Culture Vultures, In the Absence of Guns

[Oatka]

Good info for the next "Well, the UK has
. . ."

From the print version of June issue of The American Spectator, not available online.

Culture Vultures, In the Absence of Guns
by Mark Steyn

Celebrity news from the United Kingdom: In April, Germaine Greer, the Australian feminist and author of ne Fernale Eunuch, was leaving her house in East Anglia, when a young woman accosted her, forced her back inside, tied her up, smashed her glasses, and then set about demolishing her ornaments with a poker.

A couple of weeks before that, the 85- year-old mother of Phil Collins, the well- known rock star, was punched in the ribs, the back, and the head on a West London street, before her companion was robbed. "That's what you have to expect these days," she said, philosophically.

Anthea Turner, the host of Britain's top- rated National Lottery TV show, went to see the West End revival of Grease with a friend. They were spotted at the theatre by a young man who followed them out and, while their car was stuck in traffic, forced his way in and wrenched a diamond- encrusted Rolex off the friend's wrist.

A week before that, the 94-year-old mother of Ridley Scott, the director of Alien and other Hollywood hits, was beaten and robbed by two men who broke into her home and threatened to kill her.

Former Bond girl Britt Ekland had her jewelry torn from her arms outside a shop in Chelsea; Formula One Grand Prix racing tycoon and Tony Blair confidante Bernie Ecciestone was punched and kicked by his assailants as they stole his wife's ring; network TV chief Michael Green was slashed in the face by thugs outside his Mayfair home; gourmet chef to the stars Anton Mosirnann was punched in the head outside his house in Kensington....

Rita Simmonds isn't a celebrity but, fortunately, she happened to be living next door to one when a gang broke into her home in upscale Cumberland Terrace, a private road near Regent's Park. Tom Cruise heard her screams and bounded to the rescue, chasing off the attackers for 300 yards, though failing to prevent them from reaching their getaway car and escaping with two jewelry items worth around $14o,ooo.

It's just as well Tom failed to catch up with the gang. Otherwise, the ensuing altercation might have resulted in the diminutive star being prosecuted for assault. In Britain, criminals, police, and magistrates are united in regarding any resistance by the victim as bad form. The most they'll tolerate is "proportionate response" -and, as these thugs had been beating up a defenseless woman and posed no threat to Tom Cruise, the Metropolitan Police would have regarded Tom's actions as highly objectionable. 'Proportionate response" from the beleaguered British property owner's point of view, is a bit like a courtly duel where the rules are set by one side: "Ah," says the victim of a late-night break-in, "I see you have brought a blunt instrument. Forgive me for unsheathing my bread knife. My mistake, old boy. Would you mind giving me a sporting chance to retrieve my cricket bat from under the bed before clubbing me to a pulp, there's a good chap?"

No wonder, even as they're being pounded senseless, many British crime victims are worrying about potential liability. A few months ago, Shirley Best, owner of the Rolander Fashion boutique whose clients include the daughter of the Princess Royal, was ironing some garments when two youths broke in. They pressed the hot iron into her side and stole her watch, leaving her badly bumt. "I was frightened to defend myself," said Miss Best. "I thought if I did anything I would be arrested."

And who can blame her? Shortly before the attack, she'd been reading about Tony Martin, a Norfolk farmer whose home had been broken into and who had responded by shootin g and killing the teenage burglar. He was charged with murder. In April, he was found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment--for defending himself against a career criminal in an area where the police are far away and reluctant to have their sleep disturbed. In the British Commonwealth, the approach to policing is summed up by the motto of Her Majestys most glamorous constabulary: The Mounties always get their man - i.e., leave it to US. But these days in the British police, when they can't get their man, they'll get you instead: Frankly, that's a lot easier as poor Mr. Martin discovered.

