Robust Law and Order
To observe a police car rushing to the scene of a crime with flashing blue lights and a loud siren, is to observe an instance of failure.
Society’s ultimate policing objective is not to establish a well-resourced responsive fire brigade for crime scenes, but to prevent crime from occurring in the first place.
One of the central keys to preventing crime, severely de-prioritised in recent decades, is the visible presence of the police with preventative foot patrolling on our streets.
In June 2016 Cambridge University published the results of a major criminology experiment, which took place in Peterborough, and it categorically demonstrated that targeted foot patrols reduce crime.
Furthermore, over 600 police stations have been closed since 2010 in the largest closure programme in policing history, and this has of course added to the lack of physical presence in our communities.
Today’s almost entirely reactive vehicular approach to policing is in our view, a mistake.
We need to restore community-centric preventative foot patrolling, targeting crime “hot spots” in particular, to more strongly deter would-be criminals and make communities feel genuinely safer.
Priority of the police is to prevent crime – bring back foot patrols
Offensive speech is not a police matter – this madness must stop
An online advertisement by South Yorkshire Police appealing for the reporting of “non-crime hate incidents” such as “offensive or insulting comments”.
By investigating and prosecuting individuals for offensive speech, we are treading an incredibly dangerous path that ignores the importance of individual freedom and liberty.
Hate crime legislation is a textbook example of mission creep. We are now way beyond identifying racial prejudice as a motivating factor behind a violent assault for example.
We are now well and truly in the realms of the thought police, responsible for keeping the emotional peace and will knock on your door if you have offended somebody via Twitter, Facebook or email.
The bizarre definitions of the police and Crown Prosecution Service make this plain, as a “hate incident” for example is defined as:
Any incident which may or may not constitute a criminal offence that is perceived by the victim, or any other person, as being motivated by prejudice or hate.
This simple-mindedness is deeply flawed and in the end counter-productive. Matters of speech are often highly subjective in nature and cannot possibly be adjudicated in such a black and white fashion. Such prosecutions will more often than not result in a far greater injustice than the original complaint.
Citizens have the right not to have their house burgled, their money stolen or their body physically harmed. We don’t however have the right not to be offended.
Ultra-political correctness is a plague on our society and it is redefining the role of the police. The police and the criminal justice system ought to protect ones inalienable right to free speech, not take it away.
With soft sentencing, soft prisons and overall soft deterrents for preventing crime, is it any wonder why crime so rarely falls and why our prisons are so often full?
A report published by the think tank Civitas showing a breakdown of the 2016 England and Wales prison population (entitled Who goes to prison?), showed that 70% of custodial sentences were imposed on offenders already with at least 7 previous convictions or cautions, and 50% on those with at least 15.
First time offenders aside, why is it not until the eighth criminal act that offenders are eventually imprisoned? What about the second and third time? Is it characteristic of a criminal justice system seeking to deter crime to wait for so many repeat offences until the offender is threatened seriously with imprisonment? We are sending the wrong messages.
Moreover, because the overwhelming majority of offenders in prison are by this stage hardened criminals with an extensive track record, the effect of sustained efforts to “rehabilitate” prisoners are surely limited.
We advocate a genuinely tough stance on criminal justice calling for tougher sentencing as a means, among others, to radically deter crime.
Tough sentencing – our criminal justice system should deter crime
Prison Population – England and Wales 2016
Prison is a powerful deterrent, but currently used predominantly as a reaction to serial (or serious) offenders only.
Have at least 7 prior convictions or cautions
Have at least 15 prior convictions or cautions
Drugs are a plague on society – demand as well as supply should be prosecuted
It is often said that drugs such as cannabis under certain conditions can provide a medicinal benefit and should therefore be allowed to be used for treatment purposes.
This may very well be the case, many of our medicines originate from plants after all, however this is quite separate from the campaign to legalise cannabis that would enable big corporations to advertise, sell and distribute a dangerous drug on an unlimited scale.
