Operation Yewtree: A Worrying Can-of-Worms

I’ve previously commented on The Prolific Growth of the Savil’s Yewtreee but what many don’t consider is how Operation Yewtree has also been instrumental in opening a veritable can-of-worms. Many of which are more insidious and worrying than perhaps even the hideous paedophiles who have subsequently been exposed…

You see it’s not just the ‘worms’ of (alleged) paedophilia in our society but more, the inadequacies of our legal system in providing protection for victims. Add all the opinionated self-interest and social control or commercial desires of our media machine to the mix and you can (partly) understand some of the recent comments from some of our legal profession.

But even the most controversial comments from the likes of Barbara Hewson QC who claimed; the “witch-hunt” against ageing celebrities was reminiscent of the Soviet Union (see here), could also be seen (cynically) as having been offered for self-promoting and/or commercial reasons. So much so that even Ms Hewson’s own chambers quickly distanced themselves from them.

We are shocked by the views expressed in Barbara Hewson’s article in Spiked (8 May 2013). We did not see or approve the article pre-publication and we completely dissociate ourselves from its content and any related views she may have expressed via social media or any other media outlets…(Hardwicke Chambers)

Not without standing the outcomes from the Savile Scandal, or the media furore around the recent admissions of guilt by Stuart Hall and his subsequent conviction; rape investigations are often ‘undermined by belief that false accusations are rife (see here). An important consideration in all of this is that finally, we should be dispelling the rape myths that still abound. But the Savile and Hall outcomes should not be seen as de facto evidence to support the raison d’être of modern media methodology.

There may have been calls to Raise the IQ of Barristers, some of whom (see above) have been accused of being out of touch with society. There has also been many strong arguments around the naming of ‘suspects’ prior to conviction (Silence & Anonymity Do Not Bring Abusers To Justice). Jon Brown, head of strategy and development for sexual abuse at the NSPCC, raised the question - Witch Hunt or Justice for Victims? - when looking at the thoughts/reasoning behind the comments of Hewson. 

I get the arguments which relate to ‘victim confidence’ i.e. their ability to come forward and make a formal complaint; these are mainly offered by the legal profession and child-protection charities such as the NSPCC and Barnardo’s. The ones I struggle with are those arguments around ’public interest’ and a ‘need’ to know. These are mostly put forward by our media organisations, again (cynically) for commercial reasons perhaps?

Here we go again: …the recent recommendations made by Keir Starmer QC (see here) to make changes to the way child abuse cases are handled and dealt with by the police authorities and the judiciary, are now critical…(Jonathan Wheeler)

Yewtree has been a minefield of opinionated and often self-interested debate around the rights and wrongs of investigative process, legislation and some morality issues but even Ms Hewson’s controversial views on child sex abuse have (surprisingly) had support ”flooding in” (see here).

Commenting on the need for a change to sentencing guidelines in child sexual exploitation cases, Cherie Blair QC said; “Child sexual exploitation is an appalling crime that devastates lives, and the legal system in this country has a crucial role in protecting children from such abuse by bringing the perpetrators to justice” (See HERE);

Regardless of how mature a child looks, how they behave or what kind of relationship has been established with the abuser, it must always be the case that victims of sexual exploitation are treated as children and never as willing participants…(Cherie Blair QC)

I don’t think any right-minded person would disagree with any of the above however; my greatest concern here is that of ‘justice’ – for both victims and the accused. To me it seems we are in danger of running headlong into accepting a ‘mob rule’ type of justice. One that is happy to allow trial by media, or even worse social-media, as opposed to the previously accepted concept of innocent until proven guilty and only then within a court of law.

This week North Yorkshire Police have been criticised for failing to release the name of the veteran comedian Jimmy Tarbuck, when he was arrested back in April for alleged Op Yewtree type offences dating from the 1970s.

Freedom of speech campaigners and politicians said North Yorkshire Police’s decision not to report its arrest of veteran comedian Jimmy Tarbuck over an alleged assault on a young boy more than 30 years ago was also “a blow to open justice”…(D&S Tuimes)

While some police forces, including the Metropolitan Police, have announced high-profile arrests in the past, the cynic inside me suggests there may well have been ulterior motives at play. The fact that North Yorkshire Police did not reveal it had questioned Mr Tarbuck on April 26 until asked by journalists, is not a real issue, except for the media. The force actually complied with national guidelines in force at the time.

