Yet again it has been suggested that the UK border agency is not fit for purpose and that got me thinking.
Just how porous are Guernsey’s borders?
I haven’t been on the ferry for a while but when I have been traveling back to our Island, stuffed to the gunnels with returning student household goods and personal effects, I have just breezed through the big shed.
And that’s coming in by the legal route. Just how vigorous are controls for our informal boating visitors and day cruisers?
Then there’s the airport. You’d expect controls to be pretty vigorous there but just how do you control visitors?
Come in for a holiday and then disappear into one of the various immigrant communities and who is the wiser?
Even if the border guards are suspicious, what powers do they actually have to close the door?
What about criminal record checks?
Well, we’ve seen how rigorously these have been conducted in the past. That’s to say we find out after something has gone wrong. And that’s assuming you can gain access to foreign criminal registers. I understand that some countries are somewhat less than compliant and only too glad to see the back of some of their criminals.
The end result?
An Island with a population well in excess of the stated figure and nobody doing anything about it.
I hate to say it but the Germans may have had a good idea with identity cards.
Can’t prove who you are? Bye then.
Some department or another must know who is here legally so just maintain that register and let the police and border agency check it when needed.
Get into trouble or get stopped by the police and guess what? Show your card and get it checked or go to the ferry via jail.
Invasion of personal rights? Better than the invasion of the Island we are enduring at present.
Racist?
No. Maybe a trifle xenophobic but when hasn’t Guernsey been that way?
If you are here legally then I don’t care what colour your skin is or what language you first said “Mummy” in.
The rest of our illegal stop overs can go home.
This is of course assuming that anyone in government is interested in doing their job or actually cares enough to get involved.
Showing posts with label Crime. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Crime. Show all posts
Thursday, 17 May 2012
Thursday, 19 April 2012
Welcome to Guernsey
Yet again it has been suggested that the UK border agency is not fit for purpose and it got me thinking.
Just how porous are Guernsey’s borders?
I haven’t been on the ferry for a while but when I have been traveling back, stuffed to the gunnels with returning student household goods and personal effects, I have just breezed through the big shed.
And that’s coming in by the legal route. Just how vigorous are controls for our boating visitors and day cruisers?
Then there’s the airport. You’d expect controls to be pretty vigorous there but just how do you control visitors?
Come in for a holiday and then disappear into one of the various immigrant communities and who is the wiser?
Even if the border guards are suspicious, what powers do they actually have to close the door?
What about criminal record checks? Well, we’ve seen how rigorously these have been conducted in the past. That’s to say we find out after something has gone wrong.
And that’s assuming you can gain access to foreign criminal registers. I understand that some countries are somewhat less than compliant and only too glad to see the back of some of their criminals.
The end result?
An Island with a population well in excess of the stated figure and nobody doing anything about it.
I hate to say it but the Germans may have had a good idea with identity cards.
Can’t prove who you are? Bye then.
Some department or another must know who is here legally so just maintain that register and let the police and border agency check it when needed.
Get into trouble or get stopped by the police and guess what? Show your card and get it checked or go to the ferry via jail.
Invasion of personal rights? Better than the invasion of the Island we are enduring at present.
Racist?
No. Maybe a trifle xenophobic but when hasn’t Guernsey been that way?
If you are here legally then I don’t care what colour your skin is or what language you first said “Mummy” in.
The rest of our illegal stop overs can go home.
This is of course assuming that anyone in government is interested in doing their job or actually cares enough to get involved.
Just how porous are Guernsey’s borders?
I haven’t been on the ferry for a while but when I have been traveling back, stuffed to the gunnels with returning student household goods and personal effects, I have just breezed through the big shed.
And that’s coming in by the legal route. Just how vigorous are controls for our boating visitors and day cruisers?
Then there’s the airport. You’d expect controls to be pretty vigorous there but just how do you control visitors?
Come in for a holiday and then disappear into one of the various immigrant communities and who is the wiser?
Even if the border guards are suspicious, what powers do they actually have to close the door?
What about criminal record checks? Well, we’ve seen how rigorously these have been conducted in the past. That’s to say we find out after something has gone wrong.
And that’s assuming you can gain access to foreign criminal registers. I understand that some countries are somewhat less than compliant and only too glad to see the back of some of their criminals.
