Tweet
This morning's Jamaica Observer newspaper editorial has provided a most appropriate response to the utter crap spewed recently by that failure of a British police officer, Mark Shields.
Well said, Observer!
DCP Shields is definitely off the mark
Sunday, November 09, 2008
So Mr Mark Shields, our deputy commissioner of police in charge of crime and intelligence, has finally sought to clarify the now infamous 'I-wasn't-hired-to-solve-Jamaica's-crime-problem' statement attributed to him in a newspaper report a couple of weeks ago.
According to Mr Shields, who was seconded from Scotland Yard to Jamaica on a four-year contract in March of 2005, the statement was taken out of context by mischief-makers.
What rubbish!
In our view, that statement should have never been made in any context.
And given the length of time it took Mr Shields to come out with the clarification which was published in yesterday's edition of this newspaper, we feel it necessary to question the sincerity of it.
For if our memory serves us correctly, the role articulated in yesterday's edition - though perfectly plausible - seems conspicuously toned down from the sort of fanfare and publicity that attended Mr Shields' pricey appointment a few years ago.
We remember the publication in the national media of direct lines to call Mr Shields; the numerous public pronouncements on this and that; the lead roles he occupied in high-profile cases, the Bob Woolmer investigation, the mysterious disappearance of an entire beach of sand, to name just two and a host of other instances that had Mr Shields practically living on the front pages of the media.
In fact, everything, including his title - deputy commissioner of police in charge of crime and intelligence, it's worth repeating - implied that Mr Shields' appointment represented far more than the very modest role he spoke to in yesterday's edition.
Otherwise, the question that begs is: why would we have needed him in the first place? Our human rights organisations were among the most vociferous that we needed overseas help to solve crime here, ostensibly because the police force is so corrupt and Jamaicans had lost belief in it.
Now that the show is coming to an end - Mr Shields' contract ends in February - we are hearing about a much less sensational role that will eventually result in a reduction in crime.
Nothing's wrong with that because we all know that crime reduction is not an overnight phenomenon.
And nobody expected Mr Shields or any of his British counterparts to come here with all the answers to a problem which is the result of many years of social backsliding and which will require - in order to be fixed - a comprehensive rehabilitative effort on the part of the entire nation.
But Mr Shields must accept some responsibility for the crime situation as it stands today, abduction scares and all.
No matter what tag he now seeks to put on the glorified role he fit so comfortably into a few years ago, the fact is that he was brought here - at a handsome price - as part of the solution to the country's crime problem which, despite statistics that have been presented in a way that would seek to argue otherwise, seems to have worsened.
For even though the numbers speak to less incidents of abduction over comparative time periods, the anecdotal evidence suggests a level of brazenness that has put the nation in a state of panic.
Perhaps some of the structures and systems that Mr Shields was hired to put in place can assist us out of this present dilemma.
Well said, Observer!
DCP Shields is definitely off the mark
Sunday, November 09, 2008
So Mr Mark Shields, our deputy commissioner of police in charge of crime and intelligence, has finally sought to clarify the now infamous 'I-wasn't-hired-to-solve-Jamaica's-crime-problem' statement attributed to him in a newspaper report a couple of weeks ago.
According to Mr Shields, who was seconded from Scotland Yard to Jamaica on a four-year contract in March of 2005, the statement was taken out of context by mischief-makers.
What rubbish!
In our view, that statement should have never been made in any context.
And given the length of time it took Mr Shields to come out with the clarification which was published in yesterday's edition of this newspaper, we feel it necessary to question the sincerity of it.
For if our memory serves us correctly, the role articulated in yesterday's edition - though perfectly plausible - seems conspicuously toned down from the sort of fanfare and publicity that attended Mr Shields' pricey appointment a few years ago.
We remember the publication in the national media of direct lines to call Mr Shields; the numerous public pronouncements on this and that; the lead roles he occupied in high-profile cases, the Bob Woolmer investigation, the mysterious disappearance of an entire beach of sand, to name just two and a host of other instances that had Mr Shields practically living on the front pages of the media.
In fact, everything, including his title - deputy commissioner of police in charge of crime and intelligence, it's worth repeating - implied that Mr Shields' appointment represented far more than the very modest role he spoke to in yesterday's edition.
Otherwise, the question that begs is: why would we have needed him in the first place? Our human rights organisations were among the most vociferous that we needed overseas help to solve crime here, ostensibly because the police force is so corrupt and Jamaicans had lost belief in it.
Now that the show is coming to an end - Mr Shields' contract ends in February - we are hearing about a much less sensational role that will eventually result in a reduction in crime.
Nothing's wrong with that because we all know that crime reduction is not an overnight phenomenon.
And nobody expected Mr Shields or any of his British counterparts to come here with all the answers to a problem which is the result of many years of social backsliding and which will require - in order to be fixed - a comprehensive rehabilitative effort on the part of the entire nation.
But Mr Shields must accept some responsibility for the crime situation as it stands today, abduction scares and all.
No matter what tag he now seeks to put on the glorified role he fit so comfortably into a few years ago, the fact is that he was brought here - at a handsome price - as part of the solution to the country's crime problem which, despite statistics that have been presented in a way that would seek to argue otherwise, seems to have worsened.
For even though the numbers speak to less incidents of abduction over comparative time periods, the anecdotal evidence suggests a level of brazenness that has put the nation in a state of panic.
Perhaps some of the structures and systems that Mr Shields was hired to put in place can assist us out of this present dilemma.
Comment