Critics (mostly media based) have suggested that ‘public confidence’ in policing is being ‘undermined’ by similar actions, or should that be inaction? They’re almost suggesting that police should not only confirm but actually announce the names of suspects in ‘public interest’ cases, as if it were almost a matter of ‘duty’ for police forces.

But where is the divide between ‘public interest’ and pandering to salacious gossip-mongering? Are the police expected to feed so-called ‘investigative journalism’ irrespective of any consequences? Perhaps we should expect this constant media coverage after all; they’re commercial organisations that earn their cash from reporting on things, anything, be it factual or opinionated, they have columns and airtime to fill.

A spokeswoman for freedom of expression campaign group English Pen is reported to have said: “The fundamental issue is about open justice and the great concern is that if this becomes the norm, there will be a worrying secrecy surrounding individuals whose civil liberties could be endangered.” I have to agree with one of the comments to the article;

This is utter nonsense and the media know it, they are playing a game in a desperate attempt to detract from Leveson. And because of their rapidly declining business, want stories handed to them on a plate. It is not the police’s job to name those under arrest. It is the police’s job to gather evidence and ensure a fair trial and justice for victims…(noiretblanc)

I do however agree with Keith Vaz MP, chairman of the Commons’ Home Affairs Select Committee, who reportedly said: “It is unacceptable that a suspect living in one area should be treated differently to a suspect in the next postcode.”

That goes without any argument from me, I’m fully supportive of citizens always receiving the same standards from any of our public services (not only justice), no matter where they live in the UK. I also support the principles of ‘open justice’ but I’m struggling a bit with the wording which suggests; an individuals ‘civil liberties’ are somehow undermined when you apply ‘secrecy’ to their identity?

As another commentator to the D&S Times piece said; “What this country needs is a referendum on the laws that allow the media to print speculation” – It appears that irrespective of Leveson we’re still not confident about the methods employed by our media, let alone their culture, practice or ethics, and probably rightly so.

Irrespective of the fact that many ’suspects’ will  be arrested who haven’t committed any crime, the police will often need the power of arrest to protect the public ad/or effectively carry out thorough investigations into any alleged offence. Each police officer is open to scrutiny (and disciplinary/legal action) should they abuse that power. It also has to be remembered; being arrested is not proof of being guilty.

Whether or not there is any substance in the allegations which suggested, the police may have tipped off the media in some ‘high-profile’ arrests, during Op Yewtree; the role of the police is not to feed the media, it is to protect the public and to prevent and investigate crime.

The police should never act with judgement but that’s also a function which isn’t afforded to our media (as yet), irrespective of how much they would like to think it is!

Related articles

• The Prolific Growth Of Savile’s #Yewtree (bankbabble.wordpress.com)
• The worst thing I’ve read today (stavvers.wordpress.com)
• Outrage at barrister who called Stuart Hall’s crimes ‘low level’ (dailymail.co.uk)
• Consent age should be 13 says lawyer (bbc.co.uk)
• Legal chambers’ ‘shock’ after human rights lawyer calls for age of consent to be lowered to 13 and an end to the ‘persecution of old men’ in wake of the Savile scandal (dailymail.co.uk)
• Top human rights barrister sparks outrage with call for age of consent to be lowered to 13 (independent.co.uk)

Crime Statistics: Fact or Fiction?

Crime statistics for England and Wales show an 8% drop on police figures and a 5% reduction in the ‘official’ crime survey figures (source guardian.co.uk). That has to be good news - doesn’t it? We’re winning the ‘war’ against crime – aren’t we? How do we compare with the remainder of Europe?

As any previous visitors here will know; I’m one of those who is often sceptical about ‘official’ crime statistics (see example post) but I’m not alone with my views. Several others continually question the validity of our crime figures. In recent years, the Thin Blue Line Blog  has probably done more than most in its attempt to; comprehensively unravel all the ‘spin’ and book cooking disguising the true figures.

Crime statistics attempt to provide statistical measures of the crime in societies. Given that crime is usually secretive by nature, measurements of it are likely to be inaccurate…(wikipedia.org)

To be fair, our ‘official’ statistics in England & Wales are supplemented by the results of the crime survey; a process that since 1982, provides additional figures (designed) to supplement the actual number of crimes recorded by the police. The idea behind the survey is to provide a more ’balanced’ picture of crime trends (see crimesurvey.co.uk) by courting personal opinion and perception.

