Barnet Eye Special - Coppers with Choppers !

The theme for today is policing in Barnet. I try not to criticise the police too much, because they have a tough job. Last year I had a chat with the chief of police and he agreed that Barnet was probably the safest and most pleasant Borough to be in charge of. That doesn't mean that it doesn't have its challenges and issues. In fact Barnet has challenges because it is probably the most economically diverse Borough in the country. The issues for policing the leafy mansions of Totteridge, where gated mansions and private security firms aim to deter burlgars are completely different to issues facing those living in Grahame Park. I was having a chat with a less esteemed member of the constabulary over a pint and he said a very interesting thing. If a millionaire in Totteridge gets burgled and his house gets ransacked, he expects the chief of police to personally conduct the investigation. If a single mum in Grahame park gets burgled and her house gets ransacked, often she's amazed if anyone actually shows up. Even more interesting was his view that criminality pervades every level of society, it's just that those at the bottom of the pile are not as proficient at it and get caught.

He made the point that the crack addict who robs his local off license has a high chance of getting caught sooner or later and will probably end up in prison. The company director engaging in corporate fraud will most likely never get caught. It isn't just such financial crimes where the expectation of justice is so different. When it comes to issues of spousal abuse and wider sexual crimes, this isn't just the domain of the poor in the borough. The difference is that women in the higher levels of society also feel "shamed" and so are less likely to report. The likely remedy is likely to be financial in the form of a divorce settlement or some cash to "shut up and go away".

Then there is the issue of drugs. Is substance abuse less or more common in the towers of Totteridge or the crack dens of Colindale? As a percentage of the population, it is probably pretty similar. Again, there is probably a disconnect between what justice one could expect if caught. A working class person caught with drugs, will probably just accept the punishment, whatever that may be. For the more well heeled members of society, a bevvy of lawyers and implausable excuses will be deployed. The more well heeled, the more it costs the police to persue even the most trivial of issue.

We have a bit of a schizophrenic attitude to the police. Half the time (when we get a speeding ticket) we moan that "they haven't got anything better to do, but if a speeding driver runs over our child we say "why don't they do something". I discussed the seeming obsession with traffic offenses with the police and they pointed out that you are far more likely to get injured or killed by a speeding driver than be murdered or maimed by a maniac.

We all feel safer when we see bobbies on the beat. They add a general feeling of security to us. Last night, as I played football at Powerleague in Pursley Road, we had a Police helicopter hovering nearby for about 10 minutes. I've no idea what they were up to, maybe monitoring traffic on the M1 or A1 after and incident? To me Coppers in choppers always make me feel a tad uneasy. When I watch Police, Camera, Action ! type documentaries and they show helicopters stalking villains with night vision, it reminds me that the big brother society is moving ever closer. Helicopters are expensive toys, which I've never been entirely convinced deliver value for money.

One of my friends who is a policeman (with old school attitudes to crime) tells me that the big problem is not the police at all. It is the fact that criminals are not locked up quickly enough, for long enough or regularly enough. He tells me that in Barnet, most burglaries are caused by no more than a dozen people. To lock each one up costs a fortune and then they are released, with the police knowing full well that there will be a spike in burglary cases, almost immediately. Of all the crimes, burglary is the one which people feel the justice system is most out of kilter on (with the exception of paedophiles). The police tell me they take the issue seriously and can, with justification, claim that it is not their fault if the courts don't lock people up for long enough.

Last year we had the sad spectacle of a murder in a brothel in Burnt Oak. For many Barnet residents, this seemed like a window to another world. I doubt that many of our local politicans have ever ventured out into Burnt Oak for a night out. The delights of a  pint at the Bald Faced Stag on a Saturday night is a pleasure I cannot imagine Brian Coleman savouring. Sadly it is something I believe all of our politicians should do. Last year on the campaign trail in Mill Hill, I had a friendly chat with Tory Councillor John Hart. The subject of Burnt Oak and his colleagues came up. It may surprise you to hear me say it, but I think John is one of the very few Tories who recognise the value of Burnt Oak and its citizens. John told me he always buys his fruit and veg in Burnt Oak. He told me that the Tories should be courting the small traders who run the shops, the hard working Asian community and everyone else working to earn a crust. He told me that if Matthew Offord won in Hendon, it would be because he'd got out and about in Burnt Oak (at Johns suggestion apparently) and that the 2-300 votes he'd gained as a result of talking to people there may be the difference. As it turned out, Offord won by 106 votes. John was right and it "woz Burnt Oak which won it for Souperman".

