<body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/platform.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar/14058325?origin\x3dhttp://croydonian.blogspot.com', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>

Some French odds and ends

Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Our French chums are chafing at the latest price hikes for cigarettes - base line for a pack of 20 is €5.10, and €5.60 for a packet of Marlboros.  If memory serves, the average smoking Briton would think a fiver for a packet of Phillip Morris's finest quite the bargain, and doubtless the tabacs and grand surfaces of Calais and thereabouts prove that.  Anyway, estimates from BAT have some 22% of all fags smoked yonder hailing from neighbouring countries or over the internet.  

Showing the usual governmental disdain for free trade when it interferes with an ability to act as the casino's rake, the French do to internet imported cigarettes what ours does.  Why, I wonder, does the EU not do something about this stark violation of the principles of the single market?

Meanwhile, what do our Gallic chums think about taxation without representation, or as the pollster puts it, should non-EU nationals be allowed to vote in French local and Euro elections?

Overall, the split is a tolerably creditable 50 pro, 48 anti.  The greatest recorded pro high was 57% in 2003, and the highest anti high 69% in 1996.

As ever, the real fun is in the demographic detail, with the younger, better educated and better off more likely to be pro.  Socialists, Liberals and the section-worthy left are the most pro, and the FN (fancy..) the most anti.  However, one has to note that 36% of the far left, 28% of Socialists and 40% of Greens are anti.  So much for workers of all lands uniting, brotherhood etc etc. 

Sticking with the Gauche, IMF head honcho Dominique Strauss-Kahn gets the nod as the favoured leftist candidate for the Presidency next time round, with 49% of left voters thinking he's be a good  president.  Not the most ringing of endorsements, frankly.  Mayor of Paris Bertrand Delanoë follows at 46%, Martine Aubry at 40% and Sego at 39%.  And then the terrifying bit - 31% think that Trotskyite Olivier Besancenot would be a good president, ahead of 31% for Liberal leader François Bayrou.

Labels: , , ,

posted by Croydonian

Post hoc ergo propter hoc o' the day

From, where else, the TUC:

Speaking up for Public Services finds that every three per cent rise in unemployment leads to a 2.7 per cent rise in heart attacks among men aged 30-44 and increases of 2.4 per cent in murders and suicides in people under the age of 64.

(Post hoc ergo propter hoc defined here. Or, roughly speaking, because one thing followed another it was caused by it).

This /interesting/ statistic comes from the soi disant Association of Public Service Excellence, which also claims that 'that 92 per cent of [public sector employees surveyed] have seen an increased demand for their services since the recession as families struggling to get by seek help with housing problems, debt advice, training and job hunting'.

Hmm, 92%?  Including teachers, bin men, parkies etc etc?  Given that neither the TUC nor APSE sees fit to give any detail on survey methodology, I smell a self-selecting poll, findings from which should at best be handled with a pair of tongs, and at worst be totally ignored.

Labels: ,

posted by Croydonian

Who loves international law?

Wednesday, November 04, 2009
Not us, or at least not very much, and less so than our American friends:



Having studied international law, albeit a long time ago, I have limited patience with some of those who bang on about what is or is not a breach of it, as even the most cursory examination of it shows that it is at best protean, and at worst a chimaera.  Note that Pakistan has the largest majority reckoning that the national interest comes first, while the Chinese are the keenest on observing it.  Supposedly.

Labels: ,

posted by Croydonian

Our Parliamentarians return, and so does contemporary Hansard trawling

Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Identity cards.  Doncha just hate 'em?:

"The Minister for Borders and Immigration (Mr. Phil Woolas): I am pleased to announce that provisions in the Identity Cards Act 2006 are being commenced as from Tuesday 20 October 2009 so as to enable applications to be made for identity cards at a fee of £30. This will apply to people working in the Home Office, the Identity and Passport Service and elsewhere who are engaged on work relating to the issue of identity cards, and will be extended later in 2009 to residents of Greater Manchester and airside workers at Manchester and London City airports and in early 2010 to other locations in the North-West".

In this case I believe 'enable applications' means 'buy one of the wretched things or watch your career circling the drain'. 


Otherwise it is all pretty thin for the first day back, although people who like that sort of thing may want to read Douglas Carswell's argument for a power of recall.