The overall picture, based upon both sets of data shows that; despite the downward trends, Britain still remains among the more violent countries in western Europe. Still a sad fact but thankfully, the statistical decline is more rapid here than anywhere else in Europe. So it appears that, mostly due to our media perhaps, we still have a tendency to inflate the true picture?

Statisticians say the crime rate has halved since it peaked in 1995 and appears to be at its lowest level for more than 30 years…(guardian.co.uk)

So if crime is actually falling, all we now have to do is reduce the fear of crime, whether or not that fear is based upon fact or fiction i.e. real or perceived. It’s something our police forces (and the government) have been trying to do for some time.

The fear of crime refers to the fear of being a victim of crime as opposed to the actual probability of being a victim of crime. The fear of crime is said to have been in Western culture for “time immemorial”…(wikipedia.org)

It’s an important factor that was also raised by Ally Fogg writing in The Guardian when he said; Crime is falling. Now lets reduce fear of crime - a nobel thought but is it one that’s actually viable? The Twitter notification informing the world about his article prompted me to reply in my usual cynical manner. 

Easy to ‘cook’ the books but mind engineering far more difficult (@DaveHasney)

Despite covering most, if not all the social, economic and scientifically derived factors leading to our ‘fear’ of crime in his article, Ally Fogg actually alluded to the fact that it is never easy to make significant in roads into this problem. Moving towards his summing up he said; “Psychology has taught us how cognitive biases skew our perceptions of risk.”

Crime (and anti social behaviour) are undoubtedly an important issue for all our communities; it’s one of the main reasons why we now have  Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships (CDRP). Groups that were established by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to co-ordinate action on crime and disorder. But more than ten years on since their inception, we still have that ‘fear’ in our communities.

The next natural question to ask is, are they actually achieving what they set out to do? If so, it’s not that apparent. It’s probably the reason why so many similar questions are raised (but usually only partly answered), by sociologists, criminologists, politicians and journalists ad infinitum.

The prevailing mood is always that the world is going to hell in a handcart, and woe betide any political candidate who suggests otherwise…(Ally Fogg)

The majority of these ‘crimes’ (perceived or real), may well be ’low level quality of life issues’ however; they still serve to continually blight many of our neighbourhoods. In addition, they still ruin people’s lives and probably more important now than in the past, they also have a substantial financial impact upon the public and private sector purse. Hundreds of thousands of pounds in lost revenue and (arguably) wasted expenditure trying to combat them, are continually flushed down the public service drains of our society each year.

The total cost of violence and crime to the UK economy is estimated at £124bn per annum. To put that in perspective, a further 50% reduction in crime would cover the cost of every hospital built-in the country over the past 13 years…(guardian.co.uk)

These financial figures are even more worrying (and annoying) when you consider; we’re continually trying to rectify problems caused by a relatively small minority in our society. Financial impacts aside but with self-preservation of party political popularity no doubt to the fore; it’s hardly surprising that successive Governments have not only set targets for reducing crimes such as burglary, robbery and car theft, but for some time now, they have also aimed to reduce the fear of crime.

Now I’m not one of those who is easily swayed in his opinion or beliefs; especially not when it comes to the emotive type of media headlines so favoured by our tabloid journalists. I can also read between the lines of often politically biased broadsheet  journals. As it would appear many commentators to Fogg’s article were prone to mention. Ergo, I’m not one of those who’s perception is as a consequence of our media.

I fully understand all the ‘tricks’ of the trade utilised by police forces and politicians to artificially illustrate the realities of crime. I live in probably the ’safest’ area of England & Wales (according to crime statistics) but I still continually see, hear about and take note of many of the criminal and/or anti-social realities impacting upon our society. I also have a pretty good handle on how police resources are deployed to deal with many of those issues.

I know that perception and reality are often at odds with each other however; despite a still relatively small number of ‘crimes’ per capita, crime actually rose almost year on year between 1950 and in 2004/05 (civitas.org.uk). Strange how after an almost tenfold increase in that time (see graph), we’re suddenly expected to believe crime is decreasing year on year. It’s also hardly any wonder that, irrespective of numerous ’satisfaction’ surveys, the word on the street (rightly or wrongly) is, “our police are failing us!”

Despite all the contrived spin designed to mitigate against the general (but hopefully mostly unfounded) perceptions about our police, the public rarely see police officers these days, let alone experience any personal interaction with them. When they do, it appears that with far too much regularity, their experience often leaves a sour taste. I’ve said it in the past , perhaps the police are the engineers of their own demise?

