Work as if you live in the early days of a

Better Nation

Archive for category Crime

We should be treating the issue of rape with more caution

Apr 16

Posted by Jeff in Crime, Media | 62 Comments

The curious nature of political journalism is such that, when you’re down, you can be the subject of a feeding frenzy that feels like it’ll never quit. I do wonder if this is the case around the world or just specific to Scotland but, rightly or wrongly, Bill Walker MSP is on the receiving end of that feeding frenzy right now.

I daresay the story that he is building an extension to his house (are politicians not allowed to perform home maintenance these days?) with recently public funds, i.e. his salary, barely flickered on his subconscious given that numerous newspapers printed the story that he is the subject of a police investigation into alleged rape. And there it is, for ever more, he will not just be Bill Walker MSP, but The Alleged Rapist Bill Walker.

It is concerning how quickly and easily a reputation can be transformed by an unforgiving, relentless media these days. I of course haven’t the faintest idea about the truth behind any of the accusations but if our principles aren’t built around innocent until proven guilty then our society is in big trouble. If we are to assume a person is innocent, don’t we have a responsibility to protect and respect that presumed innocence and keep such investigations private until a guilty verdict is delivered, irrespective of how juicy a story it may be? At the very least for cases of this nature, surely.

Another one for post-Leveson days perhaps but it reminds me of Manchester United footballer Tom Cleverley who was splashed across the front page of The Sun for begging a woman for sex, the paper not considering that some chancer might have just been using the footballer’s identity to get lucky (which was indeed the case). The Sun had to make a humiliating, grovelling but brief apology.

Now, walking into a bar and pretending to be Bill Walker is not the best pick-up technique in the world, particularly in light of recent news stories, but trampling over lives to sell newspapers is a grubby, grubby business and should be done with caution. In fact, it just shouldn’t be done at all.

I could leave it there and some may agree while others may disagree, but this in itself is to cloud an already grim picture and I’d say I’m (admittedly knowingly) more culpable of a greater ill here.

I am sure I am not alone in my first thoughts from the Sunday press being ‘poor man, maybe he didn’t do it’. An alternative thought could have been ‘poor woman, maybe he did do it and he’ll get away with it’. As I say, I have no idea of the truth behind the issue and would rather not even be considering any of this, my preference being that the journalists went with a different story altogether.

It appears to still be the case that only 6.5% of rape claims end in a conviction (in England & Wales), and given that there are countless occasions of indecent assault and rape that don’t even get reported, I suppose one’s sympathies should really not be lying primarily with the odd person who guiltlessly gets caught up in some headlines for a day.

I do wonder if by wanting the names of accused men to be airbrushed out of newspapers I am perhaps guilty by association of the terrible and ongoing crime of helping to sweep the whole issue of rape under the carpet.

With a laddish, sex-obsessed, hard-drinking, fame-hungry, scantily-clad lifestyle constantly being peddled from the newsstands and, I believe, a major contributing factor to England and Wales (and Scotland?) having “one of the worst crime rates among developed nations for rapes”, maybe I wasn’t too far in the wrong laying the blame at journalists’ and tabloids’ doors after all, just for a distantly related, deeper problem.

“To abandon human rights would therefore be a greater threat to the coalition than most commentators realise”

Apr 3

Posted by James in Crime, Parties, Westminster | 5 Comments

Nick Clegg’s support for a massive extension of online monitoring may be a disappointment to disgruntled activists, and to any voters who listened to him on the subject prior to (and immediately after) the May 2010 election. But it should be no surprise. It’s certainly in keeping with a consistent experience of the three UK parties of government.

They regularly appear solid on policy in opposition but then are either ineffectual or do a series of direct u-turns once in office. The list is endless. Labour talked about equality of opportunity before 1997, but left behind the most unequal UK ever. The Tories joined the Lib Dems in howling about tuition fees in opposition, before working together to treble them almost immediately their coats were over the Downing Street chairs. I still remember the Tory backbencher telling me in 1997 that “we’re fine on this now, but don’t trust us when we get back into office“. Too true.

On security and civil liberties – especially on the futile attempt to trade the latter for the former – we have this same problem in spades. Governments, including this one and its predecessor, are almost always wrong, and oppositions, including this one and its predecessors, are almost always right. Whoever you vote for, it seems, the permanent government gets in, and the policies remain the same. The glee in the Labour spokesperson’s voice on Westminster Hour when asked if she’d be supporting this latest dogs’ breakfast was inescapable: “we dropped it! we dropped it!”, she said. Be in no doubt that Labour would pick it up the moment they ever return to office.

This might just be another attempt by the Lib Dems to discard a chunk of the broad base of support they assembled up to 2010. We’re not quite two years through a supposedly five year term, and there’s very little left. Broad but, it turns out, shallow, and only the Orange Book minority has really been shown any love by the leadership. Students were driven away, anyone concerned about privatisation of the NHS or Royal Mail is long gone, let alone those who wanted a principled left alternative to Labour. It seems almost absurd to think that’s how people ever thought of them.