Labels: ,

posted by Croydonian

The UN learns txt spk

Monday, July 27, 2009
I wish this part of silly week, but it is not.

R2P. What might that be? A car model designation? A type of hard drive?

Nope - 'responsibility to protect' - "The General Assembly debate on protecting civilians from the most serious atrocities continued today as delegates wrestled with the extent to which States should step in to stop -– and ultimately prevent -- genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing...aimed at providing a legal and moral basis for assisting civilians in the event of State failure to do so in the specific context of those four crimes

The speeches from various parties are quite telling:

Cuba - 'State sovereignty could not be disregarded even on a humanitarian basis'. So to Hell with the unfortunate people of Darfur, inter alia.

Algeria - 'the circumstances in which the four core crimes usually unfolded were characterized by extreme poverty, the weakening of democracy and good governance by foreign manipulation, and other social and cultural realities'. In other words, it is all the developed world's fault.

Israel - 'As a people who had experienced perhaps the most serious genocide in history, Israel knew how important it was not to remain silent in the face of such crimes. Too often, a blind eye had been turned to genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes and crimes against humanity. Yet those violations did not happen in a vacuum; they were often calculated. It was thus important to address the issue of incitement by remembering the weight of words in carrying out those crimes. After all, they began in the minds of men and resulted in the incitement of blind hatred. Teaching peace and eliminating incitement were critical. Greater investment in education would probably diminish the likelihood of such crimes'. Yup....

China - 'As to its implementation, he said States had the primary responsibility to protect their citizens, while the international community could provide assistance. That was in keeping with the principle of sovereignty. It was important that R2P not contravene principles of sovereignty and non-interference in internal affairs'. Or ssshh, don't mention Sinkiang or Tibet.

Croatia - 'it could not help but think of all the lives that could have been saved in his country. The civilian tragedy of Vukovar was an important wake-up call for the international community and underscored the importance of preventing the recurrence of such tragedies in the future. It was regrettable that the international community and the United Nations itself had failed to recognize and respond adequately to the ethnically inflammatory rhetoric that had culminated in the Vukovar tragedy. Even after the temporary cessation of hostilities and the creation of United Nations protected areas in Croatia and in Bosnia and Herzegovina, ethnically-biased killings and ethnic cleansing had occurred'. And not a mumbling word about Operation Storm, in which Croatia achieved the following: "Approximately 150,000 to 200,000 Serbs fled approaching Croat forces to Serb-held parts of Bosnia and Serbia. The European Union Special Envoy to the Former Yugoslavia Carl Bildt called it on Aug. 7, 1995, "the most efficient ethnic cleansing we've seen in the Balkans".

Turkey - 'Regrettably, however, genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity were still being committed. Indeed, civilian protection was a concern for all'. Admitting the Armenian Genocide would be a start.

Andorra, Monaco and San Marino all had something to say too, doubtless because they will not actually do anything.

Labels: ,

posted by Croydonian

Unison wants *you* to take a pay cut

Monday, February 02, 2009
Presuming you are on more than £94.83 a week, that is.

And here it is, in black and white, because Dave Prentis of Unison is four-square behind the 'Put People First! March for jobs, justice and climate', which is slated for the 28th of next month.

And this march seeks, and obviously will achieve, the following:

  • Decent jobs and public services for all!

  • End global poverty and inequality!

  • Build a green economy!

If inequality is to be ended, then we should all be on the worldwide average, which according to the most recent figure I can find is about $7000 p/a, so converting that to pounds and so forth gives the figure of £94.83 per week.

After you Dave.

Labels: ,

posted by Croydonian

Language, truth and not much logic....

Wednesday, January 28, 2009
From Unite:

"Unite the union, the biggest union in UK civil aviation, is urging MPs to vote for workers' jobs and futures by backing the modernisation of Heathrow airport".

What could they mean? A lick of paint, a few more bins and a bit of wi-fi? I'm more of a Gatwick chap meself, so not really my problem.

Erm, no.

"Unite's call comes ahead of today's (Wednesday) Tory Opposition Day debate in the Commons, which the union says will be used to undermine this month's decision by the government to press ahead with the third runway at Heathrow airport".

For easy math, as our transatlantic friends put it, let's say that a third runway equals a 50% increase. I am looking forward to a whole range of modernisations myself. Maybe I'll modernise my whisky consumption, or modernise my posting of DPRK updates. We shall see.