It is interesting that in the midst of the riots last year, unlike many working class areas, Burnt Oak didn't see large scale rioting. I suspect that this is because there is a sense of community there. I believe that this is a lesson for the Metropolitan Police in all of this. It is easy to retreat to our bunkers when cash is tight. There is a tendency to return to the squad cars and the choppers to police the Borough. This would be a mistake. I believe that the opposite should be the policy. More engagement with the community and more efforts to get people to work with the police. As Matthew Offord won his seat in Burnt Oak, I'd like to see him start to champion the area and put himself at the forefront of efforts to build bridges between the community and the police. There is no easy solution to keeping Barnet safe. The most important thing is for the Police to ensure that ALL SECTIONS of society see the Police as part of the solution and not part of the problem. Last year I was talking to another friend who is a Met Police officer. We were discussing drug dealers. She said that she'd had to go and tell the mother of a 19 year old drug dealer that he'd been murdered. The mother was devastated, she felt it was her own fault for letting her son ever get involved in gangs and drugs. She said she wished she'd turned him in to the police, the first time she'd found him with drugs. Would you? Would I?


I hope to god it's a decision I never have to make and I never have to regret.

Cannabis farming in Barnet

The story on the Barnet Times website receiving the most hits and getting the most comments right now is concerning a police raid on a "massive cannabis factory in Hendon" -

http://www.times-series.co.uk/news/topstories/9267025.Police_uncover__colossal__cannabis_crop_in_Hendon/?ref=mc

Now I'm not going to discuss the rights and wrongs of the "war on drugs" here. The thing I am interested in is how safe is the skunk weed grown in these establishments? Most of the users, when asked, would say "It's safe, innit, it's just a natural herb". Is the correct? Well lets look at how these factories grow the product. They use hydroponic systems (this means the plants are grown in water, with nutrients and insecticides derectly fed in. This encourages rapid growth. The biggest problem for such intensive setups is an insect known as the red spider mite. Many a hippy has had their day ruined, when their "vegetable patch" has been invaded by these nasty critters.

The gangs who run commercial operations have a simple solution to this. They use "systemic insecticides" to kill the buggers. Systemic insecticides are fed in with the nutrients in the watering system and make the plants poisonous to the mite. That way crop yeilds are assured. There is one downside. They are also bad for humans and persistent. You can't legally use them to grow vegetables for this reason. Illegal cannabis farms work under no such constraints and the people who run them have no interest in the long term health of their customers. When you smoke weed grown by such organisations, you've no idea what it contains.

What is my greatest concern is that the police and the authorities have no interest in raising public awareness of this issue. I've raised it on a few occasions only to be told a) Information is not collated on the techniques used to grow illegal crops and b)  It is not the job of the police to raise peoples awareness of health issues. I've also discussed it with doctors who tell me it's not the job of the medical profession to make drugs policy.

So while all of these departments bury their heads in the sand, millions of people, many of them young, are exposing themselves to chemicals that are carcinogenic, can potentially cause liver, kidney and pulmonary failure and are banned for use with products consumed by humans. You may ask what my solution would be. Well firstly I'd make the police log all chemicals associated with industrial production of cannabis. Anyone supplying cannabis containing dangerous levels of chemicals should be charged for offences which reflect the risk they contain. If Marks and Spencers were caught knowingly supplying tomatoes which had a massive health risk from system chemicals, those responsible would face all manner of serious charges.

Perhaps the most upsetting thing is that when I've raised this issue with people who are smokers, they invariably say "Oh no, I get the gear from my mate and it's proper gear, all grown organically" when it clearly isn't. It takes a while for the effects of ingesting such drugs to take effect. Many users will give up long before their lungs start to show the effects. Many don't tell their doctors that they are using or have used such drugs. Many doctors are not even aware of the risks. At some point, the penny will drop and it will be far too late for todays crop of habitual users.

I'd like to see a health awareness campaign, detailing the risks to be rolled out. I'd like to see the police photographing the chemicals and doctors explaining the effects. I'd like to destroy the myth that industrially cultivated cannabis is "organic", it isn't. It's grown by people with no reason to care about anything other than making a quick profit. They have absolutely no reason to care about their customers, because being in an illegal industry, they could get closed down at any time. I do care about the people who don't realise what they are doing to themselves. If you like to smoke weed, or you think your children do, please make sure they are aware of this risk. Many young people boldly say "Dying doesn't bother me". What they don't realise is that living with lung diseases is often what happens first. Sometimes people spend years carting around bottles of oxygen, due to issues with their lungs. I worry that this will become a lot more common in the years to come.