Norfolk is a remote rural corner of England. It ought to be as peaceful and crime-free as my remote rural corner of New England. But it isn't. Old impressions die hard: Americans still think of Britain as a low-crime country. Conversely, the British think of America as a high-crime country. But neither impression is true. The overall crime rate in England and Wales is 6o percent higher than that in the United States. True, in America you're more likely to be shot to death. On the other hand, in England you're more likely to be strangled to death. But in both cases, the statistical likelihood of being murdered at all is remote, especially if you steer clear of the drug trade. When it comes to anything else, though-- burglary, auto theft, armed robbery, violent assault, rape --- the crime rate reaches deep into British society in ways most Americans would find virtually inconceivable.

I cite those celebrity assaults not because celebrities are more prone to wind up as crime victims than anyone else, but only because the measure of a civilized society is how easily you can insulate yourself from its snarling underclass. In America, if you can make it out of some of the loonier cities, it's a piece of cake, relatively speaking. In Britain, if even a rock star or TV supremo can't insulate himself, nobody can. In any society, criminals prey on the weak and vulnerable. It's the peculiar genius of government policy to have ensured that in British society everyone is weak and vulnerable -- from Norfolk farmers to Tom Cruise's neighbor.

A nd that's where America is headed if those million marching moms make any headway in Washington: Less guns = more crime. And more vulnerability. And a million more moms being burgled, and assaulted, and raped. I like hunting, but if that were the only thing at stake with guns, I guess I could learn to live without it. But I'm opposed to gun control because I don't see why my neighbors in New Hampshire should have to live the way, say, my sister-in-law does --in a comfortable manor house in a prosperous part of rural England, lying awake at night listening to yobbo gangs drive up, park their vans, and test her doors and windows before figuring out that the little old lady down the lane's a softer touch.

Between the introduction of pistol permits in 1903 and the banning of handguns after the Dunblane massacre in 1996, Britain has had a century of incremental gun control -"sensible measures that all reasonable people can agree on." And what's the result? [bold mine] Even when you factor in America's nutcake jurisdictions with the crackhead mayors, the overall crime rate in England and Wales is higher than in all 50 states, even though over there they have more policemen per capita than in the U.S., on vastly higher rates of pay installing more video surveillance cameras than anywhere else in the Western world. Robbery, sex crimes, and violence against the person are higher in England and Wales; property crime is twice as high; vehicle theft is higher still; the British are 2-3 times more likely than Americans to be assaulted, and three times more likely to be violently assaulted. Between 1973 and 1992, burglary rates in the U.S. fell by half In Britain, not even the Home Office's disreputable reporting methods (if a burglar steals from 15 different apartments in one building, it counts as a single crime) can conceal the remorseless rise: Britons are now more than twice as likely as Americans to be mugged; two-thirds will have their property broken into at some time in their lives. Even more revealing is the divergent character between U.K. and U.S. property crime: In America, just over 10 percent of all burglaries are "hot burglaries"-- committed while the owners are pre sent; in Britain, it's over half. Because of insurance-required alarm systems, the average thief increasingly concludes that it's easier to break in while you're on the premises. Your home-security system may conceivably make your home more safe, but it makes you less so.

Conversely, up here in the New Hampshire second congressional district, there are few laser security systems and lots of guns. Our murder rate is much lower than Britain's and our property crime is virtually insignificant. Anyone want to make a connection? Villains are expert calculators of risk, and the likelihood of walking away uninjured with an $8o television set is too remote. In New Hampshire, a citizen's right to defend himself deters crime; in Britain, the state-inflicted impotence of the homeowner actively encourages it. just as becoming a drug baron is a rational career move in Colombia, so too is becoming a violent burglar in the United Kingdom. The chances that the state will seriously impede your progress are insignificant.

Now I'm Canadian, so, as you might expect, the Second Amendment doesn't mean much to me. I think its more basic than that. Privately owned firearms symbolize the essential difference between your great republic and the countries you left behind. In the U.S., power resides with "we, the people" and is leased ever more sparingly up through town, county, state, and federal government. In Britain and Canada, power resides with the Crown and is graciously devolved down in limited doses. To a north country Yankee it's self-evident that, when a burglar breaks into your home, you should have the right to shoot him-- indeed, not just the right, but the responsibility, as a free- born citizen, to uphold the integrity of your property. But in Britain and most other parts of the Western world, the state reserves that right to itself, even though at the time the ne'er-do-well shows up in your bedroom you're on the scene and Constable Plod isn't: He's some miles distant, asleep in his bed, and with his answering machine on referring you to central dispatch God knows where.