Labels: , ,

posted by Croydonian

2700 years of congestion charging

Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Note, if you will, this Parliamentary exchange yesterday:

"Bob Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will extend the boundary for exemption from the Dartford Crossing toll...

Paul Clark: The purpose of the charge at the Dartford crossing is to tackle congestion..".

Right.

The Dartford tunnel as was has been around since 1963, and to my knowledge has always charged, so we can take 'London' congestion charging back 45 years. Given that other bridges in these parts charged prior to 1963 we can then go back the Bridges Act of 1530, make that 478 years. And if bridges, why not toll roads, the earliest ones apparently being those of the Assyrians. Well, chariots build up at rush hour could be frightful. That gives us 2700 years.

Mr Clark should be utterly ashamed of himself, as if it looks like 'take it or leave it' pricing, quacks like 'take it or leave it' pricing etc, then assuredly that is what it is, whatever damn fool name Clarke wishes to give it.

Labels: , ,

posted by Croydonian

The 70s revival continues

Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Anyone else remember the 'Social Contract'? Folk under 40 can skip this question

Here is how the '74 Labour party manifesto outlined it: "At the heart of this manifesto and our programme to save the nation lies the Social Contract between the Labour Government and the trade unions, an idea derided by our enemies, but certain to become widely accepted by those who genuinely believe in government by consent - that is, in the democratic process itself as opposed to the authoritarian and bureaucratic system of wage control imposed by the Heath Government and removed by Labour".

It was not a huge success.

So much for the brief excusion down Rue de Mémoire. Some bright spark at MSF cough Amicus, double cough, Unite The Union has hit on it as a grand term for something it has cooked up:

"Unite the union will today (Tuesday 28th October) launch a ‘Social Contract’ for the financial services industry. The principles which set out how the finance sector now needs to be reformed will be launched at a meeting of hundreds of senior workplace representatives from Unite and MPs in the House of Commons".

And what do they want, apart from featherbedding they richly deserve as knights of commerce?

This:

"The Unite Social Contract states:

1. Recognition of Unite as a key stakeholder in the future of the financial services industry. (B/S speak for undue power and influence)

2. To ensure the employment security of employees in the finance sector. (Jobs for life at the expense of the tax payer)

3. To protect and improve the terms and conditions of employees, including pension arrangements. (Guess who's paying... Does not apply to their class enemies, natch)

4. End the remuneration packages of senior executives which reward short-termism and irresponsible risk taking. (As opposed to responsible risk taking, obviously. Isn't hindsight just dandy? Nice bit of class warfare there)

5. Overhaul of the regulatory structures of the financial services sector to include trade union involvement in order to enhance the accountability of finance institutions. (What about including banking professionals in trade union structures, or is this new syndicalism a one way street?)

So, nothing very self-denying there, but note the high quality footnote:

"Finance workers will protest to demand changes to the structure of the finance services sector. With a life size ‘Social Contract' and wearing t-shirts stating: "STOP BANKERS GREED".

I do believe we have an irregular verb:

I yearn for social justice, you fancy a pay-rise, he is greedy

Improvements to that off the cuff effort are welcome

Labels: , , ,

posted by Croydonian

A brief observation on the fall of Ian Blair

Friday, October 03, 2008
Or a thousand years ago, pt II.

I cannot say I will miss the man, but for once now is not the time for character assassinations. However, given the great monsoons of cant raining down from all points Left at the moment, I ask readers of my vintage - or older - to cast their minds back to the pretty well entirely forgotten James Anderton, former head of the Manchester police, AKA God's Cop.

Anderton was robust in his faith and was given to making comments on homosexuals that were some way beyond his brief:

"His personal Christian beliefs, his fearlessness in expressing them and his hard-line moral stance made him the scourge of the liberal left and frequently brought into question his suitability to run Greater Manchester Police.

In some ways Anderton was a paradoxical figure - regarded by many as probably Greater Manchester's most popular senior officer, and by others as the very worst".

How long would he have lasted as head of the Met had Livingstone had the ability to 'persaude' him to go, I wonder?

As a footnote, I will offer the usual odds (Lombard Street to a rotten orange) that Blair will have wormed his way into any number of quangos by this time next year.

