Long before I ever knew of the ‘Baby’ case and got Operation Frankish going I spent many years studying strategy throughout history. I enjoyed learning of methods that worked and those that repeatedly did not work.
Not exactly a light-hearted topic to lead with at a party but I was fascinated by it all – the strategy, the psychology behind a thing, and the historical successes and failures.
I’ve been able to draw from that to some extent and build some of it into OF. I cannot make the following more clear. The ONLY way you will ever achieve real change in this country is to engage with the body politic one way or another. It simply cannot be done without doing that. The only hypothetical way that great change could be achieved without engaging with the body politic would be some sort of popular civil uprising. But there is absolutely no way that this will happen in Britain. It’s just not in our nature and culture to have a coup and remove the government by force. This will not happen. Anyone that made serious noises about such a thing would be shut down and busted before they really got going.
Besides, good luck facing the collective might of your own military and police while you have… nothing.
Anyone who thinks such a thing is viable in this country is either a young student or a fantasist. There is barely the will for men to step up to the plate and do some dead easy stuff – they aren’t going to turn into a legion of renegades any time soon. Britain isn’t South or Central America where there seems to be a coup every month. Besides – even the coups in those regions aren’t truly organic, there is usually big money from the outside invested in the ‘rebels’ and not given out of charity and goodwill but to destabilise a nation or depose an enemy of the US.
Impotent anger has never changed anything or proven a winning tactic – ever. It is completely insane when you see those who smash up and burn down their own communities, especially over in the US. The government are always okay with this sort of emotional outburst. They know how to deal with that sort of civil unrest. It achieves very little for those who do it though – other than to come off looking like an insane gang of thugs with a trashed neighbourhood. The general public aren’t going to lend support to fire starters and looters are they? You’ll make a lot of noise doing that but you will never be taken seriously behaving that way.
The only way open to us in this country is through some form of engagement with the political process. If anyone can suggest a viable alternative way that misses out the government and all its machinations then I’d very much love to hear it.
When it comes to engaging with the body politic in this country you have three choices. Firstly, you can buy it. Literally. Everyone must know that governments and politicians can be bought. However only oligarchs, corporations and international banking cartels have the resources and reach to do this. Since we still fight and scrape to fund £2k Operations then I don’t see us buying up politicians any day soon. Secondly, you can BE the Government. Good luck doing that since we’ve had a two party duopoly forever.
The third and final way is simply pressure a Government to such a degree that they eventually buckle and yield. This is really the only pragmatic option left open to us. This is the only avenue worth going down in this country in the 21st century.
Nothing else matters or will work save for bringing such pressure down on key political figures that they eventually fold and in doing so you make an advance. Having made that advance then you set about making another. You keep doing this until such a time you meet your objectives or something very close to them.
This is the only strategy or method that has any hope of success. People should absolutely keep on helping out the big charities if they so wish, but unless they are leading with a definite model of robustly lobbying government for specific policy change then nothing will alter in terms of punishments and deterrents. You can by all means give to crowd-funders for the vet fees of a specific animal, but you obviously know that this won’t help deter or punish anyone for anything.
You cannot go on that way because these cases are going to balloon to such a level that there simply won’t be the resources to rescue and treat all the victims. It will get so out of control and so common that the public will literally be economically exhausted trying to raise funds to patch the victim back up.
You cannot go forward dealing with just the symptoms. You must deal with the cause and the cause is obviously this culture of being lenient toward abusers which obviously emboldens them and sends out the message that they can act without fear of true punishment.
You have to repair a society on some solid foundations. The first simple thing to do is restore some sanity in law. By scrapping home curfews and the failed tagging system we’d save the public millions every year. Not to mention the fact that we’d be letting go of a system that has proven to be a failure, time and time again. Only the contractors benefit and possibly their mates in high office. The guilty benefit as well of course since it’s a clear non-punishment. Being given a home curfew is akin to a child being grounded. It’s pathetic and expensive and its useless. It needs to go.