The end result?
An Island with a population well in excess of the stated figure and nobody doing anything about it.
I hate to say it but the Germans may have had a good idea with identity cards.
Can’t prove who you are? Bye then.
Some department or another must know who is here legally so just maintain that register and let the police and border agency check it when needed.
Get into trouble or get stopped by the police and guess what? Show your card and get it checked or go to the ferry via jail.
Invasion of personal rights? Better than the invasion of the Island we are enduring at present.
Racist?
No. Maybe a trifle xenophobic but when hasn’t Guernsey been that way?
If you are here legally then I don’t care what colour your skin is or what language you first said “Mummy” in.
The rest of our illegal stop overs can go home.
This is of course assuming that anyone in government is interested in doing their job or actually cares enough to get involved.
Tuesday, 20 March 2012
Our little tank
I hear one of our deputies is defending our new tank by likening it to the airport fire trucks. Both are rather expensive and rarely used.
But is this a fair analogy?
The UK Civil Aviation Authority statistics for 2011 show that our airport had just short of 56,000 flights during that year. Each flight has the potential to go wrong and might need the services of our on site fire service. No argument there and having the kit is a sensible precaution because every year there are 56,000 chances of this equipment being used.
Let’s now look at our new armour plated jeep.
Unfortunately we still don’t know the operational reasons used to justify purchasing this expensive piece of kit so we’ll have to play guessing games. I did this in a previous blog on the subject but couldn’t come up with too many answers.
I now have three main candidates.
1. Protecting visiting dignitaries
2. Pursuing a lone gunman
3. Quelling a riot
We usually have someone important over every couple of years but seem to have managed without a jeep so far. However the threat of a terrorist attack on what is perceived to be a soft target cannot be discounted.
However I stick to my original comment. Let the UK protection team bring over their own specialist protection officers and kit. These guys protect for a living so will be more able to deal with a situation that our guys no matter how good our training.
Thankfully we have yet to experience a lone gunman going on a rampage. Even in the UK with their population of 62 million, it is a rare occurrence. Maybe once every three years at most.
Should it happen here, would the jeep be useful?
The most likely weapon for the gunman would be a shotgun which is a short range weapon. Maybe he might illegally import a pistol or perhaps a sub machine gun; again, both short range weapons.
On this basis, the best way to bring the rampage to a close would be to use long range snipers. A jeep would get you close enough to shout but a megaphone would be equally effective. So, no real use for our jeep apart from being an expensive mobile shield.
Maybe it would come into it’s own during one of our regular riots - if we ever have one. To be honest, if we did have a substantial riot then our police service would not have the manpower to deal with it. What use would a jeep be then?
But let’s return to our deputy’s analogy with the fire trucks.
56,000 potential opportunities for use per year compared to what?
1 or 2 visits a year from a possible foreign target
1 possible gunman every three years from a UK population of 62 million compared to our 65 thousand with our greater restrictions on gun use and minimal if any stocks of illegal weapons.
1 riot, which is so statistically unlikely as to be irrelevant.
You can see where I’m going with this, can’t you. The analogy does not hold water. It is ill thought out and statistically wrong.
I’m not saying that there isn’t a good justification for buying some better form of protection. I just can’t see it yet and our authorities aren’t helping to clear the fog. Quite the opposite in fact.
Now why would they want to create a smokescreen?
You tell me.
Better still, tell me the real reason for buying the jeep in the first place. If it is a justifiable expense then I will be the first one to say so.
But is this a fair analogy?
The UK Civil Aviation Authority statistics for 2011 show that our airport had just short of 56,000 flights during that year. Each flight has the potential to go wrong and might need the services of our on site fire service. No argument there and having the kit is a sensible precaution because every year there are 56,000 chances of this equipment being used.
Let’s now look at our new armour plated jeep.
Unfortunately we still don’t know the operational reasons used to justify purchasing this expensive piece of kit so we’ll have to play guessing games. I did this in a previous blog on the subject but couldn’t come up with too many answers.
I now have three main candidates.
1. Protecting visiting dignitaries
2. Pursuing a lone gunman
3. Quelling a riot
We usually have someone important over every couple of years but seem to have managed without a jeep so far. However the threat of a terrorist attack on what is perceived to be a soft target cannot be discounted.
