top of page

On the subject of 'Guardianship'

Only in a true democracy, where the people of the nation are in full control of their own governance can the security forces of that nation be allowed all the tools to do their best possible work. If there is fear of ones government becoming tyranical, if the political structure and the constitution has any possibility of being corrupted so that a tyranical regime can take governance then the nations security forces should not get full powers. In the UK political system we have a situation where a political power can be voted in as a majority and gain power over the home office and its security and policing forces. In this case then I would say that there is a distinct possibility of that political party potentially becoming a tyranical regime in the right circumstances if there was sufficient turmoil in society from invasion or from social breakdown. In the UK it is social breakdown that has more possibility to happen and it wouldn't take much. 


National Democratic Humanism has a new outlook on what would maximise the security and policing of the nation. You should also read that part of this political manifesto is the drive towards having a constitution and a social contract defining the rules for the citizen and the state. The idea of the political philosophy is to have 12 Pillars of Governance each with their own series of committees that craft new legislation based on the consensus of the people. One of those 12 Pillars would need to be a government department dedicated towards guardianship of its citizens and for humanitarian responsibility for all people of the world to some extent where possible. Within the constitution the guidelines for the service could be drawn up in great detail so that the department has some sense of autonomy. However, a committee would manage how it would effect legislation in society and again that would be based on the will of the people through consensus. If this model of governance can be achieved then it would be possible for police to then obtain all that is necessary for them to be able to do a more thorough job. Only when it can be established that the policing services can not be used for political purposes, because the country would no longer be governed by political parties but by a constituion and committees establishing and enacting upon the will of the people by preparing legislation for the votre by the people, then our policing and guardianship service could be afforded more powers in which to do their job. There could then be more survielance of the population so that criminal behaviour could be detected and proved.


My vision for Guardianship is that we have one large body made up of three parts. One is the military services including the army, navy, air force and military intelligences. The second is the Policing and emergency services and the third is a collective group of regulators for all aspects of society and commerce. The regualtors are responsible for monitoring all social situations and should be available to the public when they are needed. Some regulators are specialists, say financial regulators or health and safety officers and others are more like community regulators who regulate public services, safety on the streets and are for community liaison. The policing and emergency services would then be able to focus more directly and again would be able to specialise on certain crimes. Part of the problem now is that efficiency is not being achieved because each police officer is expected to be too many things. 


Another aspect of this structure is that more of the services could overlap in personel and more personel can be moved between departments as when the needs arise and the skills are suited. More of the services of the police are involving gun crimes and major terrorist threats while more of the services of our military staff overseas are spent policing. The two services are naturally moving slightly closer together and for this reason I suggest that more of the skills built up in one area can be used in another. Police and regulators should carry camera technology so that evidence is gathered and so that accountability over services can be achieved. The technology should be both ways in that police should be able to tap in to computer services while out on the beat and the results should come up perhaps on 'google glass' type technology. This could also save time that police spend writing up events, crimes and arrests so that further efficencies were increased. I would also suggest that in times of social unrest, where people take to the streets in such numbers that law and order is not able to be resptored then I do believe that the police should have the option of recruiting military personel temporarily for crowd control so that law and order can be maintained. There should never be a situation where rioters are able to take control of our streets or are able to bully the rest of society into certain terms. Law that is constitutionally legislated by the will of the majority should never be over run by any sub-group within our society. Everybody should be accountable to the law at all times when the law is guarenteed to be on the right side.

bottom of page