These days it's standard to bemoan the "dependency culture" of state welfare, but Britain's law-and-order "dependency culture" is even more enfeebling. What was it the police and courts resented about that Norfolk farmer? That he "took the law into his own bands"? But in a responsible participatory democracy, the law ought to be in our hands. The problem with Britain is that the police force is now one of the most notable surviving examples of a pre-Thatcher, bloated, incompetent, unproductive, over-paid, closed-shop state monopoly. They're about as open to constructive suggestions as the country's Communist Mineworkers' union was 2o years ago, and the control-freak tendencies of all British political parties ensure that the country's bloated, expensive county and multi-county forces are inviolable.

The Conservatives' big mistake between 1979 and 1997 was an almost willfully obtuse failure to understand that giving citizens more personal responsibility isn't something that extends just to their income and consumer choices; it also applies to their communities and their policing arrangements. If you have one without the other, you end up with modern Britain: a materially prosperous society in which the sense of frustration and impotence is palpable, and you're forced to live with a level of endless property crime most Americans would regard as unacceptable.

We know Bill Clinton's latest favorite statistic --that 12 "kids" a day die from gun violence-- is bunk: Five-sixths of those 12.569 grade-school moppets are aged between 15 and 19, and many of them have had the misfortune to become involved in gangs, convenience-store hold-ups, and drug deals, which, alas, have a tendency to go awry. If more crack deals passed off peaceftilly, that "child" death rate could be reduced by three-quarters. But away from those dark fringes of society, Americans live lives blessedly untouched by most forms of crime -- at least when compared with supposedly more civilized countries like Britain. That's something those million marching moms should consider, if only because in a gun-free America women --and the elderly and gays and all manner of other fashionable victim groups-- will be bearing the brunt of a much higher proportion of violent crime than they do today. Ask Phil Collins or Ridley Scott or Germaine Greer.


------------------
The New World Order has a Third Reich odor.

[JimR]

Nice job on keying this in Oatka!

The sound you hear is that of British vets, who fought and held off Hitler in the Battle of France, Norway, the Battle of Britain, in the North African desert, etc, spinning in their graves, while British citzenry suffers from unchecked hooliganism.

I think they need US small arms again like they received in 1940-42.

[McChainsaw]

Oatka, Thanks for the article. You are right on as usual.

Your Brother in Arms--------McChainsaw

[Munro Williams]

Oatka mines his usual gold.

Great post.

[Jeff Thomas]

Gold indeed! Thank you ... sent this on for 'foundation' with my Canadian 'friend' that I will soon meet, and debate.

Regards from AZ

[bestdefense357]

Oatka, that is a GREAT article! Thanks for taking the time to post it. Robert

[jimmy]

Thanks, Oatka. Terrific article!

[William R. Wilburn]

Thanks Oatka. You realy get the good stuff.

-William

[Dagny]

racking the slide on this one

[Solitar]

This post was before Agricola joined TFL.
He has missed a lot of good old threads about the British experience as perceived by TFL'ers.
I hope he chimes in on this one.

[Kirk Keller]

The problem with Britain is that the police force is now one of the most notable surviving examples of a pre-Thatcher, bloated, incompetent, unproductive, over-paid, closed-shop state monopoly. They're about as open to constructive suggestions as the country's Communist Mineworkers' union was 2o years ago, and the control-freak tendencies of all British political parties ensure that the country's bloated, expensive county and multi-county forces are inviolable.

Hmmmmm. Something about this statement rings true... eh Ag?

[agricola]

before we go on about "bloated" police forces

please compare the amount of police the UK has

with the amount the US has

the rest of the article is beneath comment

[Futo Inu]

Wonder what's gonna happen now that the aristocrats are being bothered by this street crime. We certainly can't have that. But what to do? Amusing.

