There's crime. And then there's HD Skycopter crime

What about the glassing, the beating, the robbery that doesn't happen in "riot week"?

It's natural, when you're a victim of crime, to wish horrible things on the people who did it. And I suppose we've been a collective victim of crime this week, seeing our country burn, shops looted, people attacked and rules broken.

It's a crime against all of us, what's happened. And those of us who've suffered at the hands of thieves, or attackers, or burglars, or whatever, will know the feeling: you wish for instance vengeance against the lowlifes who've done this; you want to see them suffer, and pay for what they've done. You want to crack their skulls and kick them in the face. You want to give them pain. It's a normal and understandable response.

The impact that crimes have on us, making us feel these horrible thoughts, is why people deserve to be punished for what they've done. But then, maybe a while later, the anger and the fear subsides, and you realise that, perhaps, it's probably best if the people who broke your window or nicked your telly weren't hung, drawn and quartered.

(It's no use telling me, by the way, that I'd think differently if I'd been a victim of crime, because I have been many times in the past, and I'm afraid to tell you that it hasn't turned me into a rabid watercannon-wielding Charles Bronson wannabe. If anything, it's made me more liberal about how to try and think about these things. Sorry if that offends you.)

It's right to punish those who've committed these crimes. But I wonder whether it's right to punish them more severely than the people who commit this kind of crime week in, week out.

There's a whole level of crime that we hardly get to hear about because it doesn't appear on the news, and probably doesn't even appear in the local rag either -- the police, concerned about "fear of crime", don't tell journalists about every single offence that takes place. Unless you've got someone in magistrates' courts 24/7, as we've seen this week, you won't find out about the low-level crimes and the kind of people who commit them.

But we are talking about it this week. A petition calling on rioters to "loose" their benefits has topped 100,000; a council says it is going to evict a parent for the alleged crimes of their child. We want revenge, it seems. It's completely understandable, while the anger is still raw. But what message does it send if we are giving disproportionate punishments to people who took part in last week's riots?

That ordinary crime doesn't count, perhaps, unless it's captured on the HD Skycopter or part of a big moral outrage, perhaps. You can chuck a broken bottle at someone, break a window or push a pint glass into someone's face at any other time and you might get a little ticking off or a community sentence, but do a bit of opportunistic nicking in a time of anarchy and you'll be sent away for a good few weeks.

Well, that's fine, if that's the message we want to send, I suppose. But what about those people who happened to be victims of crime in the wrong week? Do we just pat them on the head and tell them that, sorry, you just weren't the right time of victim, your crime didn't happen to take place during the riots?

I just wonder how people feel who were on the receiving end of violence and assaults, and who have seen their attackers walk free from court, and how they feel now about seeing people jailed for stealing a bottle of water instead. Sorry, your crime wasn't important. You being glassed, or beaten up, wasn't important enough, because it didn't happen during a riot.

In this week's riot panic, it's all been about the perpetrators. Maybe that's understandable, but maybe we should give more thought to the victims -- not just of these crimes, but the kind of crimes that happen week in, week out.

And whether we really are sending out the right message.

Patrolling the murkier waters of the mainstream media
Getty
Show Hide image

The UK must reflect on its own role in stoking tension over North Korea

World powers should follow the conciliatory approach of South Korea, not its tempestuous neighbour. 

South Korea’s president Moon Jae-in has done something which took enormous bravery. As US and North Korean leaders rattle their respective nuclear sabres at one another, Jae-in called for negotiations and a peaceful resolution, rejecting the kind of nationalist and populist response preferred by Trump and Kim Jong-un.

In making this call, Jae-in has chosen the path of most resistance. It is always much easier to call for one party in a conflict to do X or Y than to sit round a table and thrash through the issues at hand. So far the British response has sided largely with the former approach: Theresa May has called on China to clean up the mess while the foreign secretary Boris Johnson has slammed North Korea as “reckless”.

China undoubtedly has a crucial role to play in any solution to the North and South Korean conflict, and addressing the mounting tensions between Pyongyang and Washington but China cannot do it alone. And whilst North Korea’s actions throughout this crisis have indeed been reckless and hugely provocative, the fact that the US has flown nuclear capable bombers close to the North Korean border must also be condemned. We should also acknowledge and reflect on the UK’s own role in stoking the fires of tension: last year the British government sent four Typhoon fighter jets to take part in joint military exercises in the East and South China seas with Japan. On the scale of provocation, that has to rate pretty highly too.

Without being prepared to roll up our sleeves and get involved in complex multilateral negotiations there will never be an end to these international crises. No longer can the US, Britain, France, and Russia attempt to play world police, carving up nations and creating deals behind closed doors as they please. That might have worked in the Cold War era but it’s anachronistic and ineffective now. Any 21st century foreign policy has to take account of all the actors and interests involved.

Our first priority must be to defuse tension. I urge PM May to pledge that she will not send British armed forces to the region, a move that will only inflame relations. We also need to see her use her influence to press both Trump and Jong-un to stop throwing insults at one another across the Pacific Ocean, heightening tensions on both sides.

For this to happen they will both need to see that serious action - as opposed to just words - is being taken by the international community to reach a peaceful solution. Britain can play a major role in achieving this. As a member of the UN Security Council, it can use its position to push for the recommencing of the six party nuclear disarmament talks involving North and South Korea, the US, China, Russia, and Japan. We must also show moral and practical leadership by signing up to and working to enforce the new UN ban on nuclear weapons, ratified on 7 July this year and voted for by 122 nations, and that has to involve putting our own house in order by committing to the decommissioning of Trident whilst making plans now for a post-Trident defence policy. It’s impossible to argue for world peace sat on top of a pile of nuclear weapons. And we need to talk to activists in North and South Korea and the US who are trying to find a peaceful solution to the current conflict and work with them to achieve that goal.

Just as those who lived through the second half of the 20th century grew accustomed to the threat of a nuclear war between the US and Russia, so those of us living in the 21st know that a nuclear strike from the US, North Korea, Iran, or Russia can never be ruled out. If we want to move away from these cyclical crises we have to think and act differently. President Jae-in’s leadership needs to be now be followed by others in the international community. Failure to do so will leave us trapped, subject to repeating crises that leave us vulnerable to all-out nuclear war: a future that is possible and frightening in equal measure.

Caroline Lucas is the MP for Brighton Pavilion.