1 of 2 people found the following review helpful
Actual increase in crimes; changes in policing; 'political correctness' - all blamed on the 1960s.,
Amazon Verified Purchase(What is this?)
This review is from: Cultures and Crimes: Policing in Four Nations (Paperback)The four countries are England, France, Germany, and the USA. This book is long (over 200 pages) by Civitas standards. It has endnotes, separately numbered for each chapter in the normal rather confusing format. It's unindexed.
Long parts of this book are concerned, at first sight absurdly, to establish that crime has, in fact, increased. A BBC radio transcript gives an example of the nonsense talked about crime figures. There's a good deal of very sound evaluation of sources - Mayhew on the lower orders in England, police statistics, news headlines, government reports. There's also good evaluation of those trying to show there has *not* been much of an increase - Pearson's' Hooligan: A History of Respectable Fears' is one of this type - the use of the word 'respectable' is part of this type of package. Alternatively, some try to show that, even if it is high now, well, it was high then! In my view the factual and interpretational material is the best part of this book. This myth-busting part is important - it's like these books which show that Britain used to be full of whites, in the face of propaganda.
Internationally, it's difficult to assess how much of the book is essential conventional judgment: it's no surprise that France is presented as rather chaotic and revolutionary (whether the few days of the Paris commune is relevant is perhaps doubtful), and Germany as rather vicious and repressive, and the USA as conventional minded, violent, and rather stupid. These are standard stereotypes. Whether any of this is objectively true is hard to decide.
There are interesting hypothesis testing sections. Is crime caused by poverty? Low education? - and the authors debunk these easily enough.
However, the other part of this book is to assign blame:- 'this increase in crime is the result of profound cultural changes which occurred in the 1960s.' - 'Crime and disorder are part of the price paid for the advantages of post-1960s society.' I don't believe this. Why should it follow?
Dennis and Erdos are curiously weak on many influential post-war events. A few examples:
 The Vietnam War involved atrocities on an enormous scale. Dennis and Erdos seem unaware of this - they simply think demonstrators were just being a nuisance.
 The period they deal with is also the period in which, for the first time in human history, large population transfers were possible as a result of modern travel - new motorways even in for example Africa; and aeroplanes. They make no attempt to identify criminal changes which such populations moves may have caused, and which coincide with the period in question. The book was published in January 2005, and therefore presumably was written in 2004. This gives it an outdated feel to anyone seriously interested in modern societies.
 They quote examples of political violence at the miners' strike and by the IRA. (So far as I saw, there was nothing on the start of the 'troubles' by Protestants). Neither of these can be regarded as anything to do with the 'permissive society'. And interpreting them is not easy. Sinn Fein, which promotes mass immigration into Ireland, is, in fact, not an Irish nationalist party.
 The authors have a persistent tendency to regard drug taking as a universal habit. They seem to think most people end up with needles strewn about their slummy households. The source of heroin is not mentioned.
The book does look in some detail at the effects on the police of controls on their powers, though the authors don't seem to develop a detailed theory. It's highly credible that police, after taking control of an area in Washington, and then being criticised for being violent, should not bother much with similar action in future. And that rules on detention and disclosure can produce odd effects, especially if people have a 'right to silence'. But why did this happen? Was it just elitist contempt for the proles? And what should best practice be? On these essential topics, as on the subject of who exactly produces fake statistics for the government, the authors are silent.
Tracked by 1 customer
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-6 of 6 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 21 Feb 2013 20:14:47 GMT
This is a very rigorous, very closely and well documented study.
You may not like what Dennis and Erdos have uncovered, but you cannot argue with the 'hard and fast facts' they quote.
The study is not 'an opinion' it is a presentation of facts and figures that illustrate patterns of successes and failures in public policy.
Your critique is woolly and vague, as opposed to the rigour of the study.
I have to say, I find it hard to understand what points you are trying to make.
Dennis and Erdos are simply illustrating that Civil Society have actually paid a very high price in terms of 'rising crime' for all the changes that have been forced through since the 1950's, and that this is not something that is ever apparent from the coverage afforded by the mainstream news media and most pundits.
Perhaps it helps to illustrate why the UK public (for example) have almost no faith in journalists.
Your sympathies are clearly with those responsible for the decisions as opposed to those (usually at the poorer end of society) on the receiving end (you are not a PR pundit for the mainstream news media by any chance ?)
