The Off Topic Topic

[Sheilbh]

I think the point was not that the old people are not employed anymore, but rather than the stores feel it's necessary to replace them with big guys who mean business.

Take the point on crime but supermarket security guards don't mean business. At least here it's normally one (often not young) guy, often an immigrant in a really low paid job for an agency. I saw a nasty raid by a guy on the liquor shelves (behind the counter) in a Co-op once and he literally just shoved the 50 something African man who was security guard out the way to get away.

I don't think it's replacing them with big guys who mean business but corporate saying they're doing something by sending someone in a security guard jumper at the lowest possible cost.

Obviously I don't really think anyone, even businesses, should be made to bear the cost of a secure society. It's a social good. It's not great that the local Co-op now looks like a bank. I think it does add to the slight feeling of ambient disorder. And in all cases minority communities are often bearing the brunt - both in terms of corner shops, staff, affected communities. The small retailers association, of 10,000 small shops, have asked for more action on this as in some areas (like the North-East) shoplifting is up by two thirds in recent years and have said that it's becoming more brazen and more aggressive.

But at least in London, the Met don't even attend half of all reported shoplifting incidents. Apparently "it's not realistic" (according to the Met) to expect them to attend more.

[Razgovory]

There's actually a video that was making the rounds lately of two shoplifters in the back of a cop carrealizing that stealing is a felony in California again. Sometimes being "soft on crime" does increase crime.

Yeah, that was a fuck up.  The Walmart I go to has private security now.

[Grey Fox]

I went to a Rite Aid, iirc, in Newark over the summer. They had a official Newark police office in the lobby after the check out lines.

My children really didn't understand why that would be needed.

[DGuller]

The soft on crime policies are a perfect example of how suppressing balanced discussion will always be counterproductive.  Somewhere in all the zeal to fight for social justice the most vocal people seemed to forget that police actually do have a function, they don't just oppress the poor and the minorities.  Hopefully people really did learn their lesson for good, they'll have at least four years to be reminded of what can happen when you make sure that you hear only what you want to hear.

[mongers]

The soft on crime policies are a perfect example of how suppressing balanced discussion will always be counterproductive.  Somewhere in all the zeal to fight for social justice the most vocal people seemed to forget that police actually do have a function, they don't just oppress the poor and the minorities.  Hopefully people really did learn their lesson for good, they'll have at least four years to be reminded of what can happen when you make sure that you hear only what you want to hear.

Where are 'soft on crime' policy announcements promulgated and by whom?

I think ineffective governmental and police bureaucracies have more to do with police appearing to "not be doing their job properly" than some intentional political decisions to not bother with doing routine policing. 

[DGuller]

The soft on crime policies are a perfect example of how suppressing balanced discussion will always be counterproductive.  Somewhere in all the zeal to fight for social justice the most vocal people seemed to forget that police actually do have a function, they don't just oppress the poor and the minorities.  Hopefully people really did learn their lesson for good, they'll have at least four years to be reminded of what can happen when you make sure that you hear only what you want to hear.

Where are 'soft on crime' policy announcements promulgated and by whom?

I think ineffective governmental and police bureaucracies have more to do with police appearing to "not be doing their job properly" than some intentional political decisions to not bother with doing routine policing. 

There were plenty of intentional political decisions, like the one in California that started this discussion.  What HVC was referring to was that in California, theft under $950 was downgraded from a felony to a misdemeanor 10 years ago.  It was recently upgraded back to felony, after there was a widespread perception that making it a misdemeanor was essentially giving people license to steal. 

Another example is NYC, where there was a backlash against broken windows policing, and it was a sign of being enlightened to claim that this policy was debunked.  I think the subsequent developments have debunked the supposed debunking of the policy.

[HVC]

I went to a Rite Aid, iirc, in Newark over the summer. They had a official Newark police office in the lobby after the check out lines.

My children really didn't understand why that would be needed.

Some pharmacies have security here. Haven't seen it in grocery stores or the likes of Walmart. I think they're mainly to combat loitering crack heads though.


*edit* that's not to say we haven't seen our uptick of shoplifting. Anecdotally it appears we have, just that stores haven't resorted to security yet.

What  we also, is a spree of jewelry store robberies in the news lately.

[Razgovory]

There were plenty of intentional political decisions, like the one in California that started this discussion.  What HVC was referring to was that in California, theft under $950 was downgraded from a felony to a misdemeanor 10 years ago.  It was recently upgraded back to felony, after there was a widespread perception that making it a misdemeanor was essentially giving people license to steal. 

