs more guns’ by the outstanding Joyce Lee Malcolm then they have earned a respite from my relentless hostility. Nay, they may even by the worthy recipients of a nod of appreciation.
“The price of British government insistence upon a monopoly of force comes at a high social cost.
First, it is unrealistic. No police force, however large, can protect everyone. Further, hundreds of thousands of police hours are spent monitoring firearms restrictions, rather than patrolling the streets. And changes in the law of self-defence have left ordinary people at the mercy of thugs.”
Amen to that. Testify, Sister Joyce!!
And, yes, it is on the BBC website. No word of a lie. Go and check the link yourself if you don’t believe me. Yes, you could have knocked me down with a feather as well.
Since they have invited comments from their readers this will give ample opportunity for the British ones to rant, scream, pull out their hair, void their bowels and otherwise hissy-fit themselves into a cocked hat. But that doesn’t matter because the truth has been spoken and it’s out there in black-and-white for every anti-self-defence nut to see and try, in vain, to rebut.
This is a good start. In fact, and I don’t want to runoff at the mouth here or jump the gun (pun gleefully intended) but I do believe that we could be getting just a little bit of traction with this issue. About bloody time, too.
I honestly fail to understand all the fuss over the Judicial decision not to incarcerate burglars. It is perfectly understandable in light of the fact that, in London, the burglars are not even going to be apprehended in the first place.
Burglaries in London are only going to be investigated if the crime is “deemed solvable”, according to new guidelines for the Metropolitan Police.
What they mean by ‘deemed solvable’ is if the investigating officer actually finds the felon climbing out of a householders window wearing a zorro-mask and holding a bag marked ‘swag’. Short of that, they can’t be bothered. A complaint to the police from a householder that a burglar has assaulted them may stir the sediment in their feet and, naturally, they will still whip themselves instantaneously into a frenzy of righteous froth should a burglar ever complain that a householder has assaulted him. After all we can’t have people getting away with that sort of thing, can we.
However, mass voluntary redundancy is not on the agenda just yet:
Crimes which will be given priority must come under four categories: serious crimes like murder and rape, major incidents, hate crime and incidents that are the priority of a particular borough.
‘Priority of a particular borough’ and ‘hate crimes’ are largely synonymous and is likely to lead to victims of burglary or theft fabricating an element of racist abuse in order to get their complaints taken seriously. Thus the incidence of ‘hate crime’ will dramatically rocket and prompt politicians to hastily enact even more anti-hate legislation.
Also, I wonder how long it will be until ‘low-profile’ (i.e. non-politically sensitive) murders and rapes are quietly dropped from the agenda?
Hopefully though, some sections of the public wll begin to appreciate that the police, like all other nationalised industries, are indifferent to their customers. Equally, they may begin to re-evaluate the assumed social contract which the state is now unilaterally shredding.
In the long term, this may be good news. Though not such good news, I fear, in the short term.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
