There’s a story about a man living in a
remote house who spots two burglars entering his shed. He immediately phones
the police, telling them that, if they’re quick, they can catch the two
burglars red-handed. This being austerity Britain, he gets the inevitable
response that there are no police officers available to respond. He waits ten
minutes, then calls again. This time he tells them that he saw two burglars
entering his shed so took his shotgun out and that, after shooting one of them,
the other is now cowering in the shed. Within minutes, three police cars full
of armed officers pull up outside his house and a police helicopter is circling
overhead. “You told us you’d shot someone”, said the senior police
officer on the scene, after failing to find any evidence of a corpse. The
householder replied, “And you told me that there was no-one available”.
The point, of course, is that any
under-resourced police force is always going to have to prioritise which calls
it answers – and the result is that the police simply no long respond to a
growing number of crimes, as many victims of burglary or car theft palmed off
with a crime number for insurance purposes will readily attest.
It is, of course, right that MPs going
about their business meeting constituents should be properly protected
(although I can’t help but observe that some of the politicians shouting the
loudest about the need for protection following a single fatality are the same
people who tell us that between 800 and 1000 preventable premature Covid deaths
each week for the last two months, and for the currently foreseeable future, is
an ‘acceptable’ price to pay: all lives matter, but some, it seems, matter more
than others). The question, though, is what the police will not do to enable
them to divert resources to protecting MPs. It isn’t as simple as having a
policeman on duty at a fortnightly hour-long constituency surgery, which is the
way it has been largely presented. Surgeries may be one of the easiest ways of
gaining access to an MP, but if someone is determined to murder an MP there are
plenty of other opportunities. Considering
only surgeries looks like a tokenistic response. Providing sufficient coverage
of all possible attack opportunities for 650 MPs (and then, what about MSs, MSPs,
and MLAs, the inclusion of which would add significantly to the requirement?) would
probably need a couple of thousand full time officers, allowing for 7 day
working, holidays, sickness etc.
I wouldn’t argue that MPs should not
receive a suitable level of protection, but it is entirely reasonable to ask
two questions: firstly whether the resources required would be additional to
those currently available, and secondly, if not, which other policing
activities will be deprioritised as a result. Pretending that a significant
additional responsibility can be loaded onto already overstretched police
resources is just dishonest. I don’t believe that most people would begrudge
the provision of appropriate protection to elected public servants, but
withdrawing from even more police activities supporting local communities might
be a good way of changing that. The response needs to be rather more nuanced
than the knee-jerk reaction we’ve seen to date.
No comments:
Post a Comment