[Solitar]

In planning for staffing of our police department, we on city council looked at the staffing of other police departments of towns somewhat larger or smaller than our town. Some numbers from the UK would help us compare what others have and what we may need or may be able to preferably pare down to. Agricola or other's with info from the UK, please give us some statisitics (and web sources if possible) showing the number of police officers in towns of one to ten thousand people. This topic may be worthy of a new thread since the info may be useful to LEO's here who are also in small departments in small towns. As a starting point: my town of 3,000 people has 8 officers (3 are non-patrolling supervisors or investigators thus leaving 5 for patrol). Our survey of other small towns in Colorado yielded a "population per officer" of about 300 to 700 with an average of about 400 people per LEO (inclusive of chiefs and investigators). Economies of scale yielded higher population to officer ratios. Small towns of one to two thousand people were on the small end of this range.

P.S. how can I post a table here which would use tabs and thus line up columns appropriately?

[Kharn]

Agricola: "the rest of the article is beneath comment" Why? Because you agree that the entire situation is pathetic?

"I was frightened to defend myself," said Miss Best. "I thought if I did anything I would be arrested."

Care to explain? Do you believe that the government should advocate, and enforce, such a mindset?

Kharn

[agricola]

Solitar,

The UK system varies between county forces, and the city forces, and finally the Met. The command structure is based usually on the Basic Operational Command Unit (BOCU) headed by (usually) a Commander or Chief Superintendent. In London (which is my frame of reference) they correspond in all but one case (heathrow) to the 32 London Boroughs, each BOCU having a number of Divisions attached to it, each division having its own CID team (possibly with a specialist burglary or robbery team as well) as well as anywhere from 4-6 reliefs (or "response teams"), several divisions at one time or another will also be piloting new squads. Each relief (respsonsible for the day-to-day policing over an eight-hour shift) has been as low as 8 (of which at least two will be operating inside the station) but can go as high as 20-25 for those divisions that have a security risk (eg: Whitehall) or large populations. Thats the Met, which has historically been the best funded and most numerous of all the forces; since at its inception and throughout its life its had to act as a reserve for the rest of the country, especially with regards to specialist units.

( http://www.met.police.uk)

Here is the data for the country up to 2000

http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib...1/rp01-028.pdf

Note that the authorised establishment (ie the number of posts that need to be filled in theory) is rarely achieved in terms of the actual strength.

here are the ratios for one police per citizen (including all ranks, and the data comes from the authorised strength NOT the actual strength )

http://www.parliament.the-stationery...t/80312w23.htm

edited to say: kharn, it does not enforce that mindset. in two cases that are often mentioned, the tony martin case and the BP exec, martin was found guilty on the basis that, even by his own story he had acted recklessly, and he had told anyone who had listened what he would do to burglars he caught (which is what he did do), and in the case of the BP exec, he was not charged or arrested for injuring his assailants, the courts and police recognized and fully supported his right to defend himself, what they did not support was his carrying a sword-cane about himself.

[Kharn]

Agricola: "the courts and police recognized and fully supported his right to defend himself, what they did not support was his carrying a sword-cane about himself."
And what instrument did they recommend for defending himself? A whistle?

In many states in the US, anyone that enters your home (or car) with the intent of committing a felony is bought and paid for. In Texas, the person does not even have to enter the home, the perp can be shot for theft after dark. Its even legal to tell anyone that will listen that you will aggresively respond to anyone that enters your property with the intent of committing a felony, you can even put up a sign in front of your house stating the same, as one Texan did after his car was repeatedly vandalized!

I'm still waiting for a response on why you believe "the rest of the article is beneath comment".

Kharn

[agricola]

its riddled with inaccuracy and bias, of which these are the most blatant:

And a million more moms being burgled, and assaulted, and raped

except that you have more rapes, and more serious assaults, than we do

They're about as open to constructive suggestions as the country's Communist Mineworkers' union was 2o years ago, and the control-freak tendencies of all British political parties ensure that the country's bloated, expensive county and multi-county forces are inviolable.

aside from the Police reference, the NUM were faced with a "constructive suggestion" that was "you will all be sacked", they were not communist, we are not bloated and there is no such thing as a "multi-county" force.

