Thoughts on government proposals to handle UK riots

Miscellaneous Current Events
1

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/11/uk-riots-david-cameron-police-commons:

Cameron’s remarks, which followed unease about the planned police cuts among ministers, came as he announced a series of measures in response to the “most appalling scenes” in English cities.

The prime minister said:

• Theresa May, the home secretary, would work with Iain Duncan Smith, the work and pensions secretary, to produce a cross-government action programme on gangs. This would be a “national priority”. May would report to parliament in October amid evidence that gangs co-ordinated some of the attacks on the police and some of the looting.

That’s right - increase the scope of the state even though the state’s welfare programs caused the problems in the first place.

• The treasury would be freeing up £10m from its reserve.

‘its reserves’ being your pockets!

• The army could be used for guarding duties if there were a repeat of such widespread riots in order to free up police to deal with violence.

Free up police? Sure - when they’re not too busy standing by watching.

• Police would be given discretion to remove face masks from people on the street “under any circumstances where there is reasonable suspicion that they are related to criminal activity”.

What did 19th century English law have over 21st century English law that policemen today need special permission to do their jobs?

• Any homeowner or business person whose property was damaged would be able to seek compensation under the Riot Damages Act even if they were uninsured. The government would provide police with funds to ensure they could meet “legitimate claims”.

What? A criminal damages a citizen A’s property and so all citizens have to pay for it? That’s right more government intervention - this time in the Insurance industry. What incentive is there for business owners to invest in insurance if the risk is transferred to the taxpayer. Why pay twice?

• No “phoney human rights concerns” about publishing CCTV images of suspects involved in rioting would be allowed to “get in the way of bringing these criminals to justice”.

It’s hard not to agree with that.

• Ministers would work with the police and MI5 to assess whether it would be right to stop people communicating via social network sites “when we know they are plotting violence, disorder and criminality”. Cameron said he had asked the police if they needed new powers in this area.

It should be no different to the police having the power to open your letters when they suspect you are plotting violence, disorder and criminality. Which begs the question of why they don’t apply the same logic to criminal financiers and politicians.

2

good post

3

• No “phoney human rights concerns” about publishing CCTV images of suspects involved in rioting would be allowed to “get in the way of bringing these criminals to justice”.

Seems there is something about this one which provides a little more insight as to why it may be on the list:

Currently, under English law(Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984), the police have no power to delete or confiscate “unpublished material” without a court order. British media firms are holding firm on this right even though Cameron is making the above promise.

I wonder what exactly Cameron is referring to here as “phoney human rights concerns”… is that a push for a change in the laws? Is this just more expansion of the state?

The following footage shows what corporate security officials are trained to spout when photographed by the public:

Best to remain vigilent for changes to the law - especially after a crisis. As Rahm Emanuel once said, “You never want a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”