Whatever happened to Stiv Bators?

I know how you feel. There are many things troubling you in this punishing world. We have a huge financial deficit, the country has been at war in the Afghanistan for the best part of a decade and Manchester United, the source of all evil, are top of the league. I have troubles and worries on my mind. A rather random sequence of events made me see some sort of bizarre pattern in the madness of life. Let me explain how what happened to Stiv Bators, legendary frontman of US punk rock outfit The Dead Boys, crystalised my thoughts on life. Thanks to Wiki I now know. He was run over in Paris and died of concussion in 1990.

You may wonder why I suddenly asked the question of what happened to Stiv? Well I wasn't a big fan of The Dead Boys, they had a few good tunes, most notably Sonic Reducer. To be honest I'd rather forgotten about them. I'm going to see Iggy and the Stooges in May and I thought I'd have a look at a few YouTube clips. When I did a search on "Search and destroy" (A stooges classic) I saw the above clip for The Dead Boys. Yeah I thought, whatever happened to Stiv Bators? Perhaps the most interesting and sad fact for me was that he was the only member of "The Whores of Babylon" (other members Johnny Thunders and Dee Dee Ramone) not to die of a heroin overdose. I vividly remember hearing of the deaths of both Johnny and Dee Dee.  Somehow Stiv's passing just passed me by.

Interestingly (for me at least), it occurred in 1990. At this time, I'd really fallen out of love with music. I'd dissolved my band (The Falsedots) in a sea of despair at our inability to keep a lineup together. We had a really good line up going, with a great singer, Tony Robotham. We were doing music which I felt was years ahead of it's time. Just as the set was coming together, our drummer Big Grey Ramsey became a father and his partner demanded his presence at home. I felt that if we couldn't succeed with that line up, we couldn't succeed with any. Tony showed up at our rehearsal to check out our new line up on Wednesday. He was suitably impressed with Koni, who is singing with us now. On Monday, I am going up to give some moral support to an ex band member who has been a rather naughty boy and is up before the beak. Sadly like Johnny and Dee Dee, his problems were brought about by drug problems. In the space of five years of heavy cocaine abuse, he went from having a job, flat and a life to being in prison. He split with his partner of 30 years, which amazed me. He has a new girlfriend who is standing by him and he has vowed to solve his problems and get his life on track. Apparently he's been completely clean in prison and has been studying and going to the gym. I hope he gets his head together and his life together as he is a talented musician and a lovely guy. Our friendship started to drift when his life became focussed on his habits.

As I pondered the demise of Stiv, Dee Dee and Johnny, my friends personal problems and music in general, I realised that life is a precious gift. Some of us carelessly toss it away like Johnny and Dee Dee, some of us have it stolen from us in a tragic accident like Stiv. Some of us get a wake up call and realise what a gift it is. I hope that on Monday that process starts for my friend. Have a great Friday evening.

Leadership by lies

If an administration bases it's strategy on facts that are wrong, seeks to suppress information that is "uncomfortable", sacks advisers who reveal uncomfortable truths and seeks to conduct a war based on the prejudices of it's ministers with no background or expertise in the field rather than the experts, it is doomed to failure.

So what am I talking about? Am I talking about the war in Iraq? The credit crunch? The Post Office strike? No, although in all of these issues there are elements of what I described above. What I am talking about is the sacking by Alan Johnson, of professor David Nutt, the Governments former chief drugs adviser. The government is supposedly conducting a "war on drugs". This war has resulted in a massive increase in the use of illegal drugs in the UK. Alan Johnson, a man who was responsible for my resignation from the Labour party, with his crass comments about asylum seekers, has shown that he is an ignorant man with fatally flawed judgement. To quote the Guardian article

In a letter he [Alan Johnson] expressed surprise and disappointment over Professor Nutt's comments which damage efforts to give the public clear messages about the dangers of drugs.