[Kharn]

its riddled with inaccuracy and bias, of which these are the most blatant:
And a million more moms being burgled, and assaulted, and raped

Exaggeration, I would have never expected such in a news article.

except that you have more rapes, and more serious assaults, than we do

Maybe by the numbers, but I bet the RATES in the US are lower. Dont try to compare raw numbers between two distinct groups, its dishonest and shady, along with not permitting any actual conclusions to be drawn from such. Please try to utilize rates with standard deviations, if available, and not the actual numbers, in the future.

Kharn

[agricola]

kharn,

this was debated an age ago between dischord and myself, we dug up the stats for these things, the rates in the UK are lower as well:

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/...hreadid=110811

what appears to happen is that people compare the UCR "aggravated assault" figures with the Home Office's "assault" figures, which are not the same thing.

[Ben Swenson]

Agricola - please, tell me this is a misprint.

At this link: http://www.parliament.the-stationery...t/80312w23.htm
The chart lists police:person ratios ranging from 1:558 to 1:336

But the City of London listing claims that the population is .005 million (5,000) and has 836 police officers for a total of 1:6 police to population ratio.

There are other obvious typos.

Something is seriously wrong with that chart ...

[agricola]

cordex,

there are errors as i said, but the "City of London Police" refers to the force that polices the "square mile" of the City itself; actually i amazed there is anyone actually living there. The rest of London is the Met.

[Solitar]

Thanks for the stats from the UK, especially the third link in your post since it had the populations per officer. The second link will be useful when I have time to look up the census populations for those communities. I think this link will yield those numbers if I spend some time with it. Official UK statistics site

Though these numbers were for large cities (of half million or more people) most were in the 1:300 to 1:500 range with an average of 1:417 for the England and Wales. The Metro Police with over 7 million people had a "high" ratio of 1:287. Thames Valley had the lowest at 1:548 (economies of scale?). One outlier was "City of London" (oops, you answered that above)

Maybe I or others here can post sworn officer staffing levels for comparably large cities in the US to compare to the UK numbers. This site has total (sworn & civiliian) staffing levels for Police Structure of the United States. Denver has 1,800 ( maybe two-thirds are sworn officers and thus yielding 1:462 ) for 555,000 people. Colorado Springs with 360 thousand may come in at 1:700. Smaller Colorado towns of 30 to 70 thousand people have ratios between 1:500 and 1:700.

At 1:350 for the city, we feel we have too many officers or especially too many non-patrol chiefs. But we have a small department. For our entire county and including our county sheriff deputies, we have a ratio of about 1:500 which we feel is still too many officers, but again we can't get the economies of scale obtainable by the large cities in the UK link you provided and by Colorado Springs (but not Denver?). Thus there may be some basis for the feeling that the UK's city departments have too many sworn officers (just as we have in this small town).

[agricola]

Solitar,

Not really. The Met and forces like Surrey, Thames Valley and Kent are all interconnected in that they all focus on London, or the commuter towns that feed it with people. Using the US stats, one can only really make a direct comparison with New York, plus consider that there is no "federal" structure over here, so that the work that the likes of the FBI deals with is performed by the relevant force here; there are also no Highway Patrol or Sheriff distinctions.

Its difficult to compare Denver with any city here, but if we pick the closest (which is a bad comparison) then you could either have Northumbria (which is Newcastle and surrounding geordie-land) or Merseyside (Liverpool), I dont know what the geographical size of Denver PD is, but one imagines its between those two extremes. For 1.4 million people, Northumbria has 3689 (1:389) and Liverpool 4223 (1:336).

[Malone LaVeigh]

I thought the article was pretty good till I got to this part:

the measure of a civilized society is how easily you can insulate yourself from its snarling underclass.

That speaks more volumes about the conservative mind than anything I could say. The very measure of civilization is Mr. and Mrs. upper crust being able to pull up the drawbridge on their dreary gated enclave and let the great unwashed have at each other. I know that's not really the position of most here, but with friends like this defending your position, who needs enemies?