British gov't embarassed over surge in violent crime rate

Glock-A-Roo

New member
How can this be? Doesn't spending half a billion dollars to disarm the citizenry guarantee a drop in violent crime? I'm shocked.
http://www.guardianunlimited.co.uk/crime/article/0,2763,341717,00.html

Crime rise adds to Blair woes

Nicholas Watt and Alan Travis
Monday July 10, 2000

Tony Blair will attempt to bury details of an alarming rise in violent crime across the country by publishing a series of embarrassing Home Office statistics on the same day as Gordon Brown unveils his headline-grabbing spending review.

In a sign of the growing panic in Downing Street that ministers are losing the initiative on law and order, the annual crime figures will be slipped out on July 18 at virtually the same moment as the chancellor announces a massive hike in government spending on health and education. Ministers are said to be deeply alarmed at the Home Office figures which are expected to show that recorded crime in England and Wales has risen by about 3% in the past year and is accelerating, with violent crime rising by more than 10%. Ann Widdecombe, the shadow home secretary, last night accused the government of a cynical attempt to manipulate the news. "Ministers are so transparent," Ms Widdecombe said. "This is yet another pathetic attempt at spin, but the difference now is that people are wised up to the ways of this government."

Her criticism came as the government underlined its concerns over crime by appointing the former BBC director general Lord Birt as a special unpaid adviser on crime. At the personal invitation of the prime minister, Lord Birt will work unpaid for the government one day a week to tackle "deep-seated issues". Downing Street said that Lord Birt, who will continue to sit in the Lords as a crossbencher, had been chosen because he could bring an outsiders' view to crime. His appointment was criticised yesterday by the Tories and Liberal Democrats as a poor response to rising crime. Simon Hughes, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, said: "After 18 years in opposition and three years in government and the huge amount of facts, figures and research already available, what has Labour been doing? Soundbites and supremos are not enough."

John Prescott defended the appointment, saying that Lord Birt would help the government to continue to be tough on crime. However, the appointment, which comes hard on the heels of the prime minister's ill-fated "cashpoint initiative" to tackle drunken yobs, indicates a growing worry among ministers that they are losing the initiative on crime.

Ministers will attempt to play down the crime increases by focusing on the continuing fall in domestic burglaries which have dropped by 28% over the past five years to their lowest level for a decade.

The prime minister, who believes that Labour's "tough on crime tough on the causes of crime" message was a crucial factor in his landslide election victory, attempted to regain the initiative at the end of last month by floating the idea of marching drunken yobs to cashpoints to pay on-the-spot fines. Within days this was shot down as unworkable by police.

Whitehall sources were surprised when Mr Blair continued to talk about law and order initiatives after his embarrassing climbdown. The sources expected that the prime minister would move on to other issues in the immediate aftermath of his son's arrest and reprimand last week for being drunk and incapable.

The panic over law and order comes amid signs that senior ministers fear that the government is failing to communicate effectively with voters. It was confirmed yesterday that the prime minister's official spokesman, Alastair Campbell, has been instructed to report to Mr Prescott once a week on how he is succeeding in selling the government's achievements.

In a defensive letter to the deputy prime minister Mr Campbell insisted that he did have "a reasonable success rate in getting our agenda up".
 
The real question is, who's the greater menace to the people? The hooligans and back-street muggers, or the Gubmint bent on disarming law-abiding people and then offering college scolarships and social programs for the very animals that victimize them?
 
It has come to the point in Australia and England where the politicians will admit they just did the bans to make people feel better.

Most people in these countries don't understand guns and when they see a massacre they get REAL emotional and wonder why the govt. doesn't take the guns away.

Remember when Blair said the latest ban had nothing to do with crime; but was to end the "Gun Culture"?


Battler.
 
The possibility that disarming their honest citizens has something to do with their increase in crime isn't even on their radar.

To be frank, I'll wager it will literally be years before they even discuss the possibility, at least in a public forum.

Good people will die before their political hacks will recognize their foolishness. What a shame.

Regards from AZ
 
In Australia things are so out of control you can't even own a semi-automatic paintball gun, you have to use pumps and even those are tricky legally. Australia is so out of control, if I lived there I'd be burying guns out in the desert right now. How can people put up with that?

------------------
I twist the facts until they tell the truth
 
I've been discussing this issue with a friend who's been visiting from England for the last week. As much as we'd love to tie this rise in crime to their near total banning of guns, the fact remains that so few people owned guns in England prior to the ban that its almost impossible for the ban to have had any real effect on crime one way or the other. People just didn't have the concept of keeping a firearm for self-defense.
 
Back
Top