|Always ask: education or indoctrination?|
Firstly there's a story in The Daily Mail about a "Twitter troll" who said some inane things online and now people want him dead so the police are considering arresting him:
An investigation was launched by Essex Police over tweets relating to the Boston bombing, as well as the Hillsborough disaster and the Bulger murder. Ambridge has since left the company.
Police said the CPS is considering whether to pursue a case of criminal communication through social media involving a 51-year-old man from Braintree."
And yet we have this recent astonishing admission from Greater Manchester Police:
A police chief has sparked fury by admitting six out of 10 crimes are not investigated by his officers.
Sir Peter Fahy said the majority of crooks operating on his Greater Manchester patch are simply let off the hook if there are no witnesses or clues that help detectives nail suspects.Victims are instead given crime numbers for insurance claims, but the case is shelved.Astonishingly, that means more than 106,000 crimes were all but given up as lost causes by the force last year.Blackley and Broughton Labour MP Graham Stringer spoke of his anger at the admission.He said: “Deprioritising the majority of crime is bound to lead to a loss of confidence in the police.“Victims have every right to be angry. They have an expectation of a better service from the police force."I accept they have to prioritise. I don’t accept they should ignore the majority of crimes.”
On one level this is being put over as a question of evidence. It's easier to nail someone for saying something naughty on the internet than actually catching someone who has done physical damage to someone's body or property.
The truth is, it's a matter of priorities.
Regular readers may remember I posted on this topic some time ago with "Police shouldn't catch criminals?". There I explained why it this is such a worry. That the police are telling people their new focus is 'crime prevention' means they are really interested in the business of 'thought control', whether they know it or not. That's the inevitable destination of a 'crime prevention' policy.
Since that blog entry the houses where I live have been bombarded with 'crime prevention' leaflets. If you live in the UK it's possible you have had them through your door as well, menacing messages from Her Majesty's Police Service telling you your area gets burgled often and victims of crime should always be very afraid.
The state prefers people to be scared, it makes you easier to control because you react to the world, rather than acting upon it.
This continued focus, upon what people think rather than what they actually do, looks unlikely to change soon. It also dovetails rather neatly into the censorship agenda, don't you think?