Britain has been policed since immemorable by a largely unarmed police force policing "by consent". This concept derives from the first organised forces, in London, who patrolled on foot and deterred crime by their presence, and when crime happened brought the wrongdoers to justice. They wore top hats and carried truncheons and were called the "Bow Street runners".

Over the years since this point the concept morphed into the "bobby", working more or less along the same lines albeit now with more equipment, and vehicles. However, the idea of policing by consent remains to this day, and should now be brought into question.
Firstly, does the concept work universally? I would argue it does not. Crime in Britain in the 21st century is skyrocketing, on the back of waves of immigrants flooding through our porous borders, new people are arriving by the bucket load, with different values and a different culture. Policing by consent is a very Anglo-Saxon concept, part of our culture and traditions, the white British culture and tradition. Many of the immigrants living in inner city Britain simply don't register this concept and have no understanding of it whatsoever. One simply has to look at areas such as Brixton and Hackney in London, and Handsworth in Birmingham, to get an idea of how bad crime can get when this concept isn't working. For policing by consent to work, it requires the consent and co-operation of the community, and in an unstable multiracial community, then often there is no consent, and is no co-operation. They simply see our softly softly approach as a weakness, which it is to a people whose values are alien to ours.

In the vast majority of areas of in the UK, this policing does work, and tends to work well. This should not be changed. However the changes I am about to discuss here should be looked at as being applicable to the areas where this policing method does not work.
Since the early 80's the liberal intelligentsia have long held that this lack of community consent and co-operation is due to police deficiency to attempt to engage the community or worse still, racism or prejudice on the part of the police. This is rubbish. The police have tried extremely hard to foment good relations with minority communities and spent millions of pounds of taxpayers money on training in "community and race relations" and "diversity training". The buzzwords about "community policing" and consulting so-called "community leaders" (often self appointed) are heard most often in these communities where the problems are at their worst. The police are doing their bit but many in the community won't do theirs. This is not to say that the majority of the people in the multiracial communities are anti-police, the vast majority are on our side, however a substantial minority which has a tendency to punch above its weight is steadfast in its determination to prevent policing, scupper our efforts and ensure criminals remain free to roam the streets while simultaneously criticising the police for inaction or over-action, depending on what is politically expedient for them.

Under this climate, how can policing by consent work? It simply cannot. The only solution aside from allowing the criminals and their sympathisers to control the streets is to police by force. This may sound inflammatory to some, but it is far more preferable to allowing innocent members of the community to live their lives under siege. The poorest people in society, and the most vulnerable, are disproportionately the victims of crime.
Zero tolerance was pioneered in New York and in Cleveland. In New York the murder rate halved and the city is now far safer than London, which was long known to be one of the safest capitals in the world. On the contrary, London is now one of the most dangerous capital cities in the western world in terms of the chances of becoming a victim of crime. A lot of this is down to mugging, largely done by young black males. This criminals know that they can get away with it most of the time due to lack of front line policing, and the government insisting on tying the police's hands behind their backs, with political correctness, mountains of paperwork, etc, all justified by "human rights" and "policing by consent".

It is time we re-thought the idea of policing in the 21st century and took into account some examples of good practice. In the early 80s the police in London were using hard-policing (or rather, a better term would be proactive policing) tactics in Brixton and other trouble areas. One such operation was Swamp 81, where the area was flooded with plainclothes officers who conducted stops and searches in response to a horrendous rate of robberies in the area. As a result, robberies declined significantly and so did the rate for many other crimes. However, a riot then occurred, which was blamed largely on the police for being too zealous. The politicians then bowed to minority pressure, the "vocal minority" in the black communities and the emphasis, over the decade, gradually moved away from aggressive proactive policing (hard policing) in areas such as Brixton. Many other disturbances occurred throughout the 80s in areas where hard policing was being practiced. Police powers to stop and search were curtailed and the priority shifted towards avoiding riots rather than grasping the nettle.

It is a direct result of this that street crime has skyrocketed and people feel more at risk today then they ever have been. Politicians talk of "fear of crime" and needing to reduce this. Essentially the reason why people are in fear of crime is a combination of the fact that crime has dramatically increased since the 1960s, even though in the last decade most crimes (statistically anyway) declined, largely as a result of lower unemployment and a higher rate of incarceration; and the fact that they feel that the police do not control the streets, that criminals or potential troublemakers are the ones in charge. This has been translated over into David Blunkett's "anti social behaviour" crusade. This is well meaning and may yet have some benefits, however a more serious approach needs to be used in the long run for it to succeed.