The email monitoring legislation does feel a little different to previous betrayals, though. It has the air of a terminal nosedive about it, a sense that the party is approaching what looks like the point of no return. The smarter sort of Lib Dems on Twitter, the few of those that remain in the party, are saying things like “I have not sent my LD membership renewal until I see what happens with the surveillance stuff“, “I don’t know where [Clegg's] going, but I have no appetite to go on the journey with him“, “As someone who generally is keen on Clegg he’s fucked this up big time“, and “The question is what we can we do about it? How can we make the leadership listen?”

As Polly Toynbee put it today, “civil liberties was their last USP“, although she’s excluded Iraq, presumably because their policy there was actually much weaker than the media and the party implied: “if there’s a second resolution we’ll back a disastrous war“. (Polly-haters should try again with that piece, incidentally. Except for a spurious paragraph where she suggests “Labour has been spring-cleaning it roots” (sic), she’s on good form.)

Less than a month ago Julian Huppert, the darling of the Lib Dems on Twitter, wrote a remarkably prescient piece for the Guardian. Here is just one chunk (emphasis mine):

Civil liberties are a core, unifying issue for the Lib Dems. There are MPs in the Labour and Conservative parties who would defend civil liberties to the very end, and others – too many others – who would tear them up at the first opportunity. There is no such division in the Lib Dems. Issues such as civil liberties are utterly uniting for our party, and utterly divisive for the others. To abandon human rights would therefore be a greater threat to the coalition than most commentators realise. [...] if we do not provide a thorough, reasoned defence of civil liberties, no other party will.

Aside from the usual Green-and-Nat-ignoring self-serving Westminster tripe at the end, most observers would have agreed with this assessment of the Lib Dems until the weekend. But now it transpires that their champions around the Cabinet table don’t care about this issue either. Who knew? Perhaps it’s some odd highball tactic so Clegg can accept a “compromise” that the party wouldn’t otherwise have swallowed.

No amount of reasoning with the Clegg/Alexander leadership could get them to change their minds on private control of NHS, and no amount of lobbying could persuade Lib Dem MPs or peers to rebel in any numbers on it either. Will they go the same way over internet surveillance? Are they really ready to go down with Clegg on this issue and take their whole party with them? Or will we, finally, start to see some backbone from their backbenchers?

Worst Motion of the Week – MP fights the blues

Feb 24

Posted by Jeff in Crime, Westminster | 3 Comments

There is no doubt what the worst motion in Scottish politics was this week, it was the headbutting motion that Eric Joyce (allegedly) made in Strangers Bar at Westminster (*boom boom*). It’s a rather spectacularly public fall from an already rather graceless position for the MP and, despite the unavoidable, scabby mirth behind headlines such as ‘Labour MP hit 5 Tories in brawl’, this could be the final nail in the Falkirk MP’s political coffin after a recent charge sheet that includes failing to provide a drink-drive breath test and expenses scandals.

We largely enjoy an appropriate approach of innocent until proven guilty in this country, and so we should, but that nonetheless won’t, nor shouldn’t, prevent speculation surrounding this situation. One could argue that it is for constituents to decide if their MP is fit for purpose, and with a 7,843 majority in 2010, despite the expenses controversy, who outside of Falkirk should say that Eric should step aside, whatever happens here? Nonetheless, if, and it is a big if, this legal process results in a criminal conviction, it is difficult to see how a by-election can be avoided. Denis Canavan is already calling for one to be held.

A by-election in Falkirk would, of course, be a two-horse race with the SNP, who won the equivalent Holyrood seat(s) in 2011, going up against Labour. It could prove to be a mini dress rehearsal for the independence referendum at large and could be an opportunity for Salmond to start building some momentum, not dissimilar to the ‘political earthquake’ in Glasgow East all those years ago. For that reason, one would expect that the Nats’ campaign warchest would be deeply delved into, and with Labour’s coffers being fuller than only that of Rangers FC, the contest could well be closer than it otherwise would be in a Westminster contest.

There is a risk of getting too far ahead of one’s self here of course, it is not after all in Labour’s interests for a by-election to be held at this stage of the political cycle with so little to gain from one, so efforts behind the scenes to prevent one would no doubt take place.

For now, it is sufficient to only regret that the old Scottish leftie metaphorical rhetoric of going down to London to knock lumps out of Tories has been regrettably taken literally in this instance and that politics in general is the main loser here, apart from Eric Joyce of course.

A short sharp smack

Jan 30

Posted by Kirsty in Crime | 34 Comments

Sometimes I like to kid myself that I live in a civilised country, where people of any shape or size can co-exist and be protected by law. Then I see the debate on smacking – revived at the weekend by former Education Minister David Lammy – and I’m reminded with a jolt that it’s still deemed a parent’s right to physically punish the smallest, most vulnerable people in society. And that society seems okay with that.

According to David Lammy MP, in an interview with LBC Radio, Labour’s decision in 2004 to tighten the smacking law was a factor in last summer’s riots. He argues working-class parents should be able to physically discipline their children to prevent them from joining gangs and getting involved in knife crime.

I think smacking children to discipline them for bad behaviour is wrong. I think physically snatching a child away from a hot oven or a road busy with traffic isn’t.