However I stick to my original comment. Let the UK protection team bring over their own specialist protection officers and kit. These guys protect for a living so will be more able to deal with a situation that our guys no matter how good our training.
Thankfully we have yet to experience a lone gunman going on a rampage. Even in the UK with their population of 62 million, it is a rare occurrence. Maybe once every three years at most.
Should it happen here, would the jeep be useful?
The most likely weapon for the gunman would be a shotgun which is a short range weapon. Maybe he might illegally import a pistol or perhaps a sub machine gun; again, both short range weapons.
On this basis, the best way to bring the rampage to a close would be to use long range snipers. A jeep would get you close enough to shout but a megaphone would be equally effective. So, no real use for our jeep apart from being an expensive mobile shield.
Maybe it would come into it’s own during one of our regular riots - if we ever have one. To be honest, if we did have a substantial riot then our police service would not have the manpower to deal with it. What use would a jeep be then?
But let’s return to our deputy’s analogy with the fire trucks.
56,000 potential opportunities for use per year compared to what?
1 or 2 visits a year from a possible foreign target
1 possible gunman every three years from a UK population of 62 million compared to our 65 thousand with our greater restrictions on gun use and minimal if any stocks of illegal weapons.
1 riot, which is so statistically unlikely as to be irrelevant.
You can see where I’m going with this, can’t you. The analogy does not hold water. It is ill thought out and statistically wrong.
I’m not saying that there isn’t a good justification for buying some better form of protection. I just can’t see it yet and our authorities aren’t helping to clear the fog. Quite the opposite in fact.
Now why would they want to create a smokescreen?
You tell me.
Better still, tell me the real reason for buying the jeep in the first place. If it is a justifiable expense then I will be the first one to say so.
Wednesday, 14 March 2012
Be Prepared
There is little point in buying a dog and then barking yourself so we must assume that our new police chief knows what he is talking about.
Obviously we do need three armoured vehicles and police having access to the latest weaponry including what looks like sub machine guns. After all, the Pollet can get pretty rough on a Friday night.
But seriously, what scenarios are we looking at here?
Terrorist attack?
Usually unlikely but may become relevant if high profile UK targets come to visit. Perhaps they should bring their own vehicles and security teams. After all, these will be rather more expert in personal protection if they are doing it every day.
Deranged gunman?
Sadly this is now becoming a possibility even on the Island. But will a fully armour plated land rover help such a situation? In all likelihood the damage will have been done by the time police arrive anyway so we’d be better off with snipers rather than a snatch vehicle or mobile barrier.
Bomb threat?
Ok, I’m beginning to scrape the barrel a bit. Can’t see anyone wanting to blow up the custard castle except architecture or design students.
The downside of not having such a vehicle of course is that something does happen and the police are not equipped to deal with it. How sad would it be to lose lives for the sake of a few thousand quid.
This sounds like a reasonable argument but where do you draw the line? It could be used to justify any police spend.
I suggest that we need a degree of realism here.
Let the police chief bark but let him also tell us why he is barking.
Give us the reasons why we need this level of protection and stop hiding behind unspecified “potential operational needs”.
If the argument is well made then end of story.
Obviously we do need three armoured vehicles and police having access to the latest weaponry including what looks like sub machine guns. After all, the Pollet can get pretty rough on a Friday night.
But seriously, what scenarios are we looking at here?
Terrorist attack?
Usually unlikely but may become relevant if high profile UK targets come to visit. Perhaps they should bring their own vehicles and security teams. After all, these will be rather more expert in personal protection if they are doing it every day.
Deranged gunman?
Sadly this is now becoming a possibility even on the Island. But will a fully armour plated land rover help such a situation? In all likelihood the damage will have been done by the time police arrive anyway so we’d be better off with snipers rather than a snatch vehicle or mobile barrier.
Bomb threat?
Ok, I’m beginning to scrape the barrel a bit. Can’t see anyone wanting to blow up the custard castle except architecture or design students.
The downside of not having such a vehicle of course is that something does happen and the police are not equipped to deal with it. How sad would it be to lose lives for the sake of a few thousand quid.
This sounds like a reasonable argument but where do you draw the line? It could be used to justify any police spend.
I suggest that we need a degree of realism here.
Let the police chief bark but let him also tell us why he is barking.