By introducing mandatory prison sentences for animal and child abusers you immediately send out a new message to them – that the nation is changing and their ilk won’t be easily tolerated any more. It wouldn’t prevent them all but it would serve as a mechanism to slow the insanity down until we could figure out where to go from there.
By introducing longer sentences you at least ensure those who are convicted abusers cannot claim any more victims for a much longer period of time. It does something else though – It changes the dynamic among police forces. It’s obvious that if substantial prison terms are handed to animal abusers, child abusers, and those found in possession of abuse material relating to one/both, that the police chiefs would order that it be given higher priority. That means they will be given more resources to combat both and that means that they will reel in many more perpetrators.
These gains would introduce a measure of stability upon which other gains could be built. I’ve said before (for example) that it’s blatantly obvious that it’s just far too easy for almost anyone to get a dog with no criteria expected from that person at all. There are simply far too many dogs in this country today and not enough responsible owners to take them on. This must be addressed with radical action or else the dog rescue centres are going to be so overwhelmed one day that they won’t be able to cope any longer. We expect someone to take lessons and sit a test to prove they are road worthy. Why? Because to not do so would end in disaster. Yet there is no such test or requirement to show your suitability to own a dog – including big and powerful breeds that need a responsible owner. What happens? It ends in tragedy on an industrial scale.
If the dogs aren’t abused then they are abandoned or so poorly socialised that they are a danger in themselves. Breed Specific Legislation is a total and utter farce – It would be much better not to judge the breed but judge the potential owner. It should be almost a privilege to own a dog and not some fickle decision made with zero thought and absolutely no quality control on who is getting these dogs. I’d sooner have 25% of the dogs that we have today if that entire 25% were all cared for as they should be, by responsible people that raise dogs as they should be raised – family pet and friend.
I’m not suggesting a mass extermination programme by the way – but I really think there is a strong case for limiting breeding to get the numbers of dogs down to a more manageable level at the same time as raising the bar in terms of owners.
You would eventually have a culture in which people would accept that owning a dog came with a new set of expectations that would weed out the fickle and the stupid. It’s true that you’d still get those working their way around it. But then there are those that drive with no licence and insurance as well and you wouldn’t then say that this means we may as well abolish the licence and insurance for all drivers. It simply means that if they get caught doing so they are committing a fairly serious criminal offence – they are punished.
This is how you win. There is no other way. You need to become excellent at this way as there is no other viable answer. It can be slow, laborious, painstaking – So what? Name me one major change for the better that wasn’t? There are none. Anything that comes far too easily probably isn’t worth having. The thing to keep in mind is that when you do win it tends to be for keeps. Child labour wasn’t illegal in this country until 1966.
“The first legal steps taken to end the occurrence of child labour was enacted more than fifty years ago. In 1966, the nation adopted the UN General Assembly of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. This act legally limited the minimum age for when children could start work at the age of 14. But 23 years later in 1989 the Convention on the Rights of Children was adopted and helped to reduce the exploitation of children and demanded safe working environments. They all worked towards the goal of ending the most problematic forms of child labour.”
You’ll never see us go BACK to the days of child labour as they once were in this nation. When that legal change was made it creates a cultural and social change in which no one sees it as acceptable anymore – Where their ancestors once may have.
98 years ago there was no vote for women. Not due to the fact that society hated and oppressed women, it was just the culture of the day. No one really saw it was odd until someone did. Once again, you’ll probably never see those voting rights revoked.
The NHS was only formed in 1948. I guess prior to that you probably rubbed lard on your chest if you had pneumonia and hoped for the best. The state pension wasn’t some natural occurrence, actual people had to conceive of it and make it a reality. It was first introduced in 1909 and before that I suppose that if someone lived to an old age at all and fell on hard times – they were left to rot.
Note that in every single one of those instances it took a political act to ensure the change was enshrined in law. This should serve as a clue as to our best chance of real change in 2016.