The Sun shines on us

I have followed the Sun’s arguments on many topics over the last weeks but read it only very occasionally. I can’t afford to buy a paper every day. Please don’t all send me those free coupons again.

In yesterday’s Sun was a small, but significant article on page 2 that was titled Slump in City posts and in there it says: “…institutions aren’t taking advantage of the number of ‘high-calibre’ job seekers”.

That was said by a representative of a recruitment firm. Those are the people to ask when we determine how many talented computer programmers do not get jobs but the instances of quality hacking are rising.

Incidentally in the same paper, we hear that David Cameron has finished all his Angry Birds levels. Funny I said that on Facebook the other day, that I finished all mine and now I am bored. Nobody wants to give me a job but Cam has the advantage he has got a job to fill his boredom with.

Maybe we should change the entry levels to some jobs by saying, either contestants can complete certain computer games and if they can’t they have not got a vital ingredient, or should we say that all who can play certain games need employment or positions in society? Some very popular questions for an employment questionnaire could be, what online games do you play, ho well are they maintained or what level Mafia Wars are you or how good does your Farmville look? After all it shows commitment and continuity.

I had that thought already once before when playing Commandos that nobody who cannot go through those levels without cheats should have a leading post in the army.

But the arguments about the value of newspapers and regulating them are another argument that is not so easy to answer because there are now so many laws in place that contradict the hacking initiatives of papers and simply make an argument for regulation or not.

The papers want to take on the role as society’s watchdog but that’s what we gotten the good old-fashioned Neighbourhood Watches for, we do not need the papers hacking our phones.

A terrible Christmas?

I don’t know whether this is just my impression but it seems to me as if there were a number of really terrible crimes going on this Christmas time. Another taxi driver has lost his cool and shot a few people in his home before committing suicide. Licensed to kill so to speak as he was allowed to own 6 shooting machinery.

It seems that restricting public use of firearms doesn’t really stem gun crime as now those who we thought we could trust with weapons are the ones who lose their marbles. Not knowing what went on in those people’s lives it is a possibility that drugs play a role because normally a lot of blokes are really stoic when it comes to their personal lives and nothing ever gets them to loose their composure. It is very important that best mates inform the authorities at the first sign of craziness when someone who owns weapons behaves in a way that could become dangerous.  Gun clubs normally also have strict rules of members having to leave their weapons in the club and not take them home. Why would anyone need six weapons in a detached semi in a small town street?

The Irish scene was set within a stable community where people never would have thought that something like that could happen. Therefore drugs seems an explanation because it is something so much out of the ordinary.

I often condemn the use of drugs and that people just kind of get used to them being dealt and used by others or in their neighbourhoods and cannot reiterate enough how important it is to rid ourselves of the drug menace and constantly report incidents of drug dealing to the police.  There are so many substances around today, which are modern and completely unknown to many including myself.

There were other substantive violent crimes committed over the holiday period. We had a kidnap and murder in Homerton, a student shot in the head in the West End and other murders going on as well.

This case of the taxi driver having all those licensed weapons at home, and losing his nerve over arguments with women in the house, is an important example to show that the government’s plans to arm more civilians along the plans to widen the Territorial army, which means that more arms are kept in people’s houses, are badly designed.

The Human Rights Agenda

Throughout the world and in each country that obeys to current financial regulations and systems we see the same principles of taxation and evaluation in financial terms. Poor people have to purchase especially made cheap and basic products whilst rich people can purchase especially made luxurious products. The retailer does not check how rich or poor a client is and is not allowed to do so because the Human Rights do not allow to disclose that information. Instead people just speak with their purses and so the retailer finds out anyhow.

In the UK this has now led to an up-date in the Census collection whereby the government now wants to ask retailers and use their sales information, which tells them how many rich and how many poor people there are as well, though anonymously.

The current system is the reason for our taxation. This taxation leads to the employment to countless government officials who get paid to administer the taxation and re-distribution of funds from the rich to the poor.

This is how simple it is. Yet it is hard to see how simple it is by reading all those over-hyped papers and articles in books and online because they really just conceal the simple facts.

