A Bit Hard To Believe

Entry posted by caldrail September 10, 2009

260 views

Life in urban England is often portrayed as a struggle against ignorance, decay, violence, and theft. I've made the same noises myself sometimes, so I guess there's a little truth to it, having witnessed the depressing state that society sometimes gets into. Of course there are those who want to stop the destructive tendencies in our midst. A worthy cause, or perhaps a cause to further someones poltiical career?

The trouble with dealing with problems of this nature is the uncompromising response it requires. To stifle violence one may well need more than the courage of their conviction, especially if the offenders sense they are stronger than you.. All too often, we don't want to get involved. Self preservation is a natural instinct though perhaps not our most glorious one. On the other hand, there are incidents in which those willing to stand their ground pay the price in injury or even death.

Public behaviour seems to rising to the fore just of late. In particular, the easy availability of alcohol and the gimmicks designed to sell it are very much in focus as recent calls for controls on alcohol sales have demonstrated. However, things have gotten a litle more ridiculous. It's been suggested that mock fights should be staged on city streets in England to test and provoke public response. The idea, as far as I can tell, is almost to educate the public that they too can help maintain law and order on the streets. Possibly they can. However I wonder if this 'training' isn't more likely to result in more casualties, because confrontations are as likely to provoke violence as constrain it, and much depends on perceived threat. The attempt to create a community spirit that is willing to risk violence brings with it the risk of vigilante behaviour, and as is often recorded in news stories, the risk of finding yourself on the wrong side of the law in trying to confront others is very real, whatever politicans like to say.

I'm reminded of a story I once read in a magazine many years ago, a true one apparently, although much of the detail I've forgotten since my teenage years. It concerned four men in the 'Wild West' at the end of the nineteenth century. They planned to rob a bank, and strode calmly inside holding the good people at gunpoint whilst they collected the money as quietly as possible. Unfortunately for them, an ice-cream seller (proof this wasn't a 'one-horse' town) recognized some of the baddies, and alerted the townsfolk. When the four robbers left the bank thinking they'd gotten away with a healthy sack of customers cash, they found themselves facing a town full of armed and aggrieved citizens. They were all shot dead.

Is that really what British authorities want? The Police always tell us to phone them in such situations, and certainly the firearm laws in Britain preclude shooting villains without some form of legal restraint. The same applies to baseball bats and missiles. We are allowed 'appropriate' levels of violence to defend ourselves. Are we then allowed the same to confront others? What is 'appropriate' levels of violence? The considered appraisal of a judge in a courtroom, or the snap decision in the heat of the moment? It seems a bit hard to believe that to counter violence the public are being asked to risk it.

Cattle Dog of the Week

On my way to a session at the College yesterday I bumped into an old chap walking his dog, an incredibly cute canine with perky ears and stumpy legs. We got chatting and naturally I asked what breed it was. He did tell me the name, but I've forgotten it. However he explained it was a Swedish Cattle Dog.

Oh? They have dwarf cattle in Sweden? The old chap was right. It is a bit hard to believe.