That Starmer fella...

policing does little to address why crime manifests in poor neighbourhoods (at lower rates than richer communities, drug use, antisocial, labour and financial crimes are not policed in sw1!), but does lead to the harrassment of the population by police in poor and marginalised neighbourhoods.

i for one am less peturbed by the noisy moped, or the addict on my steps struggaling as a threat to me or my estate, than i am the privatisation of public space and my stagnating wages causing greater desperation in my community which might manifest or be construed as anti social behaviour or crime. the only people who benifit from this style of speech are white gentrifiers and landlords as they do not recieve the same overpolicing of their bodies in the community, or are not active in the communuty when reporting the crime of lowering property values.

if this speech was truly to address why these people recieve this asymetrical policing, it would speak and more to the point, make promises on how they're going to address the structural racism and discrimination within the police force; how power is applied asymetrically, how capital often escapes policing and drives those under it into criminalised activity, rather than simply expand the resources the police have to enact it. it does none of this, it ignores the voices of those most marginalised, pinned between the violence of state and capital

your comment is naieve and othering, an example of when we think of policing we think of the protection of capital depending on our proximity to it or asperations of it, than we do of its effect on people at the whims of it on either side of legality.

broken windows theory is just as useless today as it was in 1982