Category Archives: deterrence

The CCTV state

Every Briton has his Boswell

Every Briton has his Boswell

There is no evidence, writes Dalrymple, that continual surveillance deters or reduces crime.

Why should it, when the convicted have so little to fear from the courts?

The surveillance, he points out,

is intended not to protect or deter, but to intimidate.

The surveillance that is intended to intimidate

Screen Shot 2015-12-23 at 08.51.43It is difficult, writes Dalrymple,

to see how unselective intelligence-gathering (it would be better to call it unintelligence-gathering) could possibly reduce the danger of terrorism, unlike the patient investigation of self-confessed extremist groups.

Nor is there any evidence that such continual surveillance deters or reduces crime.

Why should it, when the convicted have so little to fear from the courts?

The surveillance

is intended not to protect or deter, but to intimidate.

You do realise, don’t you, that your horse is homosexual?

Equus africanus asinus

Equus africanus asinus

The law in England today, writes Dalrymple, is an

ass.

The British State

does not know how to deter, prevent, or punish.

In England, where

an aggressive popular culture glorifies egotistical impulsivity and denigrates self-control,

the violent and evil

may destroy other people’s lives with impunity, for the British State does not care in the least about protecting them,

Equus ferus caballus

Equus ferus caballus

being

indifferent to and incapable of the one task that inescapably belongs to it: preserving the peace and ensuring that its citizens may go about their lawful business in safety.

The result is that England has

the highest rate of (real) crime in the Western world.

But that does not mean the British State is inactive. It takes some things very seriously indeed. For example, there is the case of the Oxford student who, slightly drunk after celebrating the end of his exams, approached a mounted policeman. ‘Excuse me,’ he said. ‘Do you realise your horse is gay?’

The policeman called two squad cars to his aid, and, in a city in which it is notoriously difficult to interest the police in so trivial a matter as robbery or burglary, they arrived almost at once. The mounted policeman thought that the young man’s remark was likely to ’cause harassment, alarm or distress’. He was arrested and charged under the Public Order Act for having made a ‘homophobic remark’ and spent the night in jail. Brought before the magistrates the following day, he was fined.