Broken Britain?

The authorities, whose side are they on?

Scared of this, why? Scared of this, why?
For many people Hackgate had become boring. Hence, or so it would seem, the outburst of activity that we now call, 'the riots', was so joyfully seized upon. In Hackgate the hapless trio, MPs, the MSM and the police proved to the public how evil gangs fighting turf wars can ruin lives. So how unfortunate that the back streets of some cities thought it was their turn to do the same. Only the very foolish and naive were shocked by the revelations of Hackgate or taken aback by the riots and the post-riot recriminations.

For more streetwise people the riots would have been confirmation of what they had known for a long time. They did not need the merchants of spin to come up with the soundbite, 'broken Britain'. Neither would they have been so foolish as to think that the only broken bit was the youth of the nation. And what they saw with Hackgate, into which it is said there will be as many as thirteen different inquiries, could well be repeated with the riots. Assorted busybodies being allowed to waste more time and money and all this from a government that promised to reduce the number of public servants.

But like Hackgate there's been a large amount of misleading information put out. There's a huge problem for the police with the way the information on the shooting of Mark Duggan was released to the MSM. Even the Independent Police Complaints' Commission has been forced to admit this. However, unlike Hackgate where the hapless trio shared the dubious honours, the riots and post riot phase have the MSM almost in the clear. Almost, as despite the evidence, the exception is the BBC which is determined to blame the riots on 'the cuts'. So this time it's the police and the politicians who share the criticism from the public.

Alas the former simply cannot imagine they could be responsible for anything other than total perfection. They shine like a beacon of self satisfaction dazzling themselves in the process. The meaningless mantra 'policing by consent' says it all. For no member of the public has even been asked if they approve of ACPO. It's the same with 'protecting the public', who will protect the public from their protectors? As for the politicians it's a bit different. As public relations is David Cameron's trade you would have thought that he would have presented himself in a good light. Not so. Squabbles with Sir Hugh Orde and Theresa May should have been avoided.

But there's also been an element of humour in what Cameron has done. He gives the nod to the use of water cannon, then it rains and this seems to have had a dampening effect on the riots. Cameron has always thought of himself as H2B and sure enough had Blair been in charge a quick prayer to the Almighty would have been in order, which would be a whole lot flashier than squabbling! Also funny was the Bill Bratton chapter. Here an American celebrity cop was Cameron's choice to put the UK police back in their box; an idea bound to fail as celebrity cops are not new. We have had this for years starting with James Anderton who made a fool of himself as the Chief Constable of Manchester back in the 1970s. Thus Cameron made a fool of himself by suggesting it.
Scared of this, why?Scared of this, why?

But now the humour is over and here comes the madness. The sentences for some of the 'rioters' are the sort of thing you might get from show trials. This will create immense anger and a sense of injustice. The ingredients of the original riots, how crazy is that? An illustrative case is the two men , Jordan Blackshaw and Perry Sutcliffe-Keenan,who used a Facebook account to call for a riot in their district. No riot occurred, even so four year sentences were given.

Also this Facebook case should be seen alongside that of Paul Chambers. Here the police failed again, the disproportionate response spoke volumes about their grasp of the real world. Chambers was arrested for making a joke on Twitter by tweeting: Crap! Robin Hood Airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your shit together, otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!!

Chambers said the police seemed unable to comprehend the intended humour in his online comment. "I had to explain Twitter to them in its entirety because they'd never heard of it," he said. "Then they asked all about my home life, and how work was going, and other personal things. The lead investigator kept asking, 'Do you understand why this is happening?' and saying, 'It is the world we live in'.

The state seems to get a lot of things wrong when it comes to the internet and social networking. Basically they are scared of it, a bit like in China! The police have, both during and after the riots, shown a complete lack of understanding on how to present themselves. We may resent a world where PR is so important but then the police spend enough of our money on this. So why has this come about? A lot of it stems from their basic attitude to the public. We all seem to be terrorists now, they live in a bubble and only come out of it to fight the public, see HERE .

So here we are just hours away from the Notting Hill Carnival which has been allowed to go ahead despite general concern from Londoners. Contrast this to the small English Defence League events that have been cancelled. However, just like the extreme reactions to the riots here there have been pre-emptive arrests. The chances of a major miscarriage of justice are there for all to see followed by yet another rise in resentment from the public. And at this point the police will retreat further into their bubble. This is not the way to do things.

Not all black teenagers are about to become violent criminals. The same as not all football supporters are a problem. For a description of how that subject goes wrong see the website Boiling Frog and HERE.