Some geography stuff - mostly not about Brexit - to read...

Free to a loving owner - the declining villages of Southern Europe

US Gun Ownership 
 

"According to the survey, which was conducted among 1,001 Americans in the aftermath of the Orlando nightclub shooting, 36 percent of U.S. adults either own a firearm personally, or live with someone who does. That's the lowest rate of gun ownership in the CBS poll going back to 1978. It's down 17 points from the highest recorded rate in 1994, and nearly 10 percentage points from 2012."

Not quite what we take from the news about guns in the USA.


 
Sluggish European economies - a long view
 

"First, in 1900, European countries were not only the world’s economic and military powers. They were also among the most populous countries in the world. By contrast today, Russia is the only country in the top 10 most populous. Then Germany is 16th and France is 20th. More importantly, some of the new demographic powers, India, Nigeria, Egypt, Mexico, the Philippines and Indonesia, are growing at a healthy clip, as can be seen from their Total Fertility Ratios (TFR, see table) whereas European countries are growing very slowly at TFRs that will ensure stagnation or shrinkage in the sizes of their population."

Always good to see geographers taking a long view (unlike most economists) of the reasons for Europe's sluggish economy. Also reminds us why we need immigration.


Brits still think they're working class
 

"Despite a long-term decline in the size of the working class to just 25%, the proportion of the public who identify themselves as working class has remained stable over time, says the survey. Significantly, it finds that with middle class occupations who still regard themselves as working class are more likely to be socially conservative on issues such as immigration."

Some more demography - and yet again a reminder that geography is just as (perhaps more) important as economics.


How left and right miss the point about unaffordable housing
 

"But I soon discovered, after looking past the cultural distinctions, that both conferences had the same message. Speakers and attendees at each recognized, whether they were predisposed or not towards free-market ideology, that the lack of a true market in cities was causing the affordable housing crisis. That is, existing residents buy homes in destination cities, and then utilize land-use regulations and anti-growth public officials to prevent new construction. This creates artificial shortages, driving up prices and pushing out poorer demographics."

And again we're reminded that too much debate about housing simply ignores the spatial realities - that pesky geography.


Brexit doesn't mean we'll need to build fewer houses
 

"In summary, the current basis for UK estimates of housing need are already predicated on a 45% drop to total net-in-migration by 2021, so for Brexit to have any downward pressure on planned housing targets in Local Plans, it would need to be assumed that Brexit resulted in European net-migration to the UK falling to virtually zero over the medium to long term. This seems unlikely."

A reminder that not only are OAN housing numbers mostly rubbish but Brexit won't change this fact!


The slow death of Southern Europe's villages
 

"In the southern Italian medieval village of Sellia, local mayor and paediatrician Davide Zicchinella published a decree forbidding locals from falling ill and dying. While Zicchinella has admitted that he cannot fight the laws of nature, he’s hoping that his action will prompt elderly residents to take up healthier lifestyles."

The sad tale of how Southern Europe's ancient villages are, quite literally, dying as demography, migration and crap planning leave them as places filled with the old and poor.

.....

Gun control: How do we make soft targets safer?

****

Don't take this as an absolute endorsement of a more liberal attitude to guns more as an observation about the consequences of strict gun control:

In November, Interpol’s secretary general, Ron Noble, noted there are two ways to protect people from such mass shootings: “One is to say we want an armed citizenry; you can see the reason for that. Another is to say the enclaves [should be] so secure that in order to get into the soft target you’re going to have to pass through extraordinary security.”

Noble sees a real problem: “How do you protect soft targets? That’s really the challenge. You can’t have armed police forces everywhere.”

“It makes citizens question their views on gun control,” he noted. “You have to ask yourself, ‘Is an armed citizenry more necessary now than it was in the past, with an evolving threat of terrorism?’” 

This isn't some bearded, overweight, pick-up driving, jar-drinking redneck speaking but the man in charge of Interpol. So perhaps we should listen to what he's saying - if we are to have strict controls over guns how do we make 'soft targets' (schools, shopping malls, beaches, etc.) safer?

....

Is an armed citizenry a barrier to tyranny?

****

I'm not sure - there's good and bad in the gun debate. For sure, it's not guns that kill but the people wielding the guns but, just as surely, the easy availability of guns must increase the chance of guns being used improperly or accidentally.

However, it's hard to fault the "guns stop tyranny" argument:

...if I were a tyrannical US Government, I'd put Texas a square last on my list of states to take over. It has 25 million people and, quite probably, more than one gun per person. Even if you assume that gun ownership is concentrated, you're still looking at 5 million or more heavily armed and motivated citizens who know well the expansive lands of their state. Contrast this with a total of 1.4m active and 0.8m reserve personnel in the entire US Armed Forces and note that the actual gun-toting soldiery won't be even half of that. Unless you planned on levelling the entire state with high explosive, you'd be nuts to try to take on Texas. Britain, by contrast, should be a walk-over.

It's a fair point.

....

Guns, goths and the welfare state

****

It is always depressing when an individual case is used to justify changes to laws, rules or policies. We know from bitter experience that those extreme cases are never a good basis for change even when our instant reaction is "something must be done".

