What is Social Continence?

THE SOCIAL CONTINENCE SYSTEM

"Social Continence will expose the criminals to the free market, not shelter them from it."

As capitalism moves rapidly towards its end-game, we can expect a crisis such as the one we are currently experiencing. Both the USA and UK have in the past benefited from the willingness of other nations to accept the dollar/sterling as international currency. However, lax supervision of the banking/financial services sectors within those countries has allowed the supply of credit to outstrip their productive capacities. While everything was going well and those economies were still growing, naturally no-one complained. Huge salaries and bonuses which the high-flyers in the financial world dished out to themselves might out have induced the odd tut-tut of disapproval from the more educated members of the hoi-polloi, but these ‘masters of the universe’ surely knew what they were doing, didn’t they?

Well, as it turns out, evidently not. It seems that quite a lot of us have been taken for a ride. Or, as the great poet John Cooper-Clarke once wrote: “Take some bugger for a lump-sum and bugger off to Spain.” Except not even our Spanish friends have been the beneficiaries of this particular fiasco. The US ‘sub-prime’ crisis has seen countless billions of dollars disappear into a black hole and the infection has now spread out into the world economy. As a desperate measure, the US Federal Reserve has slashed interest-rates and bailed out the troubled banks, and the UK, fearing another Northern Rock episode, has done likewise.

I don’t know about you, but if I placed a bet with my local bookmaker, watched the bet lose and then demanded my stake-money back, the only thing I would deserve would be the steel-tipped toe-cap of the bookmaker propelling me down the high street!

Yet it seems that those responsible for this debacle, having already rewarded themselves amply during the years of plenty, are now to be indemnified and cosseted from the consequences of their failure. A turn of events which to Adam Smith, that pioneer theorist of free-market economics, would have been a sick joke.

The rationale behind this move is, of course, easily understandable. The banking system underpins the entire economy and is simply too important to be allowed to fall apart. The problem with this approach is that one sector of our society is being protected from the consequences of their actions and, if nothing else, this surely contravenes the principles of Political Correctness.

The League for Social Continence believes that the maintenance of social order and the protection of all its citizens from crime should rank equal to the need for economic stability. This will become even more important as the economic outlook for the UK deteriorates. It is with this in mind that we are attempting to place the Social Continence system on to the political agenda.

So, just what is "SOCIAL CONTINENCE"? And why is it necessary?
SOCIAL CONTINENCE is a 'performance-related' benefit which would give a huge incentive to peaceful, law-abiding behaviour. It would be monitored jointly by the Police and the Security Services (MI5). It will be necessary because as time advances - all other things being constant - western societies (especially the UK)will become MORE AND MORE UNEQUAL and the IMPETUS TO COMMIT VIOLENT CRIME WILL GROW EVER STRONGER. This is NOT rocket-science. This is how capitalism works. The LSC has no quarrel with capitalism. We are NOT socialists. We are NOT communists. Neither are we rabid, right-wing free-market maniacs. We say:"YOU GET THE GOVERNMENT (AND THE SOCIETY) YOU DESERVE."We simply wish to present an alternative to present drugs laws which amount to nothing less than the SOCIAL DUMPING OF CRIME against the poor.

The LEAGUE for
SOCIAL CONTINENCE
working for a safer society

SOCIAL CONTINENCE
WHAT IS IT?
Broadly speaking, Social Continence is a free-market solution to certain categories of crime. It would work best in a situation in which all drugs are legalized, though this does not necessarily have to be the case. It is aimed at "prevention" rather than "cure", and it would involve the payment of a "performance-related benefit" to certain designated groups of people.

WHAT IS IT APPROPRIATE FOR?
Let us quickly state that Social Continence is not some magic cure-all solution for every sort of crime. WE ARE CONCERNED ONLY WITH VIOLENCE AGAINST THE PERSON AND AGAINST PROPERTY (i.e. where there is the physical removal or damage of property). We are NOT concerned with fraud, credit-card fraud, "white-collar crime" etc. Neither are we concerned with most cases of "domestic violence", or with certain categories of "sex crime". In other words, we are concerned with murder, assaults, muggings, petty-theft, armed robbery, burglary, shoplifting, vandalism and general anti-social loutish behaviour. Let's face it, when most people talk about crime, these are the kind of offences which take up 99% of police time.
Or should do.

HOW WOULD IT WORK?
The existing police regions would be split into a number of smaller administrative units: i.e. three or four for each large city, one or two for rural areas. "Members of the public" would then be invited to apply for the law-enforcement contract in each unit.