Labels: , , ,

posted by Croydonian

The Great British workplace

Monday, September 01, 2008
The TUC, bless it, has a YouGov-conducted survey out, entitled 'What workers want'. There is rather a lot of detail that the organisation does not bother featuring in the accompanying press release, and that is what I am going to focus on.

Trade unionists are less loyal to employers than the unionised:

"I feel committed to the organisation for which I currently work"

Non-union - 57%
Union - 54%

"I would speak highly to people..about my employer" -

Non-union 53%
Union -46%

"I feel the organisation I work for deserves my loyalty"

Non-union - 47%
Union - 41%


Lousy public sector managers / egg-shell employees:

"Bullying by management is an issue where I work"

Public sector - 31%
Private sector - 18%

"Discrimination on grounds of gender is an issue where I work"



Public sector - 7%
Private sector - 4%


"Discrimination on grounds of race is an issue where I work"

Public sector - 3%
Private sector - 2%

"Discrimination on grounds of age is an issue where I work"

Public sector - 7%
Private sector - 4%

There is preferential treatment by managers that unfairly benefits some staff where I work

Public sector - 36%
Private sector - 30%

Increased workload over the past three years (interpret as you see fit....)

Public sector - 65%
Private sector - 51%

Increased stress etc etc

Public sector - 63%
Private sector - 48%

Longer working hours

Public sector - 33%
Private sector - 29%

Leftist attitudes in the public sector


"Support measures to make workplaces more environmentally friendly"

Public sector - 75%
Private sector - 67%

"Support a shift in the balance of tax so that big companies pay more tax and
ordinary people pay less"

Public sector - 77%
Private sector - 71%

"Support a shift in the balance of tax so that very wealthy individuals pay
more tax and ordinary people pay less"

Public sector - 78%
Private sector - 69%

(The South West (!) and Scotland lead the agreers - 78% and 76%)

"End child poverty in the UK"

Public sector - 83%
Private sector - 76%



Folk in the public sector do know when they are on to a good thing, pension-wise:

"Satisfied with pension provision"

Public sector - 70%
Private sector - 41%


Meanwhile, there is a fabulous degree of hypocrisy / cant etc going on across the workplace, in that precious few people seem to think they are overpaid, as 'fair pay' is reckoned to be very important / important by 98% in the private sector and 99% in the public sector. Really? I have heard of few folk volunteering for a pay cut, because if they are overpaid, that wouldn't be fair, would it?


Labels: , , , ,

posted by Croydonian

Unite to London: "It's my ball and I'm taking it home"

Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Oh yes it is:

"Unite the Union is to cease financially supporting the Latin American stage at the Rise Festival after the Mayor’s Office has targeted its partner in the production, the Cuba Solidarity Campaign, as being a “political campaign group” and therefore unacceptable".

Good for Boris for sending Castro's groupies packing, eh?

And not only but also:

"Not only has the Mayor’s Office banned CSC from the festival site it has also altered the message of the Festival, changing it from anti-racist event to one that celebrates London diversity".

Quelle horreur....

Labels: , , ,

posted by Croydonian

And there was I thinking that Customs & Excise exists purely to farm taxes....

Tuesday, June 17, 2008
But how wrong I was in dismissing customs (1), douanes, zollbeamter (2) etc, judging from this comment by EU Taxation and Customs Commissar László Kovács:

"without efficient customs control at the EU's external borders, the Single Market would never have been possible".

Erm, no, László. The single market would have been possible without customs controls, just as it is possible for there to be a single market in London without goons in peaked caps stationed at the outer borough boundaries.



(1) I know it is HMRC these days, but my point is about border taxation, not general taxation, and 'customs exists' as a headline jarred. A lot.

(2). A somewhat odd German teacher at my alma mater insisted that the way to impress the ladies was to declare 'Ich bin ein zollbeamter'. The phrase stuck, although having tried the line on a few frauleinen, it has never been that effective.


Labels: ,

posted by Croydonian

Token gesture of the week

Seeing this headline - Australian athletes will not attend Olympic ceremony - I was gearing up to praise our Antipodean kin and contrast their approach with the kowtowing by the rabble leading this country.

However, it is nothing to do with human rights, still less the occupation of Tibet but rather this:

"Australian Olympic officials have banned the country's athletes from marching at this summer's opening ceremony in Beijing because of concerns about air pollution in the Chinese capital". I am not making this up.