The solution

We need to start making some radical changes to the entire culture, structure and methods for combating crime. It is totally unacceptable that crime in 2004 is massively higher than in 1964, for instance. We should be aiming for a zero crime society, and every crime should be considered a failure. We need to start talking the language of battle, in terms of a war on crime. Only when we are treating criminals as the enemy and not as pseudo-victims can we really start making progress. We need to start talking about combating, about fighting, about eliminating, rather than about simply lowering or making piecemeal cuts in the statistics, or even bribing criminals to stop. They aren't our friends, they are our enemies and it should be our job to drive them off the streets like a bulldozer clearing jungle to make way for civilisations return. It has been shown time and again that when the criminals know they will be caught, when they fear the police, that crime declines. An example of this was the Los Angeles Police Department, who for decades kept a lid on one of the most challenging areas to police in the western world, with only 9000 officers for a huge city; to put it in perspective Valley Beaureau had only 1000 officers, when it was the size of Chicago which had 13,000 officers! With such a lack of manpower how the LAPD kept a lid on crime successfully until the mid 80s can be attributed to the tactics and positive culture, according to former Chief from 1978 until 1992, Darryl F Gates:

"I will admit, we were a very aggressive police department. We went after crime before it occurred. . . . Our people went out every single night trying to stop crime before it happened, trying to take people off the street that they believed were involved in crime. That made us a very aggressive, proactive police department."

However, the LAPD was also brought into turmoil after a riot was sparked following unfortunate footage of police officers using force on a black criminal called Rodney King. The police officers were acquitted of assault but the criminals and criminal sympathisers, as well as others who were simply being misled, rioted, resulting in the worst rioting ever seen in the US in recent history. This again fuelled the misconception that proactive hard policing leads to riots and community uproar. In actual fact these riots, in Brixton, Tottenham, and Los Angeles, were simply blips, and once they had been crushed, had the police re-established dominance, then the policing tactics that were used could and should have continued. Instead, politicians bowed to this, and insisted on changes. If only the police had refused and grasped the nettle even after the rioting, maybe things would be better in these areas today rather than far worse. No community has a right to refuse the rule of law, no matter how many cars they burn down or police they assault, the police should have made a point of keeping to the programme to send out this message, the message that the police are in charge not the criminals or their sympathisers. If higher force was needed then so be it, in the long run this would have ensured crime continued to decline rather than increase.

Another example of good practice from the LAPD were the CRASH (Community Resources Against Street Hooligans) units, which were set-up to combat the rising problem of gang violence and drug dealing. These units were highly specialised and involved tough officers taking a hard line against the gangs, going out and bringing in gang members, proactively stopping and searching suspicious groups of youths, and generally making life very difficult for the gangsters. They were fearless and dedicated and for a few years the gang problem began to decline, however, after a scandal involving a corrupt Hispanic officer called Raphael Perez attempting to avoid jail by implicating others and throwing mud, the CRASH units were disbanded for political reasons and many of their members disciplined on jumped-up charges. One of the core problems behind the corruption issues at CRASH was the fact that affirmative action was used to allow ethnic minorities in on lower standards. Whether this was yet more politics at work is obviously another debate, but the net result of this ratcheting down of the war on the gangs was felt almost immediately after the CRASH units were disbanded in 2000:

"After falling steadily from 1996 to '99, gang murders in the city increased 143% last year; 331 people died because of gang violence, in contrast to 136 in 1999. The violence got worse during the first half of this year, with a 23% increase in murders."
Time Magazine, 2000

The main reason, aside from gang members getting out of prison (another reason to keep them there) is quite clear:

"The second reason for the increase in gang violence is just as basic. As gang members like Chino are coming back to their old neighborhoods, the police — demoralized by scandal — are backing out of them. In the mid-'90s, the L.A.P.D. curtailed gang violence with some hard-nosed policing, spearheaded by tough crash (Community Resources Against Street Hoodlums) units."
Time Magazine, 2000

"Under pressure, the LAPD shut down the CRASH anti-gang unit. The result? In the last week alone, Los Angeles experienced five gang-related shootings. Some LAPD officers say that gang-related crime has increased over 50 percent since the beginning of the scandal. Gangbangers see a defanged, demoralized, and increasingly passive police department."
Larry Elder, Creators Syndicate, 2000

Clearly this demonstrates that when the police are on the retreat then crime goes up because criminals become confident and it becomes safe to commit crime. The only answer to this is to ensure that the police are on the offensive, always, and have the resources and back-up both physical and political to fight the war. Only then will the streets become safe for everyone. That is why we must adopt this tough approach in every area where the existing approaches are failing.

We need to start recruiting a new breed of police officer, tough, dedicated, aggressive and multi skilled. Over the years the requirements have been lowered in order to get more women and ethnic minorities in, it is time to increase standards and hold quality above equality, when the paperwork mess has been sorted out then fewer officers will be able to do more work. Forms will be made shorter, paperwork will be done increasingly by civilians and the latest technology used to cut the burden and increase efficiency to free-up more officers. New specialist units should be introduced specifically for the new methods of policing, using the distinguished CRASH name (Community Resources Against Street Hooligans) they would be the creme de la creme of the ordinary patrol shifts, close to the pulse, and be formed of the toughest, most intelligent and dedicated officers that can be found. The CRASH units would undertake plainclothes and uniformed work, be armed, and highly visible, and patrol the crime ridden areas with special additional powers to stop and search without "reasonable grounds" at any time. Their funding could come from the disbanding of special units to deal with racist crime, for instance, which should not be treated in a better way than any other crime, and from efficiency savings.

