Adressing institutional racism in the police and the armed forces

The murder of George Floyd by a US police officer in Minneapolis on May 25^th 2020 has sparked international protests against the racism experienced by black people. There is a risk that the focus may drift into a discussion about statues and related generalities. It would be good if politicians, as well as demonstrating support and solidarity for Black Lives Matter movement, could also come forward with a radical, hard edged policy proposal that could be put forward in Parliament, hopefully with cross-party support.

This paper puts forward the proposal that police and senior Home Office officials should be required to re-apply for their jobs.

It is evident that the police service is still infected with the institutional racism that Sir William Macpherson found in his 1999 inquiry into the Stephen Laurence killing. Windrush shows that the Home Office is also affected by the same problem.

It is clear that we need crisp, clear-cut political changes in the police and Home Office. Without a clear policy goal, the momentum created by the Black Lives Matter movement will be diffused and absorbed into a few minor attitudinal changes. If the Green Party leads with a single, radical and effective objective, we may break through the barrier of indifference, and even if we do not succeed in delivering, we will certainly ensure that whatever changes follow will go further than if we do not provide a lead.

The proposal is that every police officer, and higher-rank Home Office officials should be required to re-apply for their jobs. The application process would include a written attitudinal examination and an interview. The written paper would be designed to pick up false prejudices relating to BAME people and other groups who may be seen in a prejudicial light. The officers’ service record would also be examined.

Wrong answers presented by the candidate would be brought to attention, and correct facts would be provided. Education programmes could be run for all officers, covering such topics as the history of slavery in the UK and the experience of racism.

The pass mark would be set, and low-scoring candidates might be accepted, but put on probation and re-tested after a few months. Some very low-scoring candidates would not be accepted.

The re-application would be rolled out in a phased way, with a manageable number of candidates examined each month.

Although the proposal may seem radical, re-applying for one’s job is a routine in some forms of employment, for instance, in the case of researchers employed by some Universities.

In order to sweeten the pill of this necessary filter process, reforms to the conditions of service should be brought in - simple practical reforms such as reviewing and improving the comfort and weather proofing of the police uniform, and bringing in limits to the number of hours police may be asked to work.

Trident:- 12 steps to rejecting Hammond's illogical organ

This is an actual picture of a Trident launch. Not Photoshopped 

     Trident:

1. Either it will be used or it will be not used.
2. If it is used, human civilisation can kiss its ass a fond farewell. Everything worthwhile, including the reason to live, dies. In short, Omnicide. 
3. If Trident is not used, about £130,000,000,000 will have been spent on nothing - money that could have been spent on creating  good jobs for everyone for many many years.
4. Some will say say that the £130billion will have been well spent because it is maintaining peace through deterrence. 
5. It is true that Trident raises the threshold at which politicians decide that they are bored with talking to each other and decide to kill their subjects instead.
6. But although possession of WMD does raise the threshold for war, it does not absolutely close the door on war.
7. See 2 above.
8. Trident's effect in raising the threshold for war is neutralised by its effect in stimulating nuclear proliferation - i.e. by making nations like Iran think that they need a deterrent of their own. 
9. Since there is a chance it may be used, it is illogical to possess Trident, for the reason set out here.
10. Therefore the Coalition Government, in the middle of its programme of bone crunching attacks on the British people in the name of poverty, is about to spend £1billion of taxpayer's money on an illogical, highly dangerous enterprise
11. And there is nothing that we can do about it.
12. Or is there?

Pakistan floods could lead to global nuclear disarmament

Just a quick note about Pakistan: natural disasters tend to turn people against Governments, especially if they do not deliver an efficient relief response. Wobbly rulers are vulnerable when they are out of the country, especially when there is an emergency on, especially if they are out of the country to launch their son's political career. Especially if their opposition makes big and well-publicised efforts to help disaster victims.

So there is an enhanced possibility that there will be a regime change in Pakistan, even a possibility that an Islamist Pakistan Government may control Pakistan's nuclear deterrent/WMD.

Just another reason for the Cameron Government to initiate a strong international diplomatic effort to get all nuclear nations round the table, and agree to get rid of the bloody things once and for all. Not too much to ask, is it, in these straitened economic times?

How can we succeed in Afghanistan?

Today the 300 British soldier has tragically died as a result of UK complicity in the invasion of Afghanistan. Our troops have four times more fatalities, proportionally, than US troops. In response, the media publish the predictable litany of regret and rhetoric from Government. Our brave soldiers are dying to make the world safe from terrorism. No journalist challenges them with even the possibility that our military adventures, with its occupation and its mistaken bombing of civilian wedding parties, are provoking the terrorist reaction worldwide.

The Green Party's policy is clear. We should not have gone in, and we want our troops safely back home as soon as possible. We are aware of the risk to human rights of a collapse of the Afghan Government arising from withdrawal of NATO military prop, and the risk of that country falling back into the hands of the Taliban and/or the warlords. So we have also been offering to a cloth eared Labour Government the realistic key to honourable success of the mission through legitimising the opium farmers, (whose profits at present support the Taliban), and using the morphine from the crop to relieve terminal pain in Africa. This option remains on the table, though it should have been rolled out years ago.

The conclusion is that Government policy - of whatever colour - is devoid of reason or common sense.