If Oz's athletes, synchronised swimmers and underwater tiddlywinks players have such delicate lungs, is it safe for them to even get off the plane?

Perhaps someone can come up with an inventive excuse for our athletes, underwater tiddlywinks players ete etc?

Labels: , , ,

posted by Croydonian

Figure of speech o' the week

Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Made by a Puerto Rican addressing the UN's Special Committee on Decolonisation:

"The Puerto Rican people could no longer tolerate that consideration of their self-determination be “parked in a corner of chimeras” by the General Assembly".

I was tempted to report on the debate, but if I say it was initiated by Cuba and Venezuela, readers will find joining the dots pretty straightforward.

Labels: , , ,

posted by Croydonian

The UN - doncha just love it?

Thursday, June 05, 2008
Latest insanity from Turtle Bay:

"Cuba requested the revocation of the [World Union of Progressive Judaism]'s status following a Human Rights Council session in Geneva in January titled "Human Rights Violations Emanating from Israeli Military Incursions in the Occupied Territories," where, in protest at the session's exclusive focus on Israel, World Union representative David Littman tried to read passages from the Hamas charter calling for the destruction of Israel.

Littman was interrupted three times by the presiding officer on the grounds that Hamas's ideology was not the topic before the council. Before he took his seat, Littman told the presiding officer that "something is rotten in the state of this council."

This statement led to complaints largely from Muslim countries that the UN had been insulted by the Reform representative. The World Union was informed of the initiative at the NGO committee last Thursday, and given a week to prepare its response".

...

But the World Union's prospects are uncertain. Sudan chairs the committee, which also includes Pakistan, Cuba, Egypt, Angola and Qatar". Source

And what a selection of human-rights loving liberal democracies that little lot are. Quite what benefit the WUPJ gains from its participation in this mummery is moot.

Labels: , ,

posted by Croydonian

Year of the potato

Wednesday, June 04, 2008
I imagine the fact of this being the UN's International Year of the POTATO (their emphasis, not mine) had rather passed by even the most enthusiastic munchers of that redoubtable tuber, but IYotP it indeed is, or if you prefer, Année International de la POMME DE TERRE, or Año Internacional de la PAPA. And naturally enough, the equivalents in Russian, Chinese and Arabic. In Sinic terms it is Year of the Rat, which is quite apt.

While the idea of encouraging cultivation of potatoes as a solution to problems of malnutrition etc is laudable, there is just too much po faced material on the site for me not to mock it. After all, "We would not be celebrating the International Year of the Potato if potatoes weren't so good to eat!"

So...

"For many of those who work daily with the potato, it has become an often passionate way of life".

Clearly....

Stanislav Menard, president of the Slovenian Society for Sautéed Potato and Onions - "In front of a potato, we are all equal"

Lino Mamani - "is a papa arariwa ("potato guardian", in Quechua)

Fellow Europeans will be delighted to know that we lead the world in per capita potato consumption - 96 kg. Those weedy North Americans manage a mere 58kg.

That the UN is feting the spud makes the three way face off between Chile, Bolivia and Peru over its origins a tad more explicable. The UN treads softly on this topic, referring to the potato hailing from 'near the present border between Peru and Bolivia', so I expect Santiago's man at Turtle Bay to raise strenuous objections.



Anyway, should potatoes not be to one's taste, this is also the UN designated Year of Sanitation, of Planet Earth and of Languages. Note, however, 2007 - inter alia - was a year of nothing, "for fiscal reasons and to avoid any process of trivialization".

The success, or otherwise of IYP might be judged by noting some of the other international years the UN has declared - 1968's International Year of Human Rights. At a rough guess, by year's end a quarter, at most, of humanity lived in a liberal democracy. Both 1978 and 1982 were bash South Africa years, and that mission clearly was not accomplished. 1986's International Year of Peace saw the Afghan war, Iran/Iraq, East Timor, the Lebanese civil war, any number of guerrilla wars in Latin America, and innumerable conflicts in the Horn of Africa, among others.

If a child in 1979 one would have been feted in Year of the Child, and with a bit of decent timing, feted in Year of Youth in 1985. Women, the old, disabled etc have all been commemorated too, if not we chaps yet.

Labels: , ,

posted by Croydonian

Cynical, moi?

