Transparency in law enforcement

Hereford Times October 15 comment ‘Enforcement should be transparent’ informs us of police procedure and guidelines while a take-away outlet subjected to Covid-19 rules infringement fine of £1000 remains anonymous. Comment concludes, “Such secrecy risks undermining faith in a system that effectively imposes punishments without the public oversight that is part of the justice system.”

Hereford takeaway breaks 10pm hospitality curfew

There are potential dangers in ‘naming and shaming’, but identifying targeted ‘culprits’ can help highlight prejudices on the part of those doing the targeting.

At start of secondary schooling in Birmingham in 1965 I was subjected to 'shaming' by some peers after Year 1 class teacher informed those new little fish in a big pool who had shifted from being big fish in smaller ponds, that I had a disability. “Spas,” "The Handicap" and “Mongol Spastic” I was subsequently called in the parlance of the time. The 'shaming' in a predominantly White school took a new twist when I mentioned that I had been born in West Africa: I was then called ‘The White Wog’ and told that my father was “still swinging through the trees in Africa.” (My White UK national parents had just separated and I was an outsider or ‘immigrant’ upon moving from primary schooling in Staffordshire.)

We live in more enlightened times, both in terms of racial equality and the understandings brought about by the Social Model of Disability, which states that disability arises from social structures and prejudices rather than from culpable failings on the part of the person with an impairment.

But how enlightened are our police? In August, Liberty — formerly the National Council for Civil Liberties — revealed with the aid of Crime Prosecution Service data — that no police detentions of potentially infectious people under the Coronavirus Act were correct, while police were up to seven times more likely to fine people of colour than white people.(1)

Alan Wheatley