The Human Rights Act we use in the UK forbids a police force for example to hold people’s DNA unless they committed a crime, yet the DNA passport is the very best method for any person to preserve their identity. In fact identity theft would not be possible if each person’s DNA profile was also their identification and each service provider held a copy of their DNA profile on file.

No criminal could steal your ID because your DNA profile is not equal to any other one in the world.

A lot of crime is being enabled simply because of the bad methods governments use these days. Were the administration of public life simplified, it would become much cheaper to administer the public duties and that would of course require less expensive public employees.

The current system of selling basic goods to the poor and luxurious goods to the rich leads to an enormous inequality in itself in that the poor are barred from buying certain quality goods. They then resolve to purchasing cheap look-a-likes or illegal copies. That employs a lot of trading standards officials who get paid out of your taxes. In the supermarket the retailer marks the cheap products with plain labels for a very cheap price whilst the luxurious products have very colourful nice labels and cost a lot of money. Of course almost every kid is embarrassed if their mum buys the cheap stuff as they like the colourful looking packets more. That leads to a lot of shop lifting and that employs a lot of detectives and in-store security personnel.

The variety of goods that have to be produced to satisfy the poor and rich tastes create a lot of environmental damage because the more goods have to be produced the more carbon is also being produced and the more raw materials are being used.

However if we had a simply method of identifying persons and put their earnings on their personal profile we could stop producing differing products and only sell best quality goods but make it cheaper to purchase them for the poor and more expensive for the rich.

This is what the rich do not like because they want to be different and to satisfy this individuality we have to sustain large systems of public administration, which of course costs a lot of taxes. And who is blamed for the cost of that? Currently they want to blame the poor benefit recipients for that, which is ludicrous and misleading and unduly discriminating. Because it is the current system of satisfying the individualism of the rich tax payers that costs all that money to administer the systems we currently got in place.

If we had a system whereby each person gets their DNA profile taken at birth, this DNA profile becomes their passport and this will be their ID card to use. As soon as somebody travels, books hotels, buys goods in shops, they use their ID card, which is also used by their employer to put their wages on and their income bracket then allows them to purchase luxury goods at a price they can afford.

Of course that would mean that the poor do not feel the need to steal goods they cannot afford but it would also mean that the rich do not feel better than the rest of us and that is solely their problem. It is this wanting feeling better than the rest of us that makes rich people want the current system in place and which is the sole reason behind people wanting to become rich because suddenly  you can afford that Porsche, you can purchase that Louis Vuitton luggage.

But why do rich people want to feel better than the rest of us?

What is apparent, that luxury goods are manufactured to higher standards, car producers are often a driving force that brings technology forward. Their staff are best in the world whilst cheaper goods producers employ people of lower ability. That principle in itself puts away with the need for overall excellence and helps to excuse a system of the worst, the better and the best.

We could have an economy whereby only the best 20 luxury cars are on sale and everybody could buy those at a price that they can afford. There could be other restrictions in place to curb car use for environmental purposes. But if it is the case that car use has to be altered to be more environmentally friendly then it would be cheaper and easier all around if we had to change only 20 different models instead of 500 different models.

Yet the current system satisfies the rich to feel individualistic and they do not want to pay the price for that. They blame the poor benefit recipients for the cost of their own desires, which is brought about by the current economic system, that they themselves want. It is more than unfair that the poor are blamed for that.

Now even here in the UK, it becomes easier or rich people to commit crimes in that they have to pay a proportionally much lower percentage of their income on criminal fines than poor people do and it can be directly deducted from poor people’s benefit, which is something that robs benefit recipients of any personal freedom now.

I think that there is a reversal of liberties in the favour of the wealthy and it does not do humanity much good. There is no moral fibre, no community responsibility but only me, me, me and egoistic thinking on the part of the rich.

The Human Rights Agenda only serves this and criminals who rely on the Human Rights agenda can only do so if they have expensive lawyers to argue that for them. Otherwise the Human Rights protocol is not being enforced.

Personally I think it would lead to less crime if we had a different system with each person having their DNA profile put on record at birth. The whole crime of identity theft would vanish immediately.

If rich people could not distinguish themselves for the more luxury products they own then their own reasons for wanting to be in positions of responsibility would have to be founded in other reasons rather than just being able to buy more expensive goods than others.