So did Professor Nutt suddenly come out with a Huxleyesque pean to the joys of LSD? Of course he didn't. He issued a paper presenting the findings of various scientific studies in a rational and sensible manner. What did he say? He said that cannabis, LSD and Ecstasy were less dangerous than cigarettes and alcohol. Now lets give this statement some proper analysis. How dangerous is alcohol? Well if you drink too much spirits in one go, it can kill you. It is addictive and according to the government if a woman has more than a couple of drinks a day, it will damage her health. If she drinks while pregnant, it will damage her baby. Many peoples lives are devastated  by the socio-economic consequences of the behaviour. Cigarettes? The health risks of these are well documented. Cancer, heart disease, circulatory problems. Not only that but it also affects other people who are not smokers. This is why smokers have to smoke outside these days.

So what did Mr Nutt say again? That the clinical effects of these three substances are less damaging than two substances that can be lethal? I doubt that any sensible person would wish to risk a whole plague of new health problems, by making all drugs available over the counter. The professor was criticising the Governments decision to reclassify Cannabis back to a class B drug. His argument was based on 2 facts a) That clinical effects of these substances are less damaging than legally available substances and b) Use of cannabis has diminished since the drug was reclassified since it was reclassified as a class C drug..

The worrying question is that if Mr Johnson isn't listening to professionals, who is he listening to? I suspect that he's more swayed by the type of people who leave "outraged" comments on the Daily Mail website about such stories. He's trying to appeal to an ill informed constituency and he's seeking to persue policies which don't work.

The trouble is that young people who take drugs these days are not stupid. They read articles in the paper. They will see what happened to professor Nutt and they'll form two conclusions a) Drugs generally are less dangerous than the government would have you believe and b) The governement cannot be trusted on the issue.

I happen to believe that the the biggest contributing factor to the rampant misuse of illegal drugs in this country is the way their supply is regulated. The current regime ensures that there are huge profits to be made, there is a massively effective pyramid selling scheme in the dealership networks and due to the addictive nature of many drugs, a very loyal customer base.

How would I deal with it? The first thing I'd do is remove the bulk of the profit from the dealer networks. Let any habitual drug user by addictive drugs legally (in controlled amounts). This supply could be tied in to behavioural conditions. Many drug addicts resort to crime to pay for their drugs. It would be far cheaper socially to supply these with drugs on condition that they didn't commit crimes. Be under no illusion. Any drug addict anywhere in the country has easy access to drugs. The law doesn't stop any of these people. All it does is make them resort to theft or prostitution to susidise their lifestyle. I wouldn't make it an easy choice. I'd make them have to obtain supplies on a daily basis, make regular medical checkups a condition and I'd make sure that social services were engaged if there were children involved. For most hardened drug addicts, obtaining "gear" is the focus of their life. By regularising the supply, removing the criminal aspect of funding it and having access too support networks, they would have a much greater chance of regularising their lifestyle. Removing the massive profits would mean that for the dealers, it would no longer be worth the risks.

I don't think that there is any "answer" to the problem. All you can do is damage limitation. The most damaging thing I believe you can do in any walk of life is to base your policies on dishonesty. That is why this government is in trouble. That is why their "war on drugs" will ultimately be unsuccessful. Like Mr Johnson, I'm not an expert on this subject. One of my friends is. He used to be the chief drugs advisor for the Lancastrian police force. He tells me that there is near universal agreement on how the problem should be dealt with, in the professional circles, which is along the lines I outlined.

Sadly this isn't the only area where we don't believe a word they tell us. Do they never learn.

Boris Johnson's Guide to Drugs

Yes, cannabis is dangerous, but no more than other perfectly legal drugs. It's time for a rethink, and the Tory party - the funkiest, most jiving party on Earth - is where it's happening.
- Boris Johnson (source wikiquote)

As you may be aware, our Mayor of London, beloved St Boris has lead a colourful life. Having watched the latest "Talk to Frank" commercial about cannabis and thought "What a waste of money!" - teenagers see through these pointless lectures. I got to thinking "What we need is a figurehead who's been there, done it and got the T-shirt who youngsters in London could look up to".

I thought that I'd make my own Barnet Eye anti drugs commercial with a little help from my friend Boris. Whilst no one would suggest that Boris has used anything stronger than a glass of a tasty tipple for many a year, there are many reports that the use of drugs can have serious long term effects, which may manifest themselves years after the drugs are taken. I'd strongly suggest that any youngster planning to take anything should make sure they are fully aware of ALL the potential side effects.

(No animals were hurt in the making of this commercial and I repeat thatthere is no suggestion that Boris has been toking behind the bikesheds any time recently - any erratic behaviour shown in these pictures is merely the result of unfortate camera angles).


Smoking Pot can make you tired and lacking in concentration.