Tuesday, May 20, 2008
From Pravda Central:

"Local Government Minister John Healey has today launched a consultation on whether or not the date of the 2009 local elections should be moved to coincide with elections for the European Parliament".

Hands up anyone who thinks that a decision will be based on a reason other than the prospective electoral advantage to the Labour Party.

One might note that the government has had plenty of time to think about this, what with council and EU 'parliament' terms being fixed.

Labels: ,

posted by Croydonian

Brown's new corporatism

Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Many, many years ago, the governments of Wilson and Callaghan would host meetings with trade union leaders which were dubbed 'beer and sandwich' sessions. While the reason for meeting with the Gormleys and Murrays of this world was largely due to Wilson lacking the ideology and the courage to stop them from holding the taxpayer to ransom, there was an attempt to present the process as being representative of the corporate state - the idea being that there were a range of power centres in the land, based on functional groups that negotiated with each other, so to speak, Back in the mid 80s when I was suffering some of the duller aspects of constitutional law at UCL (a lukewarm bed of SDP activists, by the way) I roundly dismissed the idea that the corporate state could be said to exist in the UK, given that Thatcher was brooking rather less nonsense from (some) special interests than her predecessors.

Anyway, The Worst Prime Minister Since Goderich (1) would seem to be intent on resurrecting corporatism, in that his favourite way of filling time between sessions of nail-biting seems to be to meet with some group or other and then to present it as showing how in touch, and how dynamic he is, how he cracks heads, kicks backsides, takes names etc etc. So, the other week it was 'the bankers', and next up he will 'host a meeting of food producers, retailers and consumers today to deal with the growing world food crisis'.

'Deal with'. Savour that, if you will. The attendees list shows a list comprised largely of quangocrats, NGO-istas and political types. The nearest one gets to the sharp end of growing food is some bod from the NFU. There's also a chap from Sainsburys. 'Deal with?' I will offer the traditional odds of Lombard Street to a rotten orange that they will not 'deal with' anything, but rather will chat away for a bit and achieve precisely nothing beyond a photo opportunity for Brown.

Where Brown differs from Wilson / Callaghan, is that none of the groups being dealt with can be said to have their hands around his throat yet, more's the pity. Rather than seeing these people because he has no choice, or doing it as per the spin, I would suggest that Brown is doing it as an exercise in blame shifting. Instead of taking responsibility for policy failures, and recognising that the game is up when it comes to blaming previous Tory administrations, Brown's latest trick is to make those he drags along to his meetings complicit in his errors. That the people are vain enough to be his useful idiots is dispiriting. I would hope that at least one banker, industrialist or whatever will be prepared to kiss goodbye to a knighthood and risk being monstered in what remains of the tame media - BBC, Grauniad, Mirror etc - by either publicly refusing to attend such a meeting, or else to emerge from No. 10 and declare quite how shambolic it is in the bunker. I'm not holding my breath.


(1) From the No 10 site:

"...Goderich lacked support among his colleagues and in his party, and he was not up to the task of running a quarrelling Cabinet. Goderich had difficulty in coping practically and emotionally. He resigned after four months in office, before he had achieved anything of note.

He also used to burst into tears at the dispatch box.

Labels: ,

posted by Croydonian

Cause, effect and the Metropolitan Police

Monday, March 31, 2008
Here is the headline and opening paragraph of a press release at the Met's website:

"Easter operation stops club and bar shootings 28.03.08

The Met police have once again successfully tackled shootings in and around the capital's licensed premises, with the second rollout of a special anti-gun initiative, named Operation Argon".

That no-one got shot in a London bar over Easter is undoubtedly a good thing, but the detail would seem to suggest that the London's Finest have fallen for the post hoc ergo post propter hoc fallacy:

"Over the period of the operation, officers carried out 48 armed vehicle stops resulting in 15 arrests, for a range of offences including burglary, possession of with intent to supply of class A drugs, immigration and driving offences. A total of 83 clubs were contacted regarding their promotions during this operation and over 200 venues were risk assessed by Clubs and Vice".

Note, nothing about handguns, rifles, shotguns, AK-47s, or come to that, Nimitz-class aircraft carriers being intercepted.

I do wonder whether we can expect every non-crime to be hailed as a triumph for the Plod.



Labels: ,

posted by Croydonian