Of course that would need a more long-term responsibility rather than just 5 year terms and rake in as much as you can culture during and after your term in office.

But of course in the case of housing the principle of all being able to buy at a proportional cost would fail because we cannot all have a large house and garden simply because there is not much space on earth.  There we need an environmental evaluation method that allows the distribution of housing according to need. There is no need for anybody who does not have a large family to have a large family home. The more dense population becomes the less children each family will have and we’ll see more single parents because I think the concept of family in the traditional sense only works if each family can have more than 1 child because it is just one of those natural things that is built into our persona that we want to reproduce and have as many children as possible.

The restriction in housing an per need allocation would bring, would offend the rich because many rich just want to have the biggest house, even if they do not need it compared to others. So another allocation system would merely offend the tastes of a small minority of rich persons but satisfy the needs of the vast majority of people.

Whatever rules we have in place, I think that law and order are essential to allow each individual to prosper and that law must be obeyed and enforced.

But if a persons DNA based ID was also their bank card their credit card and all over ID then life would become much simpler. Go to a shop buy a Porsche for a price you can afford. That of course only if your profile satisfies other requirements like environmental saturation for example.

It could be built into a computer that can calculate how high population density is in an area to show if one can build another house in that area. it could be computerised how high Smog is in a city to determine whether cars can be sold at the moment or not so that would bring pressure to curb the use of cars and probably lead to better transport methods quicker.

Go to a shop and purchase the best steak according to your income, but only if it is available because of course there can only be so many steaks be sold. Currently we see the best steaks rotting away in shops because nobody can afford the high prices but if steaks were as cheap as you need, they would fly off the shelves and we would see much less food waste all around. Currently the food waste produced by the current system is gigantic. Too many products sold at prices most cannot afford, they are thrown away or donated to food banks, which is very expensive to administer. But if food was sold at affordable prices, the shelf life of products would be considerably reduced.

With a pay as you can afford it system, a computer would calculate your spending power from your DNA ID card and charge you a price that is affordable if you still have enough money to purchase the item with. That might lead to you wearing the same high quality shoes as Victoria Beckham but you pay less for them. You could go to the Louis Vuitton shop and buy a luggage set for a price you can afford whilst your rich neighbour has to pay a higher one because they can afford it.

That would cut out a lot of taxation and subsidies too because the shops would earn more money and not need to be subsidised. That is especially so in food production. Farmers need the most subsidies because food has to be so cheap. Even the richest person can go to a supermarket and buy a bottle of shampoo for 24 pence. Only rich persons can afford to purchase special offers for cash and that often brings shops to their knees and they have to close because nobody can afford their goods and only if they lower prices people will buy and so the shop becomes untenable. However if goods were sold only according to income, then no shop would have to go into administration.

The current system produces many fly on the wall operations, now you see them, now you don’t and things have become pretty ridiculous. The system of taxation we currently have was put in place hundreds of years ago because we did not have a good technology, but that is now thoroughly out-dated. The current system promotes the human rights of the rich better than it helps overall equality and it produces a lot of environmental damage.

Do we deserve better?

I think we do; but seeing that each and every piece of fairly recent history is initiated by someone of Jewish descent makes modern world history a little bit of a headache. I tried to hint on it before, when I wrote about the lifestyle changes that the modern administration of this world brought with it.

We are coaxed away from independent lifestyles by removing people’s ability to farm for themselves, by making them dependant on other producers. And that has to be seen in the environmental context. I think humanity gets what they deserve and it is up to people to make the world their own, as it says in the bible.

There is no piece of alternative economy available today that does not originate from the current dynasty of the Rothchilds and that does not play into their hands. Very powerful indeed. There are only 4 countries left in the whole world that are not part of the Rothchild banking system. Those countries are systematically portrait as enemies in the Rothchild owned press.

I hinted on this before that the way banking works today it is creating a clash of sciences, in that Mathematics directly opposes Medicine for example because what Maths restricts is opposed by the results of medical advancement. But that is very scientific and too hard to understand for many.

But there is not one different method that apportions different values that are practicable. The current system promotes environmental damage and irresponsible human behaviour. There is no doubt about it. But we simply cannot go around and throw everything over just because we do not like it as it is. I think what could be done though is to look at banking from a Cartel point of view and appoint an international committee that will remove all those who are in post simply because of family connections and create a system whereby countries that are not part of the Rothchild empire can remain so and that the world-wide banking system will be scaled down rather than expanded even further.

