"The Law is an ass" is a phrase we all know, and probably agree with. But lately we've come to see that the Law - meaning the entire legal system, courts, judges, magistrates, the police, the CPS and the politicians who govern them all - is worse than an Ass. It has become a toothless, arbitrary halfwit, shovelling money into the pockets of lawyers, pricing itself beyond the reach of ordinary citizens, drooling cheerfully at people who damage society and spitting bile at those who seek to preserve it, or just live peacefully within it.
In fact we think it's so ridiculous that we're awarding it the coveted title "Wanker of the Week".
Consider this news report ...
Residents of an affluent suburb in Southampton have decided to pay £3.15 a week to fund a private security force to patrol the streets. Hundreds of residents who have 'lost faith in the police force' have clubbed together to hire the private team of uniformed officers to protect them from crime in the area.
Security firm Atraks says its team will use the powers of citizen arrest as they patrol the leafy streets of Upper Shirley to 'prevent serious crime' and 'neutralise' threats. Eight uniformed officers equipped with handcuffs and stab vests will even escort homeowners to and from the bank or on shopping trips to ensure they are not mugged.
So far 337 people have signed up in the neighbourhood while a further 1,700 have said they will join once they see the service in action. The Atraks service - which is being tried out for free - costs £3.15 a week or residents can make an annual, one-off payment of £163.80. Atraks needs 500 people to sign up to the scheme within a three-square-mile area for it to go ahead full time.
Upper Shirley is one of the most affluent parts of Southampton but is close to a number of run-down areas. One resident said he has agreed to pay for the scheme because he thinks the Atraks officers will prevent crime, rather than just respond to it. 'It's not a lot of money to pay for having peace of mind,' he said. 'If someone is patrolling the streets at night then it's definitely going to stop some crime from taking place. We do see the police now and again around here but they are always busy with other things and don't have time to drive down every street. They will come if you call them but I think the Atraks scheme will be much more preventative.'
Another resident, an elderly woman who wished to remain anonymous, said: 'It is ludicrous that we pay our taxes and then have to pay again for a decent level of protection but I don't see any other option.'
The eight "officers" will talk to residents and be a visible presence on the streets to deter criminals. They will patrol outside schools, provide escorts to shops and banks, respond to alarms and help disperse street gangs. The service will involve dedicated patrols of officers trained in 'handcuffing, crime scene preservation, statement taking and firefighting'.
But local Labour MP Alan Whitehead criticised the scheme, saying it was 'based on exaggerating both a fear of crime and their own legal and practical powers in responding to concerns'. He added: 'I remain of the view that a paid vigilante service is not the best way to ensure that our communities are kept safe.'
Well, Alan, we think we'll lump you in with the rest of the legal system and call you a Wanker too. You don't seem to realise that it doesn't matter what you say about this, or what the police say, or what anyone says. What matters is what the residents think. It doesn't even matter whether they're right or not, it's their perception that counts, because they're the ones who live in Upper Shirley, they're the ones who pay their council tax, they're the ones who vote, they're the ones who are in the long run your employers. Right or wrong, their views are the most important thing.
And their view is that the police do not provide the level of protection they want, that dialling 999 no longer produces a swift and proportionate response (in fact in some parts of the country people are being discouraged from dialling 999 at all), that when they are caught, criminals and yobs are being cosseted and freed to carry on offending at will, and that the greatest danger any ordinary person faces these days is being prosecuted for attempting to protect themselves, their family or their property.
So, Alan Whitehead MP, don't bother with your normal knee-jerk Nu-Labour reaction of blaming the public for being so silly as to doubt the wisdom of your government's policies. Address the real problem which is that the public perception of the Law is universally awful. If somebody has a poor public image, it's not the fault of the public, it's the fault of the person or institution that projects the image.
The media play a large part in all this, of course, and are responsible in very large part for our exaggerated fear of crime and disorder. If you flick through the digital TV channels almost any evening you will find plenty of programmes about drunken louts fighting in the streets, or 12-year-old boys who steal cars and race them round the estates, or pensioners held prisoner in their own homes by rampaging youths. Not a day goes by but the Daily Mail carries some horror story about a householder kicked to death on his own doorstep or a WW2 veteran arrested because he dared to resist the youths who were mugging him.