Give us the reasons why we need this level of protection and stop hiding behind unspecified “potential operational needs”.
If the argument is well made then end of story.
Thursday, 23 February 2012
Guernsey Crime
Imagine a piece of thick carpet, twice as long as you are tall, and as wide as your shoe.
Got it?
Now, I’m going to ask you to just walk along it for £200.
Will you do that?
Let’s see. No risk and a high reward.
I think I might just go for the money.
Ok, now I’m going to sling that same carpet on a thin plank between scaffolding right at the top of the mast on the roundabout in Town.
Will you walk the carpet up there, during a high wind, for 10p?
Let me have a think again. Do I want to probably kill myself for 10p?
No thanks, if it’s all the same to you.
You see, it’s about risk and reward.
Now we can all guess the potential rewards for, say, drug dealing, but what about the risks when we are told that our prison is more of a hotel than a deterrent. That drugs are easier to obtain inside than out. That frequent offenders don’t mind going back inside.
Something is wrong here.
The risk reward ratio is out of kilter.
Prison is a place where we remove people who are acting against the best interests of our society. It is a place of punishment and should be a deterrent. People should fear going to prison.
Let’s make crime a high risk occupation.
Let’s start by stopping. Stopping the creature comforts. No TV, no free gym, no relaxation for most of the day.
By all means give the inmates the opportunity to address their addictions and life problems. Give the opportunity for re-education.
But do not give the opportunity to treat it all as a holiday.
The lack of freedom is punishment enough.
No it isn’t, the reoffending rate should be sufficient argument against that.
It’s against our human rights.
You have offended against society. Your rights are diminished until such time as you have served your sentence and are fit to rejoin a civilised society.
These are damaged people, we need to mend them, not punish them.
Do both then.
Get the low risk prisoners working in the community and doing something of benefit. Sweeping the streets or cutting the hedgerows. Surely it is not beyond the wit of the clever people of this Island to find something useful to be done either outside or inside prison for these people with time on their hands.
I’m sure the prison officers might not take too kindly to the upset in their lives but on the other hand, they too might have some good ideas for improving the system and reducing reoffending rates.
They might also find ways to remove drugs from prison life. It’s supposed to be a secure environment. Make it so.
If someone goes in with a drug habit then they serve their sentence and stay until their addiction is cured.
Not just moved down to a different drug.
Cured.
Make it part of their sentence.
“You will go to prison for 6 months or until you are completely drug free for six weeks, whichever is the longer”.
Prone to violence? Again, serve the time and then stay there until you can prove that you have control of your emotions.
If you go to prison with a problem which will cause you to reoffend, then we don’t want to see you in society again until that problem is cured.
Why would you want proven offenders with those sort of problems rejoining society to just do the same thing again or something worse?
I know that most people want an easy life these days. Sorry, but prison doesn’t fall into this category. It’s supposed to be a hard life, a deterrent. Somewhere to stay out of.
If we want to deter something, we make the reward low and the risk high.
It’s that carpet thing again.
Got it?
Now, I’m going to ask you to just walk along it for £200.
Will you do that?
Let’s see. No risk and a high reward.
I think I might just go for the money.
Ok, now I’m going to sling that same carpet on a thin plank between scaffolding right at the top of the mast on the roundabout in Town.
Will you walk the carpet up there, during a high wind, for 10p?
Let me have a think again. Do I want to probably kill myself for 10p?
No thanks, if it’s all the same to you.
You see, it’s about risk and reward.
Now we can all guess the potential rewards for, say, drug dealing, but what about the risks when we are told that our prison is more of a hotel than a deterrent. That drugs are easier to obtain inside than out. That frequent offenders don’t mind going back inside.
Something is wrong here.
The risk reward ratio is out of kilter.
Prison is a place where we remove people who are acting against the best interests of our society. It is a place of punishment and should be a deterrent. People should fear going to prison.
Let’s make crime a high risk occupation.
Let’s start by stopping. Stopping the creature comforts. No TV, no free gym, no relaxation for most of the day.
By all means give the inmates the opportunity to address their addictions and life problems. Give the opportunity for re-education.
But do not give the opportunity to treat it all as a holiday.
The lack of freedom is punishment enough.
No it isn’t, the reoffending rate should be sufficient argument against that.