Because as it says in the article, that the Rothchild Page links to, the Rothchilds do not even care who is in charge of any particular country, they hold the power strings in this world simply by using financial mechanisms and that is the key to the world’s problems. In that local autonomy has been destroyed by financial methods. It is most obvious to us, that regardless who is in power, whether left or right, we always have the same debt problems. We cannot progress because we are regulated by banking.

I do not one moment support any type of radicalism and certainly would not want any other religion than Christianity in my life but think that international politics and economics have worn themselves out and become unworkable and it is a matter of devising a system that is not within the current values but takes environmental factors into account more than it does now.

What we see now is the privatisation craze and anybody who owns their home is the good person, regardless how much they cost the community in health costs or other expenses, as long as they are part of the private ownership cartel they are good.

We need to develop a system that all those who genuinely suffer from a condition that is not of their own making get assistance but those who contributed to their own problems pay for their own problems. Unemployment  is in most cases not the fault of the unemployed but the fault of the economy that does not need employees. One has to draw a strict distinction between self-made health problems and unemployment.

I read recently in a book that some Libertarians blame people for all woes and put health and unemployment in the same bracket and say those who are unemployed are fully to blame for it, which is a lot of rubbish. We have been channelled into an economic system whereby we are totally dependant on the economy to progress and all our own ability to care for our basic needs have been removed. We no longer farm our own produce. In fact the state has systematically sponsored people from becoming more dependant and paid them to give up farming.

Bankers find it more convenient to allow mass production of things and leave us to sit at home and receive benefits as it is easier to calculate for them and heir financial systems how they can make profits. That is a truly egotistic reason and it can become very frustrating for those wanting to work but who cannot get a job.

Unfortunately there is no easy answer how to get a good change to come about, if that the holders of the strings of power are always the same closely related family then we have little to be proud of in terms of democratic freedom. A world council should disperse with the Rothchild empire for a start. At least they should have to declare accounts for all their business interest including the governmental ones.

But demonstrating in an anti-capitalist demo around St. Paul’s does not help, in fact it makes matters worst because the Capitalist system is self-regulating, we punish ourselves with the costs of demonstrating. That is a simple mathematical calculation. I shall look into this further and get back to you ASAP.

But just as I wrote the last sentence of this blog I read about a Daily Express Post in which Mrs Merkel thinks we could go towards a new war in Europe and that is definitely what we do not want. We cannot afford to bring this continent into a new war from which bankers benefit. We cannot afford another conflict that is simply driven by banking problems. Europe was driven into the ground and gotten weaker each decade because of war mongering and other continents significantly benefitted from this, especially China and India but the bankers rake in all the profits from this and they do not care about the rest of us. We must resist war at all cost.

Motives of rioters

The composition of the rioters puts serious doubts on any suggestions that this could have anything to do with political aims or a classical class-war or an attempted revolution to overthrow the government.  3/4 of the rioters had a previous conviction with an average of 15 offences. Those are horrendous figures that also explain why the rioters showed little care for life.

That simply puts the connection of the shooting of one suspected drug dealer being bemoaned by a load of criminals in a new perspective. Though this does not excuse the action of the CO19 unit for shooting their target who does not seemed to have had a weapon. It is not an acceptable police tactic to shoot a suspected criminal, provoke other criminals to riot so that they can all be locked up in one swoop.  Even though that might not have been the intended way of action but that is how it went.

I could not say that all social housing estates are populated by criminals. Our housing estate is almost 50% owned and we have an active TRA and also a Neighbourhood Watch scheme. But that is community inspired.

Yet the biggest weakness of our neighbourhood policing strategy is that it is policing on demand. So if you get the criminal element taking over a community they do not want to volunteer on either Neighbourhood Watches or SNT panels. they would not want to  notify the police of wrong-doing and they would not contribute to the statistics that show that there is something wrong and police involvement is needed.

Well or course the new housing policies might force people to move more often but that can have the opposite effect and unsettle already fragile communities even more because in such communities it is a long-term effort to achieve social conscience and positive change and it often works only if people remain where they are so that they can build on existing social relationships.