But this is not the problem either. If these stories didn't exist, the Daily Mail wouldn't be able to report them. The problem is that, as one Daily Mail reader put it, "... a vigilante service is not the best way to keep our streets safe. The best way is a proper police force, but that is not what we have. It's up to Mr Whitehead and his colleagues to provide that, but they appear incapable of doing so".
Of course these private "officers" will not have the powers of a real police officer, though one must set against this the fact that the real police officer spends most of his time behind a desk rather than on the street where we want him, so he rarely gets to exercise those powers. But while the Upper Shirley scheme is the brainchild of ordinary citizens and therefore wrong, elsewhere something very similar is going ahead - but as it's the invention of the government, it's right.
Suddenly bouncers belonging to a firm called Eventguard were handing out fines without any kind of formal procedure. Norfolk magistrates were unaware that the police had accredited bouncers in the Prince of Wales Road area of Norwich, which contains many of the city's clubs and pubs, because the police had not consulted either JPs or local judiciary. One of the significant powers given to the 1,500 other accredited security guards, park wardens and bouncers nationwide is access to the Police National Computer, which must surely increase the risk of abuse of the database.
At Addenbrookes hospital near Cambridge there are now eight staff who have been "trained" by police and are empowered to issue on-the-spot fines to patients, an astonishing development sanctioned by the chief constable of Cambridgeshire, Julie Spence. Under the Community Safety Accreditation Scheme (CSAS) , introduced by the Police Reform Act in 2002, they have the power to demand the name and address of a person and fine them for disorder. Cambridge people are concerned about the spread of unaccountable policing and the creation of a "private police force". The police committee expressed worries that "no local democratic or public debate has occurred".
So ... private police force instigated by the government GOOD, private police force instigated by the very citizens such a force is intended to protect, BAD.
Pick the logic out of that. If you can.
Meanwhile, elsewhere in the legal system, a man has had his business ruined by a database mistake and the courts have ruled that he has no redress in law. In other words, our database state is free to operate without let or hindrance, with no control or check on its activities. The state is legally irresponsible - and that's official.
Entrepreneur André Power, whose fledgling business was ruined by a false entry in a court database, has had his claim for compensation rejected by a High Court judge. He brought the case against the Ministry of Justice, which is responsible for HM Courts Service. It was prompted by the failure of Chi-qi.com, a world music download service and social network Mr Power set up with a business partner in 2006.
After sinking tens of thousands of his own money into the venture, Mr Power fell three months - or about £5,000 - behind on his mortgage payments and was taken to Southend County Court by his lender in July 2007. He settled the debt in full before it came before a judge.
But an unknown official at Southend County Court nevertheless registered a County Court Judgement (CCJ) against his name for £254,000, the full value of the mortgage.
Completely unaware of the heavy black mark against his name, Mr Power continued developing Chi-qi.com. He and his partner began to seek a £250,000 investment to fund a full launch. Despite his successful record of launching and running new businesses, the pair struggled for 13 months to get financial backing. Eventually they accepted £50,000 from two investors in August 2008 to keep the venture afloat. At the last minute however, one of the investors pulled out, citing a credit check with Experian, which sucks up data from County Court databases. It revealed the £254,000 CCJ against Mr Power. It was the first he had heard of it.
It then took three months for Southend County Court to issue a clearance certificate admitting its error. When the certificate arrived, Mr Power was aghast to find it was made out to only £5,000, rather than the full £254,000 bad debt wrongly registered to his name.
Still, by now the certificate was academic, at least in terms of his business prospects. Without investment Mr Power and his partner had been forced to close the company.
There's a more complete account of this case on The Register. And there's a sting in the tail - the judge who ruled that the civil service cannot be held liable for the damage it causes was Tony Bliar's brother!
And finally, one more little morsel ...
At the Gallery of Modern Art in Glasgow is an exhibition entitled "Made in God's Image". One exhibit is a Bible. Beside it is a box of pens and a written invitation to visitors to deface the book as they see fit. Some have responded with abuse and obscenity. Christians are, understandably, dismayed though so far none has demanded the death penalty for either the organisers or the offending visitors.
There is, however, no truth in the rumour that next month a copy of the Koran will be displayed and members of the public invited to scribble their own comments on it.
I mean, that would be offensive and illegal, wouldn't it? ...
either on this site or on the World Wide Web.
Copyright © 2008 The GOS