by Michael Smith (Veshengro)
The president of the Police Superintendents' Association is to tell Home Secretary Theresa May that a confident police force will be required to tackle any disorder professionally and that the police, therefore should and needs to be protected from the worst of the government's cuts because of the risk that social and industrial tensions could fuel civil unrest, one of Britain's leading officers is to warn.
Only such a police force that has the funds to do what is needed will have the means at its disposal to combat any civil and industrial unrest as a result of government cuts.
What is he not telling us? Namely that (1) they are expecting a lot of trouble on the streets as a result of government cuts and (2) that he and his police forces are prepared to battle against any protests.
Under the last government, the one run by Labour, it was basically becoming a terrorism offense to be protesting peacefully and peaceful protesters were baton charged. How much more will happen when the protesters are not all that peaceful because they are angry at the loss of jobs and ever increasing costs?
Chief Superintendent Derek Barnett will also say that the public have a right to know the extent of likely cuts in policing, adding that those who dismissed the Police Federation's weekend claim that up to 40,000 frontline police jobs are at risk as "scaremongering" were being disingenuous.
"In an environment of cuts across the wider public sector, we face a period where disaffection, social and industrial tensions may well rise," says Barnett in his draft speech to the annual police superintendents' conference, which takes place in Cheshire.
"We will require a strong, confident, properly trained and equipped police service, one in which morale is high and one that believes it is valued by the government and public."
Chief Superintendent's speech does underline the point that the coalition government has not given the police the kind of special protection afforded them by Margaret Thatcher, which enabled her to rely on them during the 1980s inner city riots and the miners' strike that followed.
"From the massacre in 1819, that took place not so many miles away from here, to the current day alcohol-related disorder, history teaches us that there will always be widespread threats to the public peace," the chief superintendent warns.
"When, as history shows us it is inevitable, not because of this particular government, but at some stage, there is widespread disorder on our streets, it will not be police community support officers, or special constables or non-warranted police staff, journalists or politicians [who will be needed] to restore order on our streets. It will be our police officers and we must be sufficiently resilient to enable us to respond properly, professionally and safely with the minimum of force," Barnett will say.
While not wishing to put anything into the Chief Superintendent's mouth it would appear that what he is saying and envisaging is (1), as said already, that the proposed public sector spending cuts will directly lead to disorder on the streets and (2) that the police will take all measure to suppress any such demonstrations.
Law and order must be upheld, for sure, but the police would do good to concentrate on fighting real crime and not perceived threats from possible demonstrations and anger at government spending cuts. Or is there something they are preparing for that no one is willing to talk about as yet?
The year 2013 is not far away, the year that many are predicting when gasoline costs will go through the roof and may hit 15 to 20GBP per Imperial gallon. I can see a lot of trouble arising from such an event; more so than from the issue of the spending cuts in the public sector and in government in general. I do think that most people understand well enough the legacy that the previous government left the coalition with, namely empty coffers.
When it comes to saving money from the government purse, however, we should look at two areas where a great deal of savings can be made. So much in fact that no cuts whatsoever would even need to be contemplated.
The first one would be to scrap the proposed Trident missile replacement and the second to bring all our troops, and I mean ALL, home from Iraq and Afghanistan and let them concentrate on what their real brief is – that of the defense of the realm and the real does not include Iraq nor Afghanistan; period.
The savings that could be made with abandoning the Trident replacement alone would be enough to completely balance the books with one stroke of the pen and to leave funds over even and bringing home our troops, aside from the fact that we also would no longer lose troops over there, would additionally free a great many of resources.
There would be no need for any government spending cuts and cuts to public sector funding if but those and a few other things would be considered.
We must, however, watch what the powers that be are up to. The words of that senior police officer gives me the shudders.
© 2010