Could Mrs May convince the Superintendents

I watched the latter part of the speech on the BBC life. The Officers clapped at the end but the questions were not transmitted, which I thought was unfortunate. I would like to know what the officers had asked Mrs May who advocated savings on policing and referred the police to part-funding from the Councils. That is what concerns me because it talks about what policing looks like on the ground in each neighbourhood.

In most affluent areas the Neighbourhood Watches can gain a lot of self-policing but they have got the money to finance themselves. In poor areas like  Tower Hamlets funding and regulations means that only housing service providers are under a direct duty to hold residents participation groups, which are not directly linked in with the police. My landlord has gotten such a group but it is impossible to get on it.

I have heard of residents who were bothered by youth for years, they worked with the landlord without any effect because the police were not directly involved.

On the other hand we have the SNT panels who hand-pick people to participate on meetings, which decide what the policing priorities are. They also have open meetings, which are sparsely attended and often do not lead to more communal activity in terms of Neighbourhood Watches.

In the end it has all to do with funding and having the resources to run a Neighbourhood Watch but the funding is not provided by anyone here in Tower Hamlets. I looked at the http://www.ourwatch.org.uk website, put in my postcode and could find around 50 Neighbourhood Watches in a 10-mile radius and 3 were in Tower Hamlets. There were many in Hackney and the southern and eastern direction but not in Tower Hamlets.

It seems strange to me that no more resources are being channeled into this directly. The council refers people to SNT and SNT gives you forms to start a scheme but at most will print you a few black and white leaflets to distributes and that is all the help you can get. All other forms of support only come via the council and housing funded residents groups who have no direct link to the police. Police may attend their meetings but they do not have to and usually the kind of people who are most willing to preserve their nice neighbourhoods do not attend those public meetings a lot. There is this natural curiosity between tenants and leaseholder over cost of maintenance of estates in those meetings. Whilst in police and law and order meetings all people have to worry about is the ASB and policing, which does not lumber anybody directly with costs and that does take the strain out of meetings.

Mrs May recommended large savings and I wondered how they are going to be achieved in any case if the policing methods themselves are very expensive. The way the riots were policed was very expensive. Because the rioters were allowed to riot as long as most of them were arrested. Whilst had water cannons been used to disperse them early not so much damage would occur and burning buildings would have been put out early. But then again if riots happen sporadically in various places it is not easy to get a water-canon there quickly. And are there enough water canons around to deal with the problem.

It is to be seen what is most desirable to quickly quench any up-risings or not to allow dissatisfaction to take place to this extend. The riot had to do with the policing methods of armed gangsters or presumably armed gangsters and the quick finger on the trigger philosophy and that is a discussion that could be held at Neighbourhood Watch meetings and brought to the SNT to challenge the police on how quickly they press the trigger and how good their intelligence is before they do.

There Neighbourhood Watches are an essential part of the social fibre and neighbourhood watches often know the locals and can bring valuable contributions to the policing of an area if they are established enough. It could save the police and the tax-payers ultimately loads of money to have well-established Neighbourhood Watches but bizarrely in Tower Hamlets the police does not want to finance them and the council does not want to finance them.

The EDL demos saw stewards provided by an Islamic institute but that was only for that part of the population and it is a pretty divisive strategy to rely on support from certain religious groups alone. There must be some uniformity in all efforts to guarantee equality and equal representation of all races, creeds and colours in all organisations to do with the population that is represented in them.

I really hope that I can convince the council leaders and police commanders of Tower Hamlets that funding is badly needed to strengthen Neighbourhood Watch in Tower Hamlets and that the government coughs up the funds.

Bernard Hogan-Howe new Met Police commissioner

This is today’s announcement that Bernard Hogan-Howe has been appointment by the Queen today. As a Neighbourhood Watch volunteer I look forward to the constructive relationship with the new Met Police Commissioner and hope he does a lot for Neighbourhood Watch in Tower Hamlets and helps actively to re-instate it as a working Association across the borough.

I excitedly read over his distinct qualifications and his desire to get rid of crime to a nil crime level, that makes a refreshing changes to Commander Rickett’s attitude who noce said that crime couldn’t possibly get any lower in Tower Hamlets. I am also very pleased that he seeks to re-classify Cannabis as a Class B drug.

