Martin Kettle’s hateful Guardian opinion piece on Saturday has drawn over 192 comments so far, a preponderance of them hearteningly negative. Kettle’s thesis seems to be, in short, that it’s fine for innocent people to be executed on the streets without arrest or trial if it keeps him, Martikn Kettle, personally safe: Reaction was swift:
Outradgie November 3, 2007 5:05 AM
Kettle has here contributed one of the most poorly reasoned and ill-informed articles seen on CiF, and that is quite an achievement. To pick a few of the more egregious errors:
1. “… the conviction of the Met this week was bad news not good news. The tyranny of the insurance-driven risk assessment culture – which ironically the commissioner would now be negligent to ignore – means you and I will be less well-protected in future by the police than we were in July 2005.” The Health & Safety at Work Act gives no right of civil action, such as pursuing compensation, see in particular s.47 of the Act. Compensation is independent of any prosecution under the Act. The penalties imposed upon conviction under the Act are fines. Under UK law it is illegal to provide insurance against criminal penalties. (Simon Jenkins’ attempts to pontificate on H&S law here have also been greatly undermined by his complete ignorance of this distinction. People injured or made ill at work would still be pursuing civil actions if no H&S statute had ever been enacted and no H&S regulating agency existed.)
2. “The police genuinely thought De Menezes was a suicide bomber.” No, they did not. They did not know who he was, or what he was doing. There was total confusion and incompetence, but they killed him anyway.
3. “Ken Livingstone is wholly correct to say that health and safety legislation was never drawn up for such extreme situations as this. And the law is not just an ass but an outright threat to liberty if this week’s judgment means a future armed officer is afraid to fire at a real suicide bomber in similar circumstances.” It is rubbish to say the legislation does not apply in “extreme circumstances”. Was London under martial law that day? It is very common for those who break H&S law to say there were special circumstances. It’s easy to do a job right when there is no pressure. The law is intended to restrain reckless behaviour especially when it’s tempting to cut corners. There is nothing in this court case that need inhibit any police officer from firing at a suicide bomber. What should be inhibited is firing at innocent people, as an outcome of bungled, incompetent, mismanaged, disorganised and reckless policing.
4. “Londoners are at much greater risk after this ruling.” Pure tosh. There are many more armed police than terrorists in London, and it is vital that they are well trained and responsible. Today we read “Mohammed Abdul Kahar, 23, who was shot in the shoulder during a raid by police on his home in Forest Gate in 2006, says he and his brother Abul Koyair, 20, were stopped by armed police with one officer shouting “shoot him, shoot him”.” Not so very long ago there was the miserable story of how Harry Stanley was shot dead by police for walking home with a repaired chair leg. This was made many times worse by over 120 Metropolitan Police armed officers walking off the job when an attempt was made to hold responsible the two who killed Stanley. How can people feel safe when armed police refuse to be accountable and put themselves above the law? What makes Kettle think safety means armed police should be free to kill anyone with impunity? Benjamin Franklin might have been thinking of fools like Kettle when he remarked “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
5. There is a threat to liberty from terrorists, and there is a threat from lethally stupid police work. These are linked in a way Kettle has missed. The killing of De Menezes was a failure at every level: tactically, operationally and strategically. Tactically, because even if he had been a genuine threat, he was only intercepted when he was on a train. Operationally, because he was nothing to do with the people being pursued, and while killing him and trying to mop up the mess, there was less attention and resource to deal with the real targets. Strategically, because this killing spread fear and discredited the police, doing the terrorists’ job for them, and helping to alienate ordinary people whose support is vital. Fighting terrorism depends above all on keeping community support. This prosecution is the only real demonstration so far that the UK really acknowledges the gravity of the failure that day; it is a small step to recovering the moral standing and respect that is vital if the UK is to prevail.
.
That’s just one of many in similarly devastating vein. It’s well worth reading the whole thread, but don’t expect any response from Kettle himself, who’s conspicuous by his absence. Moral cowardice seems to be his bag.
I find iit hard to believe that any thinking person could have written such a fatuous and hollow article and worse, that an editor commissioned it and presumably approved it and paid for it.
Leaving aside his errors of fact, was Kettle trying to provoke, lighting the blue touchpaper and retiring to watch the fireworks? That’s cynical enough with feelings running so high and being deliberately whipped up by politicians.
But if as seems likely he really does think it’s OK for innocent people to be executed ad hoc on the streets by armed squads, on mere suspicion, without arrest or trial, just to keep him personally safe, then he is a disgusting human being.