So the presumption in the Daily Mail that the killing of six children in the deliberate burning of a house is somehow the consequence of "the welfare state" suffers from precisely this problem. It is a matter of undeniable fact that most people who benefit from the welfare state do not set fire to their children so as to protect all or part of that benefice.

So on this basis I'm prepared to accept the argument that blaming welfare for Mick Philpott is like blaming the NHS for Harold Shipman - rather overstating the point. Which isn't to say we should debate whether a family as dangerously dysfunctional as Philpott's isn't made more possible by welfare but to say that welfare didn't make Philpott a callous sociopath.

But those who share this view might like to consider a little consistency. Next time there is a murder involving guns perhaps such folk might like to consider that perhaps it's the person rather than the gun who is responsible for the murder. And that without the motive of the murderer that gun would lie there benign and unused.

And perhaps those people might also care to stop trying to parcel up 'hate' into convenient little categories - the latest being Greater Manchester Police's nonsensical categorisation of "sub-cultures" as subject to the thing called "hate crime". Are goths and emos more subject to attack than supporters of one or other football team? Or tramps? Or, indeed, any number of 'groups' that are targeted for their difference by the sad and inadequate. Again we let one tragic case guide policy-making - it won't benefit the putative victims one jot to know, as the boot slams into their head, that this crime will be categorised differently.

By looking for simple answers - for the single culprit for a terrible crime - we fall into to the trap of seeking something other than human failing. For sure other factors are there too, but most often it's not guns or goths or the welfare state. It's an evil man.

....

Running amok...

****

In 'Stand on Zanzibar', John Brunner coined the word: "muckers". This describes someone who flips and engages in a seemingly random and purposeless act of violence usually in a crowded placed like an airport, high street or, dare we mention it, school. The word - in Brunner's etymology was a corruption of the word "amok" which we know and define as:

...behave uncontrollably and disruptively

But more importantly, the derivation of "amok" is:

...mid 17th century: via Portuguese amouco, from Malay amok 'rushing in a frenzy'. Early use was as a noun denoting a Malay in a homicidal frenzy

And this was Brunner's usage - a homicidal frenzy. And they've been around for centuries - probably much longer.

So a question - following the terrible events of the last week, we're talking again about gun control. Now while I'm equivocal about such controls, it does seem to me that we should consider why we get "mockers" rather than just the means by which such men run amok?

....

Guns, choppers and computers - how modern policing is failing us. And a suggestion or two for improvement.

There is getting to be an increasing amount of dissatisfaction with the police. There’s the usual stuff – failing to respond to emergency calls, never being anywhere useful when anyone wants them and being more concerned with paperwork and political correctness than with the real concerns of the public. This has been around for years and complaints of this kind are usually accompanied by comments such as “the ordinary copper does his best, it’s the system, you know”. Or – and this one comes from policemen quite often – “I joined to police to catch criminals and that’s what I want to do.”

However, there’s a new theme emerging – and not just from intemperate bloggers – which suggests that the police’s problem is as much about the ordinary copper as it is about the systems and processes imposed on them by a controlling and directing government. Yet, when you meet ordinary coppers they seem pretty straightforward men and women – a little officious at times but, hey, when was an official not officious!

So where are the problems? I’ve a few suggestions, all of which are about operational policing not about political direction or accountability.

Get rid of the great barracks-like divisional headquarters that make the police seem like some occupying army. Huge blocks of building with small windows just oozing with ill-judged power and domination. Get back to local stations even police houses in villages – with today’s technology there’s no need for big central bureaucracies. People would respond far better – would see the police as a community service rather than an occupying force – if there was easy local access to an open an approachable building.

Stop dressing like a paramilitary army all bulging with buzzing and bleeping technology. Remember that, in the place you’re patrolling in a stab-proof jacket, hi-viz vest and other protections, ordinary folk like me are wandering about oblivious in our t-shirts and jeans.

Place less reliance on technology and more on good judgment. I know, I know – intelligence-led policing requires loads of very fancy technology. And you’ve got to have whizzo computers, special radio systems (which are so good all the parish councils round Cullingworth were asked to sponsor a copper’s mobile phone) and, of course, helicopters and souped up fast cars. Think again – your job is prevention first which means getting out and about, knowing the local community and being on the ground to respond.

Be around more and more prepared to give somebody the time. We all remember that old saw - “if you want to know the time ask a policeman”. It was true and reflected the police as trusted, competent and, above all, approachable. As my neighbour discovered recently, polite requests for or offers of information are often unwelcome – my neighbour was asked whether she’d been drinking.

Place a lower priority on acting as muscle for other enforcement agencies. The priority is preventing crime not serving the political agenda of local authorities, the RSPCA or the taxman. And, if these agencies require help, they should pay for it – that would make them a whole lot less gung-ho.

Think more about allowing people to do the things they want to do rather than thinking of reasons to stop them. Assume good intentions in the photographer, the pedlar, the busker and the drunk rather than presuming that they either are or intend to be trouble.

These suggestions – with perhaps the exception of the first one – could be enacted tomorrow. They don’t require changes to the law, they don’t need additional funds and they don’t require more folk or more admin. Somehow I doubt they will happen.