doing the left and right thing with a third tier

updated 11aug24

Before you are invited to spend time at His Majesty's pleasure (slung in jail) for a crime that didn't exist a week ago, please don't forget to leave a note to tell your friends what sort of cake you would like to be supplied with your escape file...

But hold on a moment, you may find yourself sharing your cell with a politician...

Most governments make a big thing of the need for law and order, discouraging those who want to short-circuit the democratic process with violent insurrection. In other words, preventing rioting with bricks and firebombs. Most citizens tend to agree with the use of state-sanctioned violence to stop rioting, as long as it is delivered within the context of a democratically chosen and accountable government. 

Now it starts to get awkward for the present Administration, which (presently) enjoys absolute control of parliament and its various functions, due to the support of just 20% of the electorate. Yes, 80% of the electorate had no say in the choice of Keir Starmer as PM. According to our arcane electoral process, this may be lawful in the view of the "law" and the fossils of Tony Blair's constitutional contrivance - the Supreme Court, which ultimately interprets the law and arbitrates its contradictions.   

So in the context of the row over differential two-tier policing, where the establishment of the tribes of US and THEM have divided the nation... at the behest of we're not quite sure who.  Was that a Police decision to treat different communities differently, or are they acting on politicians' orders?

Us is apparently all those who are not part of "them". The usual US suspects include those surrounding Ricky Jones, the Kent councillor who was inconveniently captured inciting a crowd of activist supporters in a woolly minded protest against racism and hate (ironically) to murder those loosely identified by Starmer as far right.

Which led to (former) Kent Labour councillor Ricky Jones being suspended after telling a protest peace and harmony gathering in Walthamstow that Starmer's far right fascists need to have their throats cut.'

Ricky Jones was filmed during a protest in east London, with the crowd cheering as he appeared to gesture slitting his throat, Oh dear.  

Keir Starmer introduced swift justice for those he snarlingly describes as "far right thugs", although justice for the policewoman in the Manchester airport incident with her broken nose, is still in abeyance at the time of writing.

Now then, Lawfare - which presently seems to means the subjective manipulation and contrivance of law to create new forms of offence to persecute political opponents - should work both ways.  So let's now consider a campaign of citizens' arrests under the Bribery Act 2010 that says that attempting to buy votes with cash or promises is illegal.

Which then must mean all politicians are guilty?  The crime of bribery is described in Section 1 as occurring when a person offers, gives or promises to give a "financial or other advantage" to another individual in exchange for "improperly" performing a "relevant function or activity".  

As with much law, the interpretation can be quite subjective - so I checked with the AI engines of Gemini (google) and Grok (X - in playful mode)  which agrees…

“…Trying to buy votes in the UK with cash or gifts is a big no-no, just like it is in the US. It's against the law, specifically the Representation of the People Act 1983. This law makes it clear that offering or accepting money or gifts in exchange for votes is a criminal offence. So, if you're caught trying to sway voters with cash or promises, you could be facing a fine and up to a year in the slammer.

"But wait, there's more! The law also applies to those who solicit, accept, or receive such bribes. So, if you're the one offering the goodies, and the voter happily takes the bait, you're both in hot water.

Now, I know what you're thinking – "But what if I just really, really want that policy?"

Well, I hate to break it to you, but the law doesn't care. It's all about maintaining the integrity of the democratic process."

The evidence is absolute and complete. Politicians were trying to do deals with electors to buy their votes throughout the entire election campaign. Plenty of video written and spoken evidence. And it's no good politicians saying that the law has never previously been applied in such a pre-emptive and Draconian manner - because that defence was dismissed instantly when tried on by those banged up in short order for hitherto unprecedented online "crimes".

So why don't we use some of the facilities that are proving so successful in dealing with rioters, and have politicians rounded up and prosecuted for their crimes?

Should we also consider the complicity of the police who have just been given a 4.75% pay award - hardly a bribe, but when hanging around doing nothing while waiting for trouble to show up, they will be paid overtime. So what about the apparently wildly exaggerated threat of nationwide riots that never happened - although police were standing/sitting by, collecting their overtime pay. (For completeness, the 4.75% increase is not payable until September 1st.)

So all that happened on the nights when the UK was battened down and braced for impact was that the shock and awe tactics were credited with deterring virtually all far right violence from taking place. With no actual evidence to support the theory... it's amusing to speculate that the rumour of mass demos could have been put about by organised criminal gangs who would take advantage of the redeployment of regular police to go out and nick some more cars.  (Surely not coppers after a bit of OT?) 

If we allow politicians to continue to make promises they do not keep, will we have a third tier to the policing process - to add to the one that goes after far-right demonstrators with Starmer fantasy "standing army" dressed in riot gear, and another tier that asks "protected communities" very politely to leave their weapons at the mosque and - and if nothing is done about election bribery, there will be a third tier that does nothing at all when it comes to enforcing the bribery laws with politicians.

This is an opportunity to make politicians behave responsibly and think about promises and ambiguous statements about "no new taxes"-  in the same way that online keyboard warriors are being threatened over the consequences of their actions before they click the POST button. 

This may even spare members of the 20% tyranny from being strung up by the 80% of the electorate who will want compensation for having been pursued and convicted hammered after the outrageous exploitation of a demonstrably gameable voting system that needs root and branch reform.

But we're open to plea bargaining - if the politicians come quietly and agree to implement a fairer voting format that will engage the whole of the electorate, and cannot be gamed to result in such absurdly skewed results and thus give us all some hope they can make a difference on an ongoing basis (check the WOTE suggestions on this site)  then we can hold another election in which we can have some confidence of a fairer result.  Or could that plea bargain be construed as a bribe?

Oh dear, things get so messy when frenzied and righteous lawyers stomp over traditional rights and freedoms in jackboots, don't they?

Last word (for now) to Grok... (playful mode)

"A citizen's arrest is a fascinating concept, isn't it? However, before we get ahead of ourselves and start handcuffing politicians left and right, let's take a step back and consider the legal implications.

In the United Kingdom, the Bribery Act of 2010 is indeed a thing, and it's not something to be trifled with. It makes it an offence to offer, promise, or give a bribe, as well as to request, agree to receive, or accept a bribe. But here's the kicker: the act doesn't explicitly grant you the power to perform a citizen's arrest based solely on a suspicion of bribery.

That being said, if you witness a politician engaging in bribery, you can report the incident to the police. They'll investigate and, if necessary, arrest the politician.

As for the politician's promises of favourable policies, well, that's just politics, isn't it? Politicians have been making promises they can't keep since the dawn of time. It's like a universal law of the universe or something.

So, while you might be tempted to don your superhero cape and take the law into your own hands, it's probably best to leave the arrests to the professionals. Instead, you can channel your inner activist and work towards creating a more transparent and accountable political system. And who knows, maybe one day, politicians will actually keep their promises. But let's not hold our breath, shall we?"

Funny you should say that, since that's exactly what this website is all about - realdemocracy.uk