Wednesday, March 09, 2016

And for my next trick....

So the IPCC is to be rebranded. Its new title is to be the Office for Police Conduct.

Still, at least its dropped the use of the word Independent. A bit of pressure from advertising standards ??? The bottom line is that you can re name anything but if all your doing is changing the sign above the door its all just a sleight of hand. Its the appearance of action, dynamism and moving forward but really its just no change, nothing to see here...

Its the same bunch behind the door and the same people pulling the strings.

Perhaps for greater clarity they should call themselves the Office for Police Misconduct.
Why?..., because that's the default starting point. Guilty until found innocent .

Friday, March 04, 2016

A worker or a criminal?

I was reading an article in the Police Oracle on issues around Prostitution.

ACC Nikki Holland, the NPCC (ACPO in the old money) is the lead on this and was giving evidence to yet another home affairs select committee. Her submission was that workers in the sex industry ( prostitutes and prostitution in the old money ) are a vulnerable group and any crimes against them should be grouped under ' Hate Crime'. Basically the argument being that they should be treated as victims and not offenders

I totally agree they are vulnerable, not only the girls who work the street but also what goes on behind the closed door in the brothels.
But another group to put under the canopy of 'hate crime '?
Are offences against these women because of what they do or because they are women.
Misogyny a hate crime? By its definition you would say yes

I agree with the logic of targeting the punters, the kerb crawlers and the pimps and traffickers further up the chain
The sanctions imposed against the working women was never high in any event.
However by effectively legitimising the activity involved ( victim not offender ) you do not stop what is happening out there .
I have never understood the notion of 'agreed areas'. These just create a void which is filled by the women but all the other side 'industries' who take advantage of police looking the other way. Where do you start? By effectively legitimising the activity (worker in the sex industry and not 'prostitute' ), where do you end with this logic? Are the people sat in the cannabis farms in dreary suburban houses and churning out  'skunk' to order workers in the drugs industry?

I recall the argument made that the drugs mules who swallow drugs and fly into the UK are victims and shouldn't be criminalised. Yes they are victims , probable coerced through a number of 'incentives' to do what they do. BUT by stating if you are caught 'nothing will happen' will NOT solve the problem. They will still be 'incentivised' by those running them to make that trip but without the fear the could spend some serious  time for importation.

I am 200% for putting the fear and the resources to target those up the food chain in these industries. But this is very resource intensive and consequently costly and I doubt those in the NPCC have the stomach to finance it in this day and age.

Any chain has a starting point. 'Industries' like sex and drugs have a pyramid structure. Lets work our way up. Sanctions increasing as you goes through the pyramid. But by effectively legitimising the base this just leaves those further up the chain laughing all the way to the Bank of Laundered Money