Get in touch.
Protest are they for Change or just Unnecessary Disruption:
One of the core elements of a democracy is our right to free speech and a right to protest however, although we have these rights not all campaigns are treated equally. Not all causes are adopted by the public will and therefore just because a minority can does that mean they should.
The protests:
In the news we have seen an increase in protestors taking direct action on the M25 with the aim to disrupt drivers to garner media attention to influence change. With the aim to improve insulation of Britains instead of warming hearts the disruption caused has left protestors out in the cold.
Now I am not against protest or the power of the individual as many of our key moments have come from a small number but many methods are flawed. The 3.5% rule as an example is a principle that so long as 3.5% of the population agree with an action engaging this can influence government decisions. Now to put this into a context the insulate britain protests are headed by a small minority numbering at most a hundred from evidence. Extinction rebellion was in the 1000s and in Leicester BLM had 4000 individuals.
Now 3.5% of UKs population is 2391190 so many of these protests are a long way off of the influential minority.
So how can you have an impact?
You must take the population with you or offer a sensible alternative. Many individuals of these groups often scoff when people question their actions or intentions telling people to do their own research but this does nothing but forces people away from their cause. Campaigners that share research provide resources and are able to work with other groups are often more anecdotally more successful with their campaigns. Looking at campaigns such as Anatonias Law for care home reform, the moves made my the Pet Theft Reform team, Finns law, Tuks Law as well as larger organisations to influence changes. These campaigns however have benefited from the benefit of research they then add in the emotional component which brings people with them.
Take some of Insulate Britains own points:
Their targets of getting central government to change insulation when planning is a district or unitary council issue. A points they are raising is about new homes being built to a standard, yet they do not focus on shoddy developers with documented evidence of cut corners on their builds. They have no strategy to inform house buyers of their rights so they can challenge developers or to work with communities to block inadequate development taking place. This however is also difficult to achieve when they have no firm targets to influence house building targets. So why are they not targeting councils to adopt a higher standard of housing or working with HORNET to influence changes to house building’s standards tackling property developers as they did with leaseholds and as they are still working on with Fleecehold properties.
Issues such as fleecehold properties are an issue that planners (civil servants) do not want to tackle pressure on elected officials in the right way would help to lobby for change. Or better yet get involved to influence the change on the doorstep. The second point they are campaigning for is for government to pay for insulation of old homes to be levelled up to a standard, but without a clear standard this will always be difficult. The green grant scheme had this option but wasn’t well adopted and if the government bring it back in as an incentive businesses or suppliers up the cost or it becomes another tax burden.
The other reason why many have little sympathy for this particular cause however is strategies are already in place to tackle it. There are green grants households can apply for on existing dwellings particularly for the less well off in society. However rather than promote this change and encourage people to take up the scheme by going to the following link: Simple Energy Advice check your eligibility and see if you can get help.
https://carrcenter.hks.harvard.edu/files/cchr/files/CCDP_005.pdf
https://www.ncvo.org.uk/policy-and-research/campaigning-policy
https://www.gov.uk/improve-energy-efficiency
https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/utilities/free-cavity-loft-insulation/
Locally Tackling Pet Theft What Can We Do?
Speaking with Suffolks Police and Crime Commissioner we discuss Pet Theft in Suffolk and outline the need for reform to our laws to better safeguard our four-legged family members.
We all recognize that Pet Theft is sweeping across our United Kingdom and in Suffolk, we are equally as afflicted by this rise in crime as other counties. This report will be following on from my conversation with Suffolks Police and Crime Commissioner Tim Passmore.
Tim as an avid dog owner and lover was very open about the impacts on Pet Owners across the county. Now in Suffolk, we have eighteen reported cases of Dog Thefts. This is a clear distinction which we need to make as cases are reported as Thefts not as specific crimes. Now as I spoke to Tim he expressed his views candidly about how “Adhorrent the crime is and how it affects owners like a child being taken from them”.
The importance to remember here was that local constabularies are obligated to record the crime as a possession theft as they are recorded as an object first. Tim makes the clear point that the animal is a living being and it is my view that we should rightly view them as such this links back to Animal Welfare Sentencing reform which would recognize a greater severity for sentencing guidelines. We still have work to do in this area as we need to apply this sentence in my view to a specific act of UK law. Now whilst Suffolk Constabulary records these thefts as both traditional item theft and pet thefts is certainly useful in tackling this crime. It is also where we must recognize not only the distress that this has caused on owners but also on how wider implications of sentencing could be applied against those that commit these offenses.
Presently the UK like other countries applies sentences in a discounted way where the crimes will have been recorded but the time they have served will be served concurrently or at the same time as the first sentence. Rather than a cumulative approach where if the offender commits a series of offenses the sentences do not sequentially add on to each other. Now in the UK, we have three specific types of sentencing Suspended sentences where the duration is less than a year this is often how Pet Theft is dealt with nationally which also highlights the need for reform. The aim would be to push for a Determinate sentence were unlike the suspended sentence where the sentence is held unless the guilty party reoffends a determinate sentence sees half of the offender’s sentence in prison and half in the community. This is where the probationary sentence comes into account and ensures that the guilty party does not re-offend. Indeterminate sentences are used to identify where the courts can use their powers to determine a minimum imposed sentence which could be used where you have a repeat offender or when the individual is linked to organized crime.
Now Tim highlights that the maximum sentence for theft is up to seven years but this does not mean that the judiciary has to sentence up to this amount and the guidance for the courts may be tied from using tougher sentences. Now why is this the case, one area is culpability is an area that should be reflected on in a specific act because although this relates to the planning and coordination of the theft. Guidelines then have to further examine the level of harm to an individual now this form of measurement is a subjective matter and should not necessarily be applied in this way. If the animal itself was recognized as having harm applied to it by recognizing the conditions or impact on it and the distress to owner or keeper in a way that is more referencable to the courts this could likely lead to tougher sentences. We went on to discuss the importance of the Animal Welfare Sentencing Bill both its importance and significance as a way to develop specific and tougher sentences but also as a way to build on changes brought in at a later stage.
In terms of trends, Tim says that present data does not trend to any particular breed but as always high demand or popular breeds can be easier targets as the criminals are aware they can move them on easier. Now from this, I draw the conclusion that they are also aware of how much these popular breeds fetch online and as a result the value of the breed specifically. Whereas we could draw from this less well-known breeds may not be as identifiable and whilst we certainly should not let our guard down as dogs are stolen for a variety of reasons where we must be vigilant to protect our precious pets. There is no evidence as of yet to suggest that breeds are stolen to order and therefore business owners should remain vigilant of their risk to theft but they are at no greater risk of opportunistic thieves than the general public. Now building on my previous article Tim points out that whilst these thieves are stealing pets from gardens as well as kennels they have a variety of methods and are not deterred from entering a house to steal a litter of puppies. Now, this highlights ways you can reduce the risk of break-ins by methods such as alarm systems which must be armed, CCTV, robust locks, and not advertising any litters of puppies or kittens which may attract opportunistic thieves. One area which Tim points out that we have not spoken about is how something which may not be outrightly suspicious may be a tool for criminal groups using distraction theft to talk to the owner and cause someone to let their guard down and allow someone to abduct their pet.
https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/centres-institutes/centre-criminology/blog/2016/01/more-one-crime-sentencing-multiple-offences
https://www.lawtonslaw.co.uk/resources/sentencing/
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/crown-court/item/theft-general/
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magistrates-court/item/theft-general/