Though I have to be careful what I say about Commander Rickett as I do rely on his support for my planned Tower Hamlets Neighbourhood Watch Association.

This Association will bring the partnership between local residents, business and the police a step closer together from the currently working in SNT panels, which are police led and initiated. Neighbourhood Watches are local organisations, led by the community, which further law and order and also play critical friend to the police. There is an essential difference whether individuals only come together every couple of months to meet the police or whether those individuals committed to Neighbourhood Watch and are registered associations with a continuation of service of the community and not just off and on discussions.

Here in Tower Hamlets Neighbourhood Watch has been neglected by the council as one can see from their website, whereby they refer people to the local SNTs.  I an howver hopeful that Andy Bamber and/or Detective Inspector Rickett will endorse our application for funding to encourage more Neighbourhood Watch activities in Tower Hamlets.

We all want to enjoy our neighbourhoods, we all want to be proud of our neighbourhoods and we want to live in peace and prosperity.

Union chief calls for civil disobedience

Short of calling for civil unrest, which is the slightly more radical call and would support rioting, Unite chief Len McCluskey, issued a call for “civil disobedience” to fight government cuts.

But he also said that no form of protest should be ruled out including ‘direct action’. That was published on the BBC at 9:50 today. I left the page open before I went to church.

That could include rioting and other radical activities,which are implied in direct action in my personal view. McCluskey asked for resistance against the attack on worker’s pensions and the cuts in general.

What a fine mess this government has gotten as into this time. Our Reverend recently said that chaos will reveal the truth and it has as the recent riots have shown. But they have also shown that it will disrupt the supply chain to cities and who will suffer the most from this, it is the weak, the old, the poor and the vulnerable. Mothers and children fear for their food and people will be too scared to get out of the house if there is open disorder in the streets.

It is quite sad that the government cuts and decision-making process leaves worker no choice but to become radical because they had not been vetoed on the issues and cuts. It would be a good idea to undergo a consultation process to include the ‘victims’ of such decisions but nothing like that was even proposed. A referendum on such policies would be in order. The recent cuts only hurt the people on low incomes the most. There is no legal remedy available to use and people have no time for peaceful protests because those affected are often in full-time jobs. The only victims of cuts are those who are working and some people in receipt of housing benefits, who may have to pay over the odds for their abode and some are indirectly affected my stealth taxes such as water rates and increased fuel bills.

I have put myself on a very short budget at the moment. I cannot afford anything but the most basic foods. Our local church has started a food bank, to which people on benefits can come whilst they waiting for decisions on their benefits, which can take now up to 5 or 6 weeks. The only beneficiaries from the Big Society seem to be volunters who now an claim benefits if they ‘work’ more than 16 hours per week.

Personally I think cut-backs in themselves are not a bad thing, reduce the consumer attitude and so on but and the big but must be that any cuts were not sold properly to the customers, which are we all. There was no proper consultation and people have been herded like sheep and put on austerity measures without seeking their approval and consent. That is the point that people don’t like and what’s more what they also don’t like is that they might have to borrow more and get increased interest bills and no chance of reducing that debt sensibly. Yet Barclay’s Bank has been allowed to sponsor Boris’s biking scheme but the users of the credit card indirectly finance that scheme with high interest rates. No reduced interest rates were passed on to credit card holders at all. They are not given a choice what they want to sponsor because they do not get asked what they want their card to sponsor if anything at all.

I am concerned because here in Tower Hamlets we suffer from a double whammy, which is a council that does not support Neighbourhood Watches, which in itself produces a less constructive relationship with the police, we have racial tension and we have an area that is full of people to the brim. Yet the announced forthcoming strikes and civil disobedience will bring disruption to this area and I hope that people can bring themselves to ask for a better structure of keeping order in this locality by forcing the council or the commander of the Tower Hamlets Police to support a roll out of Neighbourhood Watch schemes in Tower Hamlets, which help people to be in the driving seat for keeping order in the locality and keep the police to account in how they intend to keep civil unrest to a minimum so that people can get their basic food supplies and travel around the area without fear of attack or other hassles.