Again, why do you feel that the authors somehow have a responsibility to 'develop a detailed theory' (whatever that means) ?
In fact I don't even recognise the book from your critique which is so distorted and rambling.
I have no idea where you have got your point 3 (above) from !?
I think you are talking about a completely different book ?
In reply to an earlier post on 1 Mar 2013 19:10:54 GMT
There are several issues you don't address.
 1960s and Vietnam War. As I said, they regard protestors as a small affront or nuisance. They have no idea about international violence and war.
 The issue of travel is important. It's unprecedented that people, including criminals, can shift around more or less ad lib. It's deliberate policy of Jewish 'elites' to wreck white countries in this way, and by weakening penalties on crime. The authors don't address this issue, despite its central importance.
 I'd have thought my comments on (e.g.) drug taking as supposedly universal and other such things are clear enough - it's simply false to claim these things existed in large numbers before the recent past.
The entire book does not tackle the issue of a malign 'elite' deliberately damaging white societies. Instead they blame it on the '1960s'.
In reply to an earlier post on 2 Mar 2013 15:31:51 GMT
We are obviously on a different page aren't we ?
I cannot make head nor tail of what you are saying.
Let's go back a step shall we.
The book is primarily about policing in the 4 countries.
It looks at the style of policing in each country, it looks at the effectiveness of policing strategies especially against a background of big social change in terms of values, immigration, social policy etc., and it also examines whether the issue of crime in each of the societies has increased, decreased, or stayed fairly steady.
It speaks up about the misinformation that we (as a society in England) have been fed over the period, in that there is absolutely no doubt that crime in terms of volume and degree of violence, has become infinitely worse.
It makes the point that whilst there are definite advantages associated with some of the changes that have happened, we have also paid a very high price in terms of things like 'increased crime', and that it is quite clear that the policing strategies and policies over the period haven't been effective.
As a society we need to know this stuff, indeed we have a 'right' to know it, and it is very clear that the mainstream news media in the UK has pursued something of an agenda in 'playing down' crime increases, as have the mainstream politicians
and the people who have been hit the hardest in our society by this failure on the part of policing strategies, are the people on the poorer end of society.
You have very clearly done your best to rubbish the book when the book is making many very pertinent points that go unsaid by the mainstream news media.
Clearly you want them to remain under wraps.
The book is not about 'ease of travel', or 'the Vietnam War', and neither does it claim that drug taking has always been as widespread as it is now - so just what is your point ?
You seem completely confused to me.
You certainly haven't critiqued this book.
Are you Jewish by the way ?
you sound as if you are.
In reply to an earlier post on 3 Mar 2013 14:28:05 GMT
I note you have changed your review in the light of my comments (and my review)
In reply to an earlier post on 5 Mar 2013 09:54:47 GMT
Last edited by the author on 5 Mar 2013 09:55:50 GMT
I haven't changed my review.
You miss the entire point about the 1960s. The book attributes mal-events to the 1960s radicals. In fact SOME of these were concerned with war crimes and genocide, which I presume you don't understand and aren't interested in. However others were Jewish phoney radicals, and these also pushed through e.g. Immigration policies designed to wreck white countries, and also increase crime, add to debt, diminish IQ by interbreeding, add to fears, promote drug-taking and take no action again st eg heroin importers, subsidise aliens as to housing and health and education etc etc. You haven't understood this dynamic.
In reply to an earlier post on 5 Mar 2013 10:18:45 GMT
Last edited by the author on 5 Mar 2013 20:22:37 GMT
You have completely changed your review - it now looks like a pale imitation of what I have written.
You have changed the title and you have changed the contents of more than half of it.
As for this, your latest comment,
you are quite entitled to your view but I challenge you to indicate where it says any of this in the book ?
Your review is supposed to be about 'this book' remember ?
I think your comments are confused and insincere.
I am not convinced that you really believe what you have written - I suspect you have an agenda (a very confused one)
you are criticising the book for criticising the social policy espoused by elements of the (supposed) political 'Left'
and then justifying your criticism by quoting what could only be described as (very) 'Right Wing' speculation -
if that isn't confused I don't know what is.
I think that some of the people intent on pushing through some of the pieces of legislation were 'mischief makers', and some others were misguided
but let us stick to the contents of the book we are reviewing shall we ?
‹ Previous 1 Next ›