Smoking Pot can make the most mundane statement seem as profound as the 10 commandments

Smoking pot can loosen your inhibitions and make you do naughty things you wouldn't normally do

Smoking Pot can lead you into the company of undesirables who you wouldn't normally hang around with

Smoking Pot can make even the most mundane works of art seem like masterpieces

Smoking Pot can lead to the munchies

Smoking Pot can make you unkempt and dishevelled

Smoking Pot can make it all seem too much

Please note that there is no suggestion whatsoever that Boris Johnson was stoned during the taking of any of these pictures and the Barnet Eye categorically states that any suggestion of such behaviour in these pictures is purely coincidental. We'd like to point out that all such behaviour can also be caused by perfectly legal behaviour such as drinking sherry and joining the Conservative Party

Lets Do Drugs?

I was listening to the radio today and it appears that there is a recommendation that Ecstasy is downgraded from a class A drug to a class B drug. It appears the government has refused to listen to this advice. What are we to make of this? Well personally I don't really understand the difference between the classifications. Surely something is either illegal or it's not. If you were to ask the majority of parents if their child should go to prison for possessing a small amount of illegal substances, most would say no. If you asked them whether a dealer selling their child an illegal drug should go to prison, you would probably get a different answer. We all know that some drugs are illegal. The question we should be asking is what are we trying to achieve? Why are drugs illegal?

If I were to ask you why drugs are illegal, you'd probably say "To stop people taking them". The trouble is it doesn't. If we are inclined to take procure and take drugs, we will. The law doesn't change that, it just makes the trade uncontrollable. It also makes it extremely lucrative for criminals. Policy towards drug misuse needs a radical overhaul. Firstly we should decide exactly what we are trying to achieve. Secondly we should decide what is realistically achievable. Once we've figured that out, then we should design our rules and regulations.

So what are we trying to achieve? Well as I see it there are two major downsides to taking drugs. Firstly they can be detrimental to your health. Secondly they can seriously damage your financial situation. I've had close friends who've died through drug misuse and close friends who've lost their livelyhood/house/car etc through drug misuse, so I'm well aware of the downsides. Our aim should be to minimise the damage to individuals and the effect on society in general. What is realistically achievable? I don't believe we'll ever live in a drug free world. I think that realistically all we can do is the following :-

a) Remove the profit element of drug distribution for criminals
b) Minimise the health risks for drug users
c) Educate people as to the risks of drug use
d) Provide support mechanisms for drug addicts
e) Control the supply and quality of drugs
f) Ensure that drugs are as hard as possible to obtain by young people

Making drugs illegal achieves non of the above. Legalisation would by an extremely risky option, although I believe it would be preferable to the existing system, in as much as the criminal elements would be removed. I have been convinced by the arguments for controlled legalisation. I support a system whereby anyone over 18 could legally purchase drugs, providing they have registered as a drug user. This would enable users of addictive class A drugs (such as Heroin) to purchase the drugs in Boots. With chip & PIN technology the amounts could be monitored, reducing the possibilty of resale. Illegal sale would be monitored and enforced by customs and excise. Profits from sales would pay for the scheme. It would be possible to undercut the criminal elements controlling the trade and ensure proper quality control. The vast majority of profits for drug barons are made through hardened users and if this lucrative market was destroyed, then the risks would no longer be worthwhile.

A licensing scheme would also bring users within the system. Their health could be monitored and their quality of life improved. As with other medical conditions, those unable to work would receive the drugs on presciption (under supervision). I firmly believe that this will reduce crime.

As to education, I'd like every child to understand what taking up drug abuse as a hobby means. If you get really good at your hobby, you could lose your life, your home, your dignity. Over 90% of prostitutes are addicted to hard drugs and generally the hard drug usage came first.

Finally we need to decide what constitues an illegal drug. I'd abolish the class A/B/C system. It just confuses people. I'd say that we agree that Alcohol and Tobacco are legally accepted in the UK. These have downsides, but we tolerate these.

I'd say that any drug which causes less damage than these statistically should be legal. Any drug which causes more damage becomes illegal. If you want to take them, you register, pay a fee, get information about there effects, and if you still want to damage yourself, that's your choice as an adult. If you sell the drugs on, you go to prison. If you want to come off them, you enroll in a program and when you are clean you deregister. You'd divulge your usage on a CRB form, so if you want to become a bus driver, you have to clean your act up.

I know it's not a perfect solution, but it's not a perfect world. In my opinion only a pragmatic approach will work.