In England and Wales, the Children Act 2004 says parents can mildly smack their children as long as their action does not cause “reddening of the skin”. Any punishment which causes harm like bruising or cuts can face legal action, with adults facing up to five years in jail.

This legislation on smacking is stricter than in Scotland. Back in 2003, the Scottish Executive intended to make it an offence to smack children under the age of three, or hit those of any age with an “implement” such as a belt, slipper or cane. The latter proposals were adopted, but the ban on smacking toddlers was dropped after the measure was rejected at committee stage.

Lammy’s notion that rebellion in young people and children will be quelled, and not generated, by fear of physical chastisement is ridiculous. The proposal that last summer’s civic unrest, as well as ongoing antisocial and violent behaviour, stems from too few unruly kids getting a clip around the ear is the kind of patronising nonsense which I expect to spew from out-of-touch politicians with no real care or concern as to why some of Britain’s youth are rioting. The notion that smacking should be okay for working class parents in particular is disgusting. Are we okay with men from working class backgrounds hitting their wives and girlfriends?

I think children who are hurt become angry and humiliated, and less likely to behave in a way that meets society’s expectations. Children who are told at school to talk about their fallings outs and find ways to be kind to their playmates, but who then go home and get hit because someone can’t be bothered to explain to them why their behaviour is wrong are well aware of the hypocrisy. I think unemployment, lack of aspiration and cuts to public services will do far, far more damage to good parenting and well-behaved teenagers than whether or not you’re permitted to smack your children.

Lammy’s comments are absurd: being able to physically punish children will do nothing to resolve antisocial behaviour, and probably only encourages it. But what I find almost worse is that this is a debate which is still acceptable today. It’s amazing that society at large seems okay with a violent act by an adult inflicted on a child in a way which would be unacceptable between adults – partners, colleagues, strangers.

Sweden was the first country in the world to ban the physical punishment of children in 1979. Since then, reports of neglect and child abuse have risen. According to Louise Sylwander, Sweden’s first Children’s Ombudsman, there’s no evidence this is because of a corresponding rise in actual cases of abuse in Sweden: instead, it seems the ban has led society to become less tolerant of violence against children, and more confident in reporting children at risk.

Young adults who rioted, who are violent, who carry knives do so for a myriad of complex social and economic reasons, which a decent society should endeavour to resolve. They don’t do it because they’re bad, and because that badness wasn’t beaten out of them at an early enough age. Poverty and poor parenting are issues within this myriad web of causes, but so too is a society that doesn’t care enough, where politicians can lazily pontificate and legislation can fall far too short to protect the vulnerable. Simply, having to resort to smacking is a failure, on every possible level.

 

Freeing Scotland’s Slaves

Nov 30

Posted by Kirsty in Crime, Sport | 16 Comments

A key feature of the Scottish Enlightenment was the critique and opposition to the practice of slavery.  While in the eighteenth century many Scottish emigrants to the Caribbean and West Indies found themselves exposed to the realities of slave labour on plantations, back home an intellectual movement grew and developed and campaigned until slavery was abolished.

Or so they thought. Modern day slavery in the form of human trafficking is still there on Scottish doorsteps. But just as in the eighteenth century, it should be Scotland’s mission again to rid our country and then the world of this heinous violation of human rights.

An Inquiry into Human Trafficking in Scotland, headed by leading QC Baroness Helena Kennedy and carried out by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, was published in Edinburgh this week. Kennedy makes 10 recommendations for Scotland to pioneer a new approach to the problem, and to introduce these measures prior to the 2014 Commonwealth Games.

Kennedy’s calls comes on the back of Scotland’s first successful prosecution under the UK’s new anti-trafficking laws, with two sex traffickers jailed for a total of almost five years in November for arranging travel, accommodation and advertising for 14 women who worked as prostitutes.  However, this compares with almost 150 similar prosecutions in England and Wales. Phil Taylor, head of the UK Border Agency in Scotland, conceded in June that the length of time taken to investigate cases means too few are brought to court.

The main call in Kennedy’s inquiry is for a victim centred approach, with better systematic sharing of information and intelligence about cases, as well as a new Scottish act specifically to target the crime.

While any human who is trafficked and forced to labour undergoes a horrendous experience, Kennedy notes especially that women trafficked into the sex trade undergo “the most prevalent and pernicious manifestation of human enslavement”.

The estimate, widely reported in the UK press, that 40,000 women were sex trafficked into Germany for the 2006 World Cup seems to have no reliable source; nonetheless such sporting events are paramount to raising awareness and ensuring prevention of the prostitution of vulnerable women.

In London, anti-trafficking charities, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the Met and the GLA  are working together to combat trafficking prior to the 2012 Olympics. If Scotland is going to be the leader in ridding the world of human trafficking, it is critical that the 10 recommendations in Kennedy’s inquiry are implemented prior to 2014.  Not just because of a fear, like in the 2006 World Cup case, that trafficking only becomes a problem because of sporting events, but because this a heinous crime which is all around us, at all times.

We should use the celebration of nationhood and sport and togetherness that the Commonwealth Games brings to recognise our essential humanity, and to find ways to treat human beings as that, not as chattels to be traded and used.