By all means let’s investigate and remain open-minded about its use by health professionals in hospitals when it can assist, but the campaign to legalise and normalise cannabis is grossly irresponsible and must be opposed at all costs.
While drug dealers are intently pursued by the police and the courts, drug consumers are not.
Instead they are in effect absolved of their responsibility and remain undeterred from the self-indulgent criminal choices they make that often destroys their own life as well as the lives of others.
Drugs that we currently classify A to C are dangerous poisons that lead to severe mental illness, severe diminishing of the quality of life and severe heartbreak and misery for immediate families. These drugs are rightly illegal, and more responsible government that suppresses demand as well as supply is long-overdue.
Arguments advocating the legalisation of drugs often revolve around a “war on drugs” that has failed. The war hasn’t failed, it hasn’t happened.
Those caught in possession of an illegal drug are most often subjected to one of a range of non-statutory actions such as a Penalty Notice of Disorder, an £80 fine, a cannabis warning, a Community Resolution, or a simple caution. Police guidelines are deliberately geared away from arresting such offenders and very few go to prison.
Practically nobody in our country feels concerned, let alone deterred, about a serious consequence before choosing to purchase illegal drugs.
We must end the de facto decriminalisation of drug possession and utilise the criminal justice system to establish appropriate punishment, but above all, an effective deterrent. We advocate a police caution on the first offence, a fine of £1000 and a criminal record on the second, and immediate arrest and 6 months imprisonment there onwards.
The very real prospect of obtaining a criminal record, losing a substantial amount of money and going to prison, backed up by a series of public prosecutions of high profile offenders, will grant us a better chance of deterring the next generation, children especially, away from a life of potential self-inflicted destruction that is a continuing black mark on our society.
The job of the police is to patrol the streets and enforce the law. However well-intended, it is not to engage in political or social activism by campaigning in the streets or elsewhere.
Pride Parade marches originally took place as a counter-oppression action and rightly so, and they continue today as an ongoing celebration and expression of diversity and self-empowerment.
But why are the police and their uniformed officers in an official capacity marching too? Is it a self-serving PR campaign explicitly designed to improve their image? If so, it is an incredibly crass display that insults the intelligence of the public, including those also marching.
Political correctness is not just about trying to be politically correct, more importantly it’s about a prevailing fear of being publicly condemned as politically incorrect. But the better answer, for the benefit of everybody, is to day-to-day simply treat people equally so these issues are actually non-issues, rather than sources of phoney PR campaigns and positive discrimination. Otherwise where does it end? How many other marches must they also participate in?
The bottom line is that this is simply not what people expect of the police. We want tough and efficient police forces to keep us safe by successfully deterring and prosecuting crime – and that is what their time should be dedicated to, what our taxpayers’ money should be spent on and what the police uniform should represent.
We’ve recently seen surges in knife crime, grooming gangs, acid attacks and terrorism. If senior police officers cannot think of anything better for these uniformed officers to be doing, then the general public certainly can.
Public policy does not get any more misguided than this. The public does not want the police spending its time virtue signalling in the streets, but to patrol the streets, enforce the law and deter crime that would otherwise occur.
Virtue signalling is not the role of the police – their responsibilities lie elsewhere
A Greater Manchester Police constable in his role as a PR prop.
Case in Point – Wrong priorities amid public anxiety about rising crime
Virtue signalling and crass public relations activity by the police rather than focussing on enforcing the law.
We are a group of grassroots activists working within our own personal resources seeking to make a positive difference for our local communities and our country.
With politics so detached from the people, we are pro-Brexit and want a better deal for the people. We value in particular national self-government, the empowerment of citizens and individual freedom and opportunity.
Promoted by Gerald O'Brien, the Party Chairman, on behalf of the Foundation Party both at 71-75 Shelton Street, Covent Garden, London, WC2H 9JQ.