ISN'T THIS JUST ANOTHER FORM OF POLICING BY PRIVATE SECURITY?
No. In the first place the level of payments made (mostly in arrears) would be strictly controlled according to performance criteria i.e. the more crime reported within an administrative unit, the less the amount of payment made (and vice versa). Each category of crime would carry a set number of penalty points, and the level of payments made would have to be carefully structured to social need.

WHO WOULD RECEIVE THESE PAYMENTS?
In theory any member of the public could apply to be a "Designated Overall Manager" (or "DOM"). In practice, however, applicants would have to demonstrate that they are at the centre of an "informal command structure".

YOU MEAN PEOPLE INVOLVED IN ORGANIZED CRIME?
That is putting it too bluntly. What we say is this: that firstly, applicants should not be barred on account of previous criminal conviction, and that secondly, society must be prepared to "wipe the slate clean" for certain individuals. To issue an amnesty. This will be especially relevant, of course, to people convicted of drugs offences.

WHO ELSE MIGHT BE INVOLVED?
We envisage an informal hierarchy of three levels: the "DOMS", a small number of "Lieutenants", and a much larger number of "Enforcers". Whilst the DOMS and the Lieutenants would be drawn from existing networks, the Enforcers would be recruited from the open labour market. The DOMS and the Lieutenants would have part-control of a prearranged budget. The Enforcers would be paid weekly by the State at some nominal rate above benefit level. However, the DOMS would be free to increase the payment to the Enforcers (from their own budget) if they thought it was necessary.

BUT WOULDN'T SUCH A SYSTEM BE OPEN TO THE MOST APPALLING ABUSES?
No. Because Social Continence would involve TWO CRUCIAL SAFEGUARDS. Firstly, all these people - DOMS, Lieutenants and Enforcers - would be registered with the Police and required at all times to carry IDENTITY CARDS. They would NOT be allowed to carry weapons of any sort. Secondly, and most importantly, the function of recording reported crime would be taken out of the hands of the Police entirely and placed under a separate NATIONAL CRIME REPORTING AUTHORITY (organized on a regional basis to match the Police Authority Areas), administered and controlled by the Security Services (MI5). Staff working for the NCRA would be rotated, on a geographical basis, at regular intervals. This system would ensure the maximum possible security, both for the individual citizen and the State. As far as humanly possible, it would remove the dangers of corruption, collusion and intimidation.

WHAT MAKES YOU SO CONFIDENT THAT THIS WOULD WORK?
Given a reasonable trial period, we are extremely confident Social Continence would have a beneficial impact because it would be a hierarchical structure imposed from the ‘bottom up’ of society rather than the ‘top down’. The only ‘top down’ solution which would have any impact would be to flood the streets with police officers. That’s not going to happen because career-politicians will tell you that they don’t have the resources. Social Continence would be a lot cheaper because the enforcers could be paid a lot less than the police. It would be cheaper still if drugs were to be legalised and taxed. The enforcers would also be able to use methods which are just not available to the police.

ARE YOU TRYING TO SANCTION THE USE OF VIOLENCE?
No, not at all. It is important to stress that NO-ONE WOULD BE PLACED ABOVE THE LAW. What we say is that a certain amount of 'discretion' will have to be used for the greater good. At the present time, for example, bailiffs and debt-collectors are routinely allowed to 'offer violence'. On the international scene, Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib haven't exactly sent people rioting to the streets. Magna Carta is rightly upheld as the lodestar of all personal and civil liberty; yet Magna Carta wasn't the product of a middle-class vicarage tea-party, but represented a balance of terror between two competing sets of scumbags (the king's court v the barons). It has obviously worked very well. Yet 800 years later the capitalism it has facilitated (or, at least the 'Anglo-Saxon' version of it) has produced a large number of people who are frankly not fit to walk the streets. Something needs to be done. You could say that Social Continence is an attempt to update Magna Carta.  Let's just use some common sense.

BUT ISN'T THE IDEA JUST TOTALLY UNPALATABLE?
Well, I think it's safe to say that Social Continence will have its fair share of critics! But what these people fail to appreciate is the depth of the crisis which threatens to engulf us all. It is easy to criticise; much harder to do something constructive. What you have to ask yourself is: Are you happy to live in a society in which the rich build walls around their own property and hire security to protect themselves, while the rest of us have to struggle to get justice and our fair share of police protection? If your answer is "No", then it will be worth your while to take a closer look at the benefits to be gained by Social Continence.