The time has come to set-up a national police force, to work in concert with local forces, and take in all the national units "under one roof". Another component of this force would be a National Paramilitary Policing Unit (NPPU) which would act in a similar way to the Metropolitan Police TSG (Territorial Support Group). The NPPU would have sufficient officers to flood any area of the UK with armed police and conduct anti crime operations using a raft of new legislation that would follow in the wake of setting up the new force. Every local force should have a paramilitary police unit within 10 years so as to ensure a local, and regional/national capability to handle new challenges. 
To reflect the new threats, and in response to the "softening" of traditional male masculinity into groups of either hyper-macho misguided fools roaming the streets in packs or pussyised "metrosexual" type males, National Service should be brought back to foster the next generation of males into real men - of which learning the value of patriotism and the defence of what you love from harm is a beginning. This would address manpower difficulties in both the armed forces and the police force. The service could be briefly described as consisting of three points of entry to undertake a one and a half year service with an additional optional six month extention. Service post 16 for school leavers could be undertaken in the British Army, Royal Navy and Royal Airforce, for those leaving school/college at 18, then the service could also be in the National Police, in a National Service platoon, where they could undertake duties alongside regular forces mainly concentrating on counter terrorism patrols and checkpoints at airports, ports etc, and supporting the immigration service. For those going to university, they could do their service after this, and again have the option of the National Police as well as the armed forces. All this additional "free" personnel would greatly help with preventing and responding to serious events and relieve pressure from the armed forces.

One area where a national, paramilitary-type police force could make a big difference is in the area of asylum deportations. A while ago the government asked the Met to deport 300 illegal immigrants a week, and apparently they said they could only manage about 30. This was due to more pressing problems such as muggings and black gun crime. The national force would have the facilities to concentrate its efforts on removing the malcontents that have outstayed their welcome, this would tie-in as part of its remit to deal with problems outside the bounds of normal policing. Asylum deportations would fill a large part of the workload of uniform branch until the situation is resolved. In addition, the national force, in having its own paramilitary uniformed branch, would not have to rely on local forces to assist as much when it conducts operations of its own against illegal immigrants, drug runners and terrorists.

Another area where the national force could assist would be in areas of the country where crime has run out of control and the local force is having difficulty in putting a lid on the situation. The national force could be called in to assist temporaily to "nip things in the bud". Temporary increases in the police presence, or the introduction of armed units, are tactics that have been used recently in Nottingham and in North London, with a good success rate.

Another source of full time officer recruits could be from existing forces. The nature of the NPPU in having a large paramilitary element means that people with a higher level of fitness and ability than the average would be required. It would be desirable to have recruits with prior experience with firemarms, merely to save on training, and advanced firearms officers with existing authorisation would need no extra training whatsoever. Some officers could transfer from existing forces however it would not be desirable to poach too many officers from the local forces as many have problems with retention as it is. The government recently slashed the numbers of officers in the RUC/PSNI, some of these have transferred to mainland forces, it would be worth considering offering fast-tracking and encouragement to these officers, who are already firearms and police trained, to join the National Force, as they also have anti terrorist experience. Another source would be officers from the South African Police Service, another force under fire, which police one of the countries with the highest crime rate in the world. All SAPS officers are firearms trained, many undertake SWAT courses and deal with very serious incidents daily. An exodus of white officers, forced out by reverse-racism and "affirmative action", could be tapped-into more vigourosly and more could be encouraged to join this force. The South African Police had a fantastic reputation under the previous government as being tough enforcers of the law.

Homosexuals would not be allowed to undertake National Service on normal terms as their presence undermines discipline and cohesion, and provokes the wrath of their colleagues who for the most part would no doubt object to sharing sleeping accommodation and shower facilities with these people. They should not be allowed to disgrace the uniform and all it stands for while they remain comitted to perverted ends in conflict with all a nationalist society would stand for. It would be impossible to screen out every homosexual, but those stating that they are would be instructed to undertake their National Service in the confines of a military prison as a prisoner.
For girls another framework for National Service could be drawn up on different less military terms with emphasis on female roles where there are shortages and where the value of what is being done is high, although this beyond the scope of this particular article. 

As an asside, National Service would also assist in bringing back responsibility and direction to a lot of young men confused about their role in a feminised and dislocated society. The time to fightback against this attack on the family and on traditional families is here, and one of the steps we have to take is to once again foster men worthy of carrying the standard of their forefathers into the future, and worthy of being husbands to the daughters of Britain and fathers for the next generation of children.
We owe it to the law abiding taxpayers of Britain to ensure that we have the capabilities to deal with gun threats, gang threats, and threats from terrorism and immigrant based crime. At present only inner city areas and deprived areas are suffering from the effects of the failure of conventional policing, but it can't be ruled out that one day affluent areas (especially if they are in an area with existing problems) may fall victim to this. As a result we need to start developing a doctrine to deal with this now and for the future.