It’s against our human rights.
You have offended against society. Your rights are diminished until such time as you have served your sentence and are fit to rejoin a civilised society.
These are damaged people, we need to mend them, not punish them.
Do both then.
Get the low risk prisoners working in the community and doing something of benefit. Sweeping the streets or cutting the hedgerows. Surely it is not beyond the wit of the clever people of this Island to find something useful to be done either outside or inside prison for these people with time on their hands.
I’m sure the prison officers might not take too kindly to the upset in their lives but on the other hand, they too might have some good ideas for improving the system and reducing reoffending rates.
They might also find ways to remove drugs from prison life. It’s supposed to be a secure environment. Make it so.
If someone goes in with a drug habit then they serve their sentence and stay until their addiction is cured.
Not just moved down to a different drug.
Cured.
Make it part of their sentence.
“You will go to prison for 6 months or until you are completely drug free for six weeks, whichever is the longer”.
Prone to violence? Again, serve the time and then stay there until you can prove that you have control of your emotions.
If you go to prison with a problem which will cause you to reoffend, then we don’t want to see you in society again until that problem is cured.
Why would you want proven offenders with those sort of problems rejoining society to just do the same thing again or something worse?
I know that most people want an easy life these days. Sorry, but prison doesn’t fall into this category. It’s supposed to be a hard life, a deterrent. Somewhere to stay out of.
If we want to deter something, we make the reward low and the risk high.
It’s that carpet thing again.
Monday, 30 January 2012
Drink and Drugs
What percentage of crime in Guernsey is driven by drink or drugs?
20-25%?
No, that is probably the figure for those crimes not related to drink or drugs.
Guernsey has a problem and doesn’t seem to be doing an awful lot about it.
Our border control keeps telling us of record seizures but drugs still remain freely available not only in our streets but in our prison too. And you’ve only to look at our High Street on a Saturday night to see some of the problems caused by excessive drinking.
What we need are new tough laws!
No, what we need is a change of attitude to drink and drugs and effective policing of existing laws.
We’ve already started to tackle the problems of smoking but have yet to see the damage to health which levels of increased drinking will lead to. Alcohol is a poison and you cannot keep pouring large quantities of poison into your system without consequence.
The thing is though is that we all enjoy a drink. A couple of beers or a nice glass or two of wine never did anyone any harm. We all need to let our hair down occasionally. No harm in that is there?
Some people are the same with drugs. The occasional puff does no harm. A tab or two makes for a good evening.
But where do you draw the line? How do you control adults who don’t see the problem. So what if I go over the top now and again? Why shouldn’t I have a good time? Who are you to dictate my lifestyle?
It’s about the type of society we want in Guernsey. Do we want to abandon our capital on a Saturday night? Do we want our courts full of drunken excuses for appalling behaviour? Do we want our hospital filled with self induced accidents and emergencies?
Being drunk and disorderly is a crime.
Taking drugs is a crime.
Enforce the law. Extend the law.
If someone is caught driving under the influence, we take away their “right” to drive for a while. So, if someone is convicted of a drink related offence, could we take away their “right” to drink in a public place. Probably not.
How about “Three strikes and you’re out”? Forget the sob stories and the “really trying to turn my life around” defences. Mandatory prison sentences for repeat offenders.
Yes, it is harsh. It is meant to be.
You have a problem with drink or drugs and you are not effectively dealing with it. Society will help you but it will not allow you to push your problem on other people. If you cannot or will not sort it out yourself, then we will sort it out for you.
I can already hear the outcry from the Human rights lobby. What I won’t hear is the low conversations in the places of power from those with a big stake in maximising their profits from “the entertainment industry”. Profits which cost the taxpayer in police, court, and hospital time let alone the wider social service problems.
But remember, we are talking about repeat offenders. Not the occasional “letting your hair down” party which got a bit out of control. Not the “I didn’t realise that mixing drink and drugs would have this effect” idiot. We’re talking about the individuals who get themselves arrested on three separate occasions for drink or drug related offenses. The one’s who don’t care about the rest of us.
Let’s take these individuals and put them somewhere where they can be offered solutions to their problems. But also somewhere uncomfortable enough that they really won’t want to come back. It’s called prison but not as we know it.
But that’s for another article.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)