Another example is NYC, where there was a backlash against broken windows policing, and it was a sign of being enlightened to claim that this policy was debunked.  I think the subsequent developments have debunked the supposed debunking of the policy.

You know, I'm reading a book that brings this up.  Steven Pinker's Better Angels of our Nature.  He looks at Broken Window theory, and includes it into his theory on why violence has declined.  He brought up a few experiments that were done in the Netherlands that seem to back up the theory.  He also dismisses ideas that shoplifting is an act of resistance by marginalized people as bullshit.

It's not a great book, though I think the overall thrust of it correct, it was written by a evolutionary psychologist who seems really big into the 2000's era New Athiesm.  That stuff kinda gets on my nerves.  Basically it reads like it was written by Berkut. Still, it's better than a great deal of the stuff that animates the Left now a days with the strong emphasis on "lived experience" and subjectivity.  At least the New Atheist crowd held to scientific facts, and those facts didn't change depending on your identity group's history of trauma.


I do miss Berkut

[HVC]

I do miss Berkut

He won't be back while Musk is being all Musk like, I don't think. If he even wants to come back, that is.

[Sheilbh]

Where are 'soft on crime' policy announcements promulgated and by whom?

I think ineffective governmental and police bureaucracies have more to do with police appearing to "not be doing their job properly" than some intentional political decisions to not bother with doing routine policing. 

I think it's a mistake to not view that as policy. Indeed I think part of the problem with our politics is that increasingly policy is "done" by independent or quasi-independent, non-political expert committees, bodies or institutions. They're not democratically elected or accountable so it's not being announced in the Commons but it's still policy. I think this is partly why MPs are so parochial now and actually mainly doing casework for their constituents (often dealing with one part or other of the state) is that their role is kind of as a mitigant, especially as any attempt at political direction (like respond to every reported crime) is seen as "politicising", say, the Met or NHS England.

For example in the case of policing, I think a big part of it is Cressida Dick's strategy which was around closing down lots of redundant, under-utilised, inefficient police stations and moving to (what to my ears sounds like more of an American model) a model of bigger central police stations with police out and about in vehicles. The theory was more efficient and cheaper, but also more responsive in the event of a big issue because instead of pulling from loads of small stations you can pull from a few large ones. That was her statement on taking up her position as Commissioner (on appointment by Sadiq Khan and Amber Rudd).

I think that is directly linked to the rise of absolute indifference to "low-level" crime. Partly because they're not there (researchers have now shown that, unexpectedly, the areas around closed police stations experienced big increases particularly in low level crimes and that police stations were far more likely to be closed in deprived areas so it's experienced more by those communities). But also I wonder if even just psychologically moving from a station in a small area to a bigger central station with police vehicles mentally shifts what police think they're there to do.

And I think with the Met especially it has gone too far and needs to be split into a police force for London that reports to the Mayor who sets strategic objectives/key policies, but with the Met having operational independence within that and the more national/sophisticated responsibilities like counter-terrorism, sophisticated fraud etc moving into  better funded National Crime Agency reporting to the Home Secretary etc etc.

[HVC]

Another Boeing crash. This time in Korea. 179 deaths. Are these happening more frequently with Boeing, or is it just an observer bias thing?

[DGuller]

Based on what I gathered so far, it seems like human factor across the board was much more relevant than it being Boeing.  The plane had an engine issue, seemed to have functioning hydraulics and yet attempted to land without being configured for landing in any way, and then was finished off by a negligent design of the runway. 

Something probably did fail, but that failure was probably not handled properly.  From what I know, you can lower the landing gear manually on 737, so having engine issues, no slats or spoilers, and no landing gear, requires either three very different failures simultaneously, or one failure making the crew not do the rest of the stuff they needed to do to land the plane safely.

[HVC]

I heard bird strike. So yeah, not a Boeing thing specifically this time, my bad for posting in such a way as to imply such, more that it seems like more crashes in general and they're all Boeing.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah they had all the 737 Max issues which I think were more their fault.

[DGuller]

If it turns out that the South Korean flight crew mishandled the emergency and turned a minor problem into a catastrophe, it wouldn't be the first or even the second time.  If I recall correctly, there was even an episode of Mayday dedicated to all the South Korean crashes caused by authoritarianism in the cockpit.  That said, the episode then concluded with how the culture changed and that this should no longer be an issue.