What I want from this government is a contingency plan, that will sufficiently ensure that our streets are kept safe and not just threats and increased police activity that could lead to more repressive measures that involve armed police like CO19. The recent riots have stretched police forces to the limit and if we see such repetitions throughout the land, we will get into severe problems. I do not think that it is sustainable to continue with this government for that reason. If the Liberal Democrats had any sense, they would pull out of this coalition and put their own personal prides aside and led this Conservative government try and rule the country alone, which would not last very long and they had to stand down.

There is obviously no point in having a government that nobody wants.

I do not even think that it does make much difference what has been discovered in Libya over alleged compliance with torture of the Blair government.

PS: If governments can propose and carry out such draconian cuts over such a short period of time, then a backlash an be predicted. To prevent this from happening again there should be some legislation that forbids any cuts in government spending, that affects the income of people directly or indirectly without further consultation.That might hamper industry a little bit but we are people after all and need to live in dignity.  People’s income should never be allowed to fall below a certain sum and their income must always be calculated net of costs of living. There is not much point in raising wages when costs rise even more.

Tower Hamlets needs a strong…..

Tower Hamlets needs a strong and united resident led community representation to prevent police oppression and ask for reliable, accountable policing strategies. So far all initiatives have been police led. We have the SNT panels and only a few Neighbourhood Watches. The rest of the remaining organisations are Tenants and Residents organisations, which are under the housing system and sponsored by the council or other voluntary bodies.

What is very important is the police’s accountability and persistent accountability and what we further need is good and professional policing.

During the recent riots we saw that the police made special arrangements with the Islamic Forum of Europe, organised by Shafiur Rahman, to provide volunteers to keep the Muslim anti-demonstration to the EDL in check. That worked fairly well but it came to emerge that when an EDL bus broke down, that a number of residents emerged from a housing estate to attack the broken down bus. I understand that the Islamic Forum of Europe blamed the police for letting the bus through Tower Hamlets in the first place.  It remains to be discussed between residents whether the police can be asked to forbid through-traffic to any particular group of people because it upsets local residents.

Not everyone would agree with that and that is why we need multi-racial residents panels that constantly discuss with the police what the most important needs are in this area. But if policing panels are only ever police led then we have less bargaining power over what is done in this borough.

The MPA previously funded the Tower Hamlets Police & Community Board fairly generously and we got those public discussion events, during which residents aired their views but they led to very little or no continuous working on the problems in hand. The less residents unite over the issues the less quality policing we’ll get and the more oppressive policing will get.

I sit on the Stop & Search panel but have not had a meeting for a long time. At the Stop & Search panel we discuss Stop and Search statistics together with a Representative from the MPA and the Mayor’s office, the police and the Council’s Safety unit.

It is immensely important to find solutions that are satisfactory for all residents and businesses within Tower Hamlets to resolve any underlying tensions that may exist instead of just allowing it to boil unnoticed until it all spills out.

I think Tower Hamlets didn’t do too badly during the recent riots but still we did have some isolated incidences at Tescos and Iceland I belief.

What is of great concern are the activities of CO19 and what they can do in the context of problems in Tower Hamlets. We need to enter into a constructive dialogue with the police to get problems systematically sorted. This includes all classes, poor, rich, white, black and brown people of all religious denominations working together. Please support the building of a Tower Hamlets Neighbourhood Watch organisation.

Neighbourhood Watch is well organised in the rest of the UK and functions. Any splitting up of interests to do with policing and health and safety will only lead to separatism and that is not what we need. We need a united residents organisation that deals with policing requirements and represents the whole community with their best interests at heart in a Tower Hamlets-wide Neighbourhood Watch organisation. There is much to be gained if we want to enjoy our borough as much as we do right now.

It will also take the sting out of the arguments of right-wing organisations such as the EDL if we can work together within a nationally acclaimed organisation and become part of this succesful concept, which is Neighbourhood Watch.

Neighbourhood Watch is totally not political and does not allow any political tendencies at all. We need to unite against all forms of radicalism.

Police critics

This report about the IPCC investigation of Mark Duggan by CO19 stimulates 2 questions in my mind.

  1. In how far have the whole riots been misinterpreted by politicians and media alike
  2. how can communities improve relations with the police so that such incidences do not repeat.