Population, Fundamentalism and Irrationality

Depressing photo on the centre spread of the Guardian today.
They got it from the National Geographic, link here.

National Geographic copy:
At 88, Joe Jessop is an elder of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (FLDS), the controversial sect that split from the Mormon Church after it banned plural marriage. In Hildale, Utah, he has tried to fulfill his duty to build up his "celestial family"—5 wives, 46 children, and 239 grandchildren. "I've had a blessed life," he says. "I wouldn't trade places with anyone."

One man has 285 descendants in 2 generations.
Six people (Jessop and 5 wives) have multiplied their number by a factor of 47.

And he is pleased with himself. His God has blessed him. He cares nothing about reason, mathematics or ecological reality. God will provide.

God has provided us with the ability to reason, but s/he has also provided us with the ability to give reason a manual override when it does not suit our prejudices.

Ah well. 'Twas ever thus. La lutte continua. If we cannot limit our numbers, Gaia will do it for us. All we can do is try.

Drugs: Alan Johnson deaf to Reason, attentive only to Police Authorities

What did Professor David Nutt say to cause Alan Johnson the home Secretary to sack him? He set out his views in his Eve Saville Lecture, Imperial College London in July 2009.

In it he says:
I think we have to accept young people like to
experiment – with drugs and other potentially
harmful activities – and what we should be doing
in all of this is to protect them from harm at this
stage of their lives. We therefore have to provide
more accurate and credible information. If you
think that scaring kids will stop them using, you’re
probably wrong. They are often quite knowledgeable
about drugs and the internet has made access to
information extremely simple. We have to tell them
the truth, so that they use us as their preferred
source of information. A fully scientifically-based
Misuse of Drugs Act where drug classification
accurately refl ects harms would be a powerful
educational tool.
[emphasis added - RL]

David Nutt repeats the phrase "accurate and credible information" in his piece in the Guardian last Thursday.

So this is the nub. The scientific advisor wants drug law to reflect sound evidence. The Home Office on the other hand wants to persist with the current absurd ABC classification.

What does Alan Johnson have to say for himself? In a letter to the Guardian today he plays the constituency card : There are not many kids in my constituency in danger of falling off a horse [referring to the risk comparison between horse riding and ecstasy] – there are thousands at risk of being sucked into a world of hopeless despair through drug addiction.

Maybe, Alan, but tens of thousands at immediate risk of alcohol, yet Government takes no action on alcopops and the easy and cheap availability of alcohol. (How much does the drinks industry donate to the Labour Party? I'm only asking)

In his lecture, the Professor has a table on the public opinion on reclassifying Cannabis to the more risky Class B. There was a clear majority of opinion in favour of leaving it in the less draconian Class C. Totals were 278/121 in favour of class C. That included a lot of personal opinions, but Health professionals , Statutory Partnerships, Local Authorities
Drug Service Providers, Charity & Voluntary Groups and Lobby/Activist/Pressure groups were all in favour of leaving it in class C, with 86 in favour of class C and 47 in favour of upgrading again to class B.

Interesting that Health Professionals vote 7-3 in favour of leaving it as Class C. So much for the argument that the reclassification is about anxiety about the greater potential for skunk to cause psychosis.

There was one group and one group only whowere in favour of making it class B, meaning a 5 year prison sentence instead of a mere 2 years in our underused prison facilities. That was the Police Authorities, who had 19 in favour of upgrading to Class B and 4 opposed.

So who did the Home Office side with? The police. Who obviously feel that they have time on their hands, feel that the courts and prisons are not running to capacity.

This is a battle for the role of scientific reasoning in policy making. Let's hope that the scientific community has the courage to come together on this principle, and shame the Home Office into reinstating Professor David Nutt.

PS: List of politicians who have taken drugs.

Continued in next post.

Financial realities in a nutshell

Guardian Letter: Afghan plan

Your leader (Afghanistan: a failing mission, April 28) accepts that the battle there is no nearer being won, and "there appears to be no plan and no consensus on how to stabilise the country". True, there is no consensus, but there is a plan, which is endorsed by the Afghan Red Crescent, the Italian Red Cross, the Senlis Council and the European Parliament and the European Green Party: buy the opium and put it to medical use.

NATO is on a Mission Impossible if the plan is to crush the opium growers, since they generate almost 50% of the Afghan GDP.

While our soldiers are exposed to danger and frustration in the futile task handed them by Bush and Blair, the market in illicit opium is funding the Taleban, assorted terrorists and criminals as it finds its way onto our streets. When it gets here, addicts burgle, rob and spread their illness in order to pay for their habit. Meanwhile in the global south, about 6 million people a year die of cancer without the relief of opiates. Some of them hang themselves in order to end their pain. If that happened to one person in the UK, it would be front page news, but 6 million Africans? No story.

It would be entirely realistic for the World Health Organisation to buy the crops from the Afghan farmers, as we do in India and Turkey, and put it to medical use. So why do we not do it? The key argument used by Government to block this plan is "Some of the purchased crop might leak onto the black market". This is the most risible blocking argument we have yet to hear from any Government, since all of it is leaking to the black market as things stand.

You say there are clear warning signs that the Afghan mission is at a turning point. Let the legitimisation of the Afghan opium crop be that turning point.