When communities are continually ‘sold’ high expectations about the capabilities of their police, and those massively reduced resources can’t physically match up to that expectation, is it any wonder we’re unintentionally generating negative perceptions about policing capability?  And what they [the police] are doing about crime.

There are those who will argue that policing is more of a scientific and intelligence lead process today, it’s not just about visibility and response times. It is a combination of proactive and reactive methodology. I agree but I also worry that; far too often it appears the ‘proactive’ aspects are little more than short-term operations for PR opportunities and the ‘reactive’ part, well that is often late or (sometimes rightly) not delivered at all.

Add a widely held negative perception of policing, to a predominant (unfounded?) belief we live in a society of high crime levels and you have a recipe for a pressure cooker of public angst. But policing and crime, or indeed the fear of crime, are only the window on the actual problems. It is far too simplistic to lay all the blame at the front door of your local Police Station (always assuming you can actually find one).

As I’ve pointed out before, with regular monotony; political spin, PR hype and ‘cooking’ of records will never realise the actual results we’re continually striving to achieve.

If we compare ourselves with other countries or with our own history, the crime rate is high… Rather than making it seem that people are in the grip of irrational fears and implying that these fears are whipped up by the tabloids, the Home Office could more usefully direct its energy at reducing crime and recognising the objective seriousness of the situation…(civitas.org.uk)

To find the real answers to the problems resulting from crime, we need to examine the very foundations of our society. Wealth (or lack of it), parenting skills, quality of education, health and wellbeing and yes policing, along with the remainder of the Criminal Justice System, all have a part to play in crime reduction. Their actions/inactions all have an impact upon the stability of our social framework.

There is no quick fix available and certainly no immediate personal kudos to be gained here for any senior police officers, Police & Crime Commissioner or politician. That’s a fact they would all do well to remember. We need to invest more time, effort and public cash, into the root causes of crime. Always assuming we really want to see some tangible results. Or, could ”reducing the fear of crime” be just another example of political spin?

Whatever your perceptions of crime, the closing lines of Crime Watch which went something like - “Please remember, violent crime is actually much rarer than a lot of what we show, please do not have nightmares, sleep tight” – are relevent here!

Related articles

• Crime is falling. Now let’s reduce fear of crime | Ally Fogg (guardian.co.uk)
• Is UK Crime Falling? (britishvlogger.wordpress.com)
• Crime Figures Lack Validity – Reclassifying ‘Crimes’! (brianrobertssociology.wordpress.com)
• Media Impact on Crime and Fear (kdizaei.wordpress.com)
• Pom-poms ‘help reduce fear of crime’ (bbc.co.uk)

Booze Britain: The Alcohol #MUP Debate?

There is no doubt about it, we have to call time on the Booze Britain Culture however; the arguments around how best to tackle the issue rumble on ad infinitum. I suspect that will still be the case for many more years to come…

I don’t think many right-minded people would disagree, the negatives of excessive drinking are having a profound impact on our society. Our NHS see the impacts, our police and other emergency services are in constant combat against it and ultimately, many members of our society are suffering from it. The health and anti-social behaviour issues are myriad.

Nevertheless, some of the figures being bandied about on all sides of the arguments are not always what they seem. Take for instance the £2.7 billion price tag impact for the NHS in 2012, claimed by David Cameron as fact but found to be questionable (see Full Fact).

When the Government published their Alcohol Strategy, they emphasised the drain of alcohol abuse on our society. Central to that argument was the “overall cost of alcohol-related harm” which they placed at a staggering £21 billion a year to the UK economy.

Was that right? Investigations into the claim found that “Neither the Home Office nor the Department of Health were able to explain properly where the figures were from, and there is no obvious single point of contact to verify the original calculations” (see Full Fact).

Political spin on statistics aside. in the blog Representing the Mambo a self-professed ‘leftie’ alluded to her support for the MUP policy. A policy that was being put forward in 2011/12, but now appears now to have been shelved by David Cameron.

Obviously there are class issues and base political calculation at play and any minimum price would affect working class people disproportionately, but the solution is obvious. Drink less. The left shouldn’t be encouraging heavy alcohol consumption and siding with the drinks companies and their socially destructive agenda…(Supporting the Mambo)

In March this year there was a political U-Turn on the previous rhetoric and David Cameron wobbled on his minimum price for alcohol pledge. Despite the recent adoption of a similar policy in Scotland last year, the legality of the process is having a difficult birth due to an objection from Europe about its legality.

