An Inevitable Outcome
If only the ‘inevitable outcome’ of which I will write were the collapse of the single European currency, whose death throws, like a slow motion train crash, threaten to take the European Union down with it.
Unfortunately though, the rapid demise of Europe’s anti democratic Union has been predicted on many an occasion and, so far at least, failed to materialise. Therefore one now tends to make such predictions with some level of care.
Consequently, I shall, for the time being, pass over the continuing Euro zone crisis and instead briefly comment on the current violence in London – a city that long ago ceased to be English or British.
The death of Mark Duggan in Tottenham on Thursday, who was shot by police during what the BBC describes as ‘an apparent exchange of fire’, is another unpleasant reminder of the failure of our criminal justice system and our increasingly destructive political class.
As our police force have evolved into another department of social services, and its officers have receded from their once prominent position on the streets of our town and cities, the criminal elements in society have become increasingly emboldened.
On the orders of wise politicians, the police have become a reactive service rather than remain a preventative force – and they ceased long ago to be citizens in uniform, instead seeing each other as an elite group, draped in paramilitary equipment and riding around in expensive metal boxes, all utterly removed from the events outside and the people they are tasked with defending.
Far from deterring crime, they appear – if at all – only once the offence has taken place, sometimes to record the transgression, but usually to provide counselling and lecture the public against ‘taking the law into their own hands’. Yet attempt to engage in a political demonstration and suddenly the riot shields come out in force.
But most worrying of all is how the police have slowly been armed over the course of four decades, with the inevitable outcome being violence and bloodshed. It was the abolition of the death penalty in the 1950s to 60s which created the present situation. The fear and deterrent of the noose quickly gave way, and as the figures starkly prove, gun crime has rapidly risen in the years since.
Areas of London and other major British cities have become no-go zones, ruled by armed gangs who kill without mercy or so much as a thought for the consequences. While the police have retreated to the safety of their police stations and squad cars, when the two gun toting groups eventually cross paths and lock horns, the deaths of innocent bystanders are the inevitable outcome.
This really is only the beginning. Unless we restore the deterrent of the death penalty, gun crime will continue to rise without check, as will unintentional death at the trigger finger of the police. Either it is criminals who live in fear of the law and justice, or we who live in fear of criminals. Which is it to be?
Your Comments:
-
I completely agree with you, particularly your point on the death penalty. There is nothing more satisfying than watching a mob slaughter someone at the stake. After all, if someone uses a gun – quite an immoral tool – surely we have the right to use our immoral tools in retaliation.
Furthermore, we only have to look at countries with the death penalty to see that it really does work. For example, America does have much higher gun crime and murder rates, but nevertheless it is a much more morally decent country. Saudi Arabia, too, has the death penalty but along with it a much higher code of living. Women must behave themselves, and their reaction to the rioting in Bahrain was exemplary – they sent in troops and shot the rioters dead.
Your last line sums up the situation perfectly. We must strive to reach a situation on a par with Saudia Arabia – we must fear the law. The law must not fear us.
-
Sometimes I wonder whether some of these comments are a wind-up… Anyway, Rick, have you not come across the saying, ‘two wrongs don’t make a right’? The death penalty is not about vengeance but the need for good law and deterrence. As for the rest of your comments… nice try, but you’re going to have to do better than that if you want to become a comedian.
-
- Moho316
I think that this article is extremely misleading. To suggest that it was the abolition of the death penalty which led to an increase in gun crime is very naive and completely ignores the real elephant in the room. I am not saying I am against the death penalty (which for the purpose of this argument is irrelevant anyway) but it is simply absurd to suggest that it’s abolition was responsible. Quite frankly although that may seem like a nice, safe and convenient way to give the impression of a strong ‘conservative’ voice, it is in fact simply a great way of avoiding a dirty confrontation with the politically correct left.
The reality is that immigration since the 1950’s is by far the most significant reason for the increase. Over the last 60 years we have seen a huge increase in immigration from the West Indies and Africa. Whilst this has brought benefits and whatever the merits at the time it is also fact that in a city such as London we have a situation in which 70% of the gun crime is London is committed by black ethnic groups. In fact the areas worst affected by gun crime (and interestingly on another note the recent riots) are London’s Afro- Caribbean communities. The sad reality of this as well is that many of these shootings are ‘black on black’ shootings. This is so endemic that it is led the Metropolitan Police to set up a special department known as Operation Trident dedicated to this area of gun crime. There is no such function for any other racial group and it is worth noting that Op Trident is dedicated to only investigating offences linked to and involving firearms. The point is that if the abolition of the death is to blame why didn’t it have the same impact across all ethnic groups? Why is there comparatively little ‘white’ gun crime?
You also consistently seem to display a complete lack of understanding on law and order and in particular the police service. Virtually every single point you raise about the police above is completely wrong. Firstly to suggest that police have slowly become armed over the last four decades is ridiculous. In fact the Metropolitan Police way back in 1884, after the murders of two constables, were given permission from the Commissioner of the day, to carry revolvers during uniformed night time patrols showing how far this dates back to and even the ‘firearms’ department as we know it today dates back to the 1960’s (an interesting coincidence). Secondly I am amazed on how you imply that the arming of British police is always a negative factor. Whilst I would agree that maybe to see the entire British Police force armed would be a terrible thing and a very sad day I personally feel that there is a massive shortage of armed cops and we need a lot more especially with the current threats we face. I personally work across the railway network which is a significant ‘terrorist target’ and in my opinion needs armed cops on the ground. Thankfully this is being observed by the government and many more armed cops will be on the streets soon thanks to the DFT’s decision to provide armed capability to the British Transport Police.
You also go on to say that this increase in arming of the police has led to violence and bloodshed. I’m not sure where you are going with that but it is as if you have the sentence back to front. The reality is that violence and bloodshed have resulted in the armed cops. In fact this is proven by the fact that each time a decision has been taken to arm cops it has been the result of violence. In 1884 the decision was taken after a police officer was murdered and the most recent arming and establishment of the firearms department in 1966 was the direct result of the murders of three unarmed officers in Hammersmith.
As for the concept of these ‘no go zones’ which you quite rightly seem critically of I then find it absolutely amazing that you would also criticise the arming of the police – which allows the officers to have the capability to deal with the individuals who have created such an area. The firearms policing teams are a fantastic asset to the UK and have helped to fight back against the gun culture. It is this small level of armed support that allows the vast majority of policing activities throughout the country to be conducted in the traditional manner by unarmed officers which is a fantastic thing. It also helps keep our police officers safe who contrary what you may believe the vast majority do their best to keep out streets safe and allow us to enjoy the freedoms we have today. Whist I would agree some of their efforts have been hampered by government interference and a culture of targets this has not distracted from some of the fantastic work done. I think it is quite sad that someone so ill informed can then be so critical.
