US ‘Supercop’ Becomes Political Football in UK Riots Fallout (and yes, I’ll explain what that means)
American ‘supercop’ Bill Bratton has become embroiled in the political fallout from the riots that have shaken Britain in recent days, as politicians and police chiefs attempt to blame one another for everything that went wrong, while taking credit for the eventual tough response that appears to have restored order to the streets of London and other cities.
Bratton pioneered the ‘zero tolerance’ approach to policing in New York as Commissioner of the NYPD in the mid-1990s. He was appointed Chief of Police for Los Angeles in 2002, and was credited with reducing crime in the city for six years running.
Prime Minister David Cameron has now called in Bratton to advise the government on tackling gang violence and other crime in UK cities; Cameron had reportedly wanted to make Bratton the new head of London’s Metropolitan Police force, but was unable to do so because of a stipulation that the post can only be offered to a British Citizen.
Before he’s even started work, Bratton has become what we in the UK call a ‘political football’. Now that expression might not make sense to American readers right off, but bear in mind that we’re talking about a British football, or what Americans would call a soccer ball: if you’re aware that in a game of soccer the ball is kicked repeatedly from one end of the field to the other and back again, the meaning of the expression should become clear.
One senior policeman, who happens to be a candidate for the ‘Met’ post, observed sniffily: “I am not sure I want to learn about gangs from an area of America that has 400 of them.” But the fact that LA has lots of gangs shouldn’t disqualify Bratton from helping his British colleagues; his success was in reducing crime, not reducing the number of gangs. And I would imagine that British police will be able to learn a great deal from him, not least because gang violence has been a problem in the US for a lot longer than in the UK.
And the Met could barely do any worse that is already the case. While police officers across Britain displayed great courage last week, there are serious questions over the decisions taken by senior commanders. Whoever was responsible for the decisions that ultimately brought the situation under control, the failings on the second and third days of the riots were the Met’s alone: this piece in the Telegraph lays out the operational blunders, and touches on the crisis in morale resulting from the perception of rank and file officers that they cannot count on the full support of their superiors when the manure hits the fan.
Reflexive anti-American snobbery apparently infests the upper echelons of Britain’s police, just as it does the highest levels of other political and cultural institutions (yes, BBC, I’m looking at you). It’ll be a disgrace if that snobbery hinders efforts to introduce reforms to policing that clearly are desperately needed.
Lot’s of people have a lot more “people smarts” than I have, and the only suprise I feel regarding the present mess is that Britain did not fall apart long ago. The laws, regulations, court rulings, etc all point to an intent to cause Britain to fall into violent anarchy.
Why? What would anyone gain by this sort of thing?
We see it today. Calls for strictor laws. Calls for more laws. Calls for the police to be more active. Excuse me, but these are calls for a very powerful central gov’t, one that runs everything.
Actually, Mike, we “yanks” use the “political football” metaphor in exactly the same way you do so nothing is lost in the transistion “across the pond”.
Oh, and 400 gangs in LA? That problem has already been dealt with. They are now called “urban youth groups” amond the local commentariat.
I wonder if there’s a clear line that HM Gov absolutely will not allow the “troubled youth” to cross. That is, a point at which the authorities will say “OK, we understand you’ve got problems but we can’t tolerate what you’re doing. We have everyone’s safety and property to consider.” I’m not an authoritarian. I don’t think the Met Police should hit the streets en mass every time a hoodie starts acting out. But there should be a limit to to how much venting he’s allowed to do. I’d draw the line at personal injury and/or destruction of property. Smash a window? Out come the truncheons. Set fire to a car? Deploy the water cannons.
That puts a great responsibility on the cops. Their main job should be to make sure a peaceful protest doesn’t become a riot, any way they can. If that fails, their main job should be to protect the lives and property of non-rioting citizens. If they can do that with tender persuasion, excellent. If they have to do it with CS and rubber bullets, so be it. Either way, the pols in charge shouldn’t spend precious minutes, hours, or days wringing their hands and wondering if they’re violating anyone’s human rights.
Is this even possible in Britain today?
Britain would be much happier with former LA City Council Member Janice Hahn (now Congresswoman from the south bay CD36) as an outside consultant, as she was in the habit of paying active gang members big bucks for ‘anti-gang evangelism’ and getting them out of jail on her own recognizance.
The Brits would be quite happy with that reform model, I’m very sure!
Remember the advice we got when George W. over reacted to 9/11 and started bombing Afghanistan? We were told to learn from the Brits’ decades of handling the Irish Republicans: a stiff upper lip and should get used to some unavoidable man made disasters.
Like a lot of successful big-city police chiefs Bratton is something of a self-promoter and publicity hound. (Big-time police chiefs tend to become “legends in their own minds.”) He was successful in New York City because Giuliani was willing to back him up and took the poltical/media heat for “cracking down” on both major and petty crime. (He left NYC after quarrelling with Rudy over who should get credit for the resulting drop in crime.) On the other hand he does know what he is doing which is light years ahead of the good folks at London’s Metropolitan Police.
I don’t know how he has handled LA’s gangs but it has to be better than the anemic, almost cowardly. response of the Brit police to their own gang problem. It was clear for four days that the yobs in the street not only didn’t fear the English cops but had an absolute contempt for them. The British police have been emasculated by decades of sensitivity-training and obesiance to the great god “Diversity.” If Bratton’s recommendaitons are to do any good he will need to get the same support from Cameron that he got from Giuliani in New York. I can tell you that there is absolutely no chance of that happening.
“I am not sure I want to learn about gangs from an area of America that has 400 of them.”
Hey, dummy, that means he knows more about gangs than you do, having vastly more experience.
Not snobbery — just empire protection.
Labour has had 13 years time to fill the police ranks with their cronies, and almost everyone who is anyone in the UK police force has been ‘vetted’ this way, which is why someone with clean hands from the outside who does not owe anyone anything in the UK is needed to reform the entire organisation into functionality.
No, we Americans don’t use “political football” the same way.
In America a “political football” is an idea or issue, an inanimate abstract object, not a person.
It’s a close cousin to “hot button issue”. Abortion is a “hot button issue”. The deficit is a “political football”. Gun control versus the Second Amendment is a “hot button issue”. Clinton’s assault weapons ban was a “political football”.
A “political football” is a short-term issue or tactical concern; a “hot button issue” is the long-term conflict underlying the footballs.
If that sounds silly realize politicians do far worse things than mix metaphors. Hope this helped.