What about the costs/benefits analysis surrounding Minimum Alcohol Pricing?

The Full Fact website responded to the very same question (see here) however; there is also a growing body of research and evidence which suggests, many of the claims made in the past are simply tosh. Despite all the rhetoric from politicians, who want to be seen as proactive about the Booze Britain issue, the proposals for Minimum Unit Pricing won’t actually achieve the desired results it sets out to do.

The Government wants to set higher prices for alcohol. We think this will punish the responsible majority. Why should responsible drinkers pay more? (www.whyshouldwepaymore.co.uk)

Despite the Why Should We Pay More campaign actually being ‘the voice’ of the Wine & Spirit Trade Association, who obviously have a vested commercial interest in the matter, there are also a number of valid reasons why Government-set higher prices aren’t likely to cure the Booze Britain problem (see here).

SABMiller, one of the largest brewing organisations in the world (another vested interest), have also released poll results from YouGov which show that, contrary to the Government’s claims of a boost to the industry, a 45p minimum price for alcohol will turn people away from pubs (Download YouGov report PDF -0.48Mb).

The Institute for Fiscal Studies have also examined the significance of a minimum unit price for alcohol, especially relating to on and off-licence sales and concluded; “ it is unlikely that a minimum price would have much direct impact for on-licence (pub) prices” (see here).

It’s a valid factor that could have influenced a decisions by the chief executives of 12 pub chains, nightclub groups and brewers; they recently wrote to The Daily Telegraph, urging the Prime Minister to “stick to his guns”, saying that the proposed (MUP) measure would “save lives and protect great British pubs” (see here).

Despite all the UK-wide calls for minimum pricing by many politicians, medical professionals, health campaigners and people from both inside and outside the industry, it appears the battle over alcohol pricing is set to continue for some time yet. With all the controversy and divided opinion, the minimum unit pricing policy could be dropped all together!

But what of my views and opinions?

Those who’ve been here before may already know some of the answer to that question, at least in part. With upwards of forty years ‘booze’ experience, firstly as a purveyor, secondly as an enforcer and latterly as a purveyor again but throughout, always a fan of the enjoyment obtained from sensible drinking, I think you could say I’m more than qualified to comment.

The first observation is; the ‘Booze Britain’ problems we face today are as a direct result of the changing attitudes now imbedded in our society over several generations. Getting off your head on alcohol is no longer the side-effect of having a good time, it is the sole intention of many who drink, in particular our younger citizens.

The second major impact on the issue is this; with the advent of and predominance of pub-chain conglomerates within the licensed trade, provision of alcoholic beverages has become a major commercial concern. It is no longer the ‘cottage industry’ it once was, the halcyon days when pubs were the hub of our communities and also, the actual home of the majority of licensees and their families. And all that before we even start to consider the impacts of loss-leader booze sales in our supermarkets.

The final negative impact is this; for several decades we have seen a decline in any realistic proactive enforcement of our licensing laws. Add to that a (mostly) ineffective reactive response to today’s anti-social behavior, resulting from the after effects of too much alcohol, and we have some serious problems. Issues which then have a profoundly negative impact upon crime statistics and our health services.

It’s unlikely there will be a sea-change in any of these factors overnight, despite what politicians may think or desire. Although MUP may seem a sensible measure at face value, it is a facile and inadequate solution. It is also unlikely to ever result in the aims it is designed to achieve.

The price of booze isn’t the problem here, or the route cause of the issues we face. It’s the predominant public perception of the rights and wrongs of getting off your head, that and a devil-may-care attitude to the impacts of the aftermath on others.

There is no singular ‘quick fix’ for the ‘Booze Britain’ problems we now face, MUP certainly isn’t the magic key. Any return to the erstwhile era of simply enjoying a night out, without all the negative impacts, is likely to take a generation or more to fix!

Related articles

• David Cameron abandons plans for minimum alcohol price (telegraph.co.uk)
• Pubs demand minimum alcohol price (telegraph.co.uk)
• Minimum alcohol pricing could just work. It should be given a chance (guardian.co.uk)
• Government to shelve plans for minimum price on alcohol (independent.co.uk)
• David Cameron ‘ignoring compelling evidence’ that dearer alcohol would save lives (independent.co.uk)
• Calling time on the Booze Britain culture? (bankbabble.wordpress.com)
• Poll: Should there be a minimum price per unit of alcohol? (eadt.co.uk)
• Is cheaper beer a sign of muddled thinking? (bbc.co.uk)