Being heavily involved in the Neighbourhood Watch scenario and being a trained Crime Fighter, as the Gordon Brown administration called it, I am quite keen to find a way to resolve people’s anxiety of the police actions that led to the killing/death of Mark Duggan.

It must be of concern to all people of any given country if people are shot by armed police when it is not even absolutely clear whether they even had a gun and such trigger-happy incidents must be avoided. We had a man with a table leg shot at one time.

But it is getting into a very uneasy pattern that more and more often ‘harmless’ people get shot by the armed police officer who can always claim threat to their own lives. It is now up to the police investigation how strong that threat really had been. In this report Mark Duggan’s brother explains that a gun that was supposed to have been found on Mark Duggan did  not have 1 fingerprint of him on it. It is very disturbing that the police lied to the press and created the myth to the public that Mark Duggan shot at them first.

I think that it is in this instance not important whether Mark Duggan was a criminal or a saint, because that does not make any difference to the fact that he apparently has been shot without good reason.

I went to a special training event with CO19 who talked about their strategies and that they act on information from the public. Yet the trigger-happy attitude does create justifiable concerns about the way that unit works. I think it is up to groups like Neighbourhood Watches to have a sobering effect on police because we are the link between the police and the community. But as we are from the community we have a duty to the community at large and at most can see ourselves as critical friend to the police. We of course encourage better relationships with the police but the Duggan shooting makes this much more difficult than what it was before.

At the riots the police was very laid back and allowed the rioters to charge and loot and cause damage but when it comes to the specialist CO19 unit we see a different face of the police force, namely the brutal offensive officers with guns who shoot to kill. Why is it that we get such discrepancy in the same service on service attitude. It seems to be the 2 groups of officers have somewhere lost touch and they live in totally different worlds, which is not desirable.

We must try and balance the approach to problems across the force to make good on the bad impression the police made on several occasions. It is not reassuring that the police loses their rag when we are in special circumstances and they feel they can let the pig out and shoot a few people if the problems are desperate enough like it was using the recent terrorist bombings when an electrician was shot several times in an underground carriage because he ran in panic.

I think a better dialogue between the police and the public is the answer and legal frameworks to avoid such situations arising again. It was a very disturbing reaction to the riots that followed the Duggan shooting that almost 3000 people got arrested and some imprisoned for ridiculous amounts of time for walking past a damaged shop and taking a bottle of water. In Wandsworth the council wants to evict the parent of a rioting teenager. I think this drive for more punishment and less reflection on the service itself, reflection  on how this country is governed and how problems can be solved amicably is a definite blemish on this country’s excellent record on fairness and stability.

It’s like the government wants to break the spirit of the people and drive any little bit of resentment that might be left in some people out of them. But that has been tried over the centuries and it never worked, the opposite happened, it deepened the resentment.

Now the government makes millions available in grants to new civil initiatives that help to protect our society from crime, anti-social behaviour and support vulnerable residents. But unless the government can actually calm the obvious disagreements over who is actually responsible over what the police does and some good agreement can be achieved on guidelines for the service, all the money in the world cannot help.

I think there needs to be a clear message to all police officers that they cannot let their fingers slip on the trigger and get a away with excuses any longer. We need a good system of communication between police and community and a national concept that allows effective communication between the police and the community but I cannot see much of that happening as the current wave of money-grants, which are allowed only if local chiefs support an individualistic plan that suits a locality. That of course might lead to a deepening of local problems rather than a solution.

Scotland has opted to amalgamate all its forces into one and the UK should take this as a good example. I cannot see how more local independence in small communities like individual boroughs can help authorities when everything else is regionally dependent and on the national government.

The whole government and justice approach to the riots just reeks of insecurity,that the government just doesn’t know what to do and just uses the punishment approach because they have no better ideas at the moment. This creates martyrs and resentment. Of course people have to be made aware that it is wrong to burn down buildings with people in it and steel and destroy but only the worst ring-leaders that endangered life should get the harsh sentences and not the doctor’s daughter that walked into a scene out of Armageddon.

Previous Older Entries Next Newer Entries

Blog Stats

  • 55,121 hits
%d bloggers like this: