No, Keir, you won't smash the gangs

Law enforcement versus politics. Guess who wins?

Reports suggest each migrant pays around £12000, in total, to reach the UK from their country of origin.

---

You know Keir Starmer won’t ‘smash’ the people-smuggling gangs. I know Keir Starmer won’t smash the people-smuggling gangs. There’s a decrepit-looking cat who lurks under a car near my house. Even old moggy knows Keir Starmer won’t smash the people-smuggling gangs.

Nonetheless, the Prime Minister stands at his podium, looking shifty and uncomfortable like he does, insisting he’ll smash those darn gangs. Like Boss Hogg, promising to chase those goddam Duke boys outta Hazzard County (I’ve given away my vintage there, haven’t I?).

Today, I’m scrutinizing Keir’s promises of gang-smashing through a policeman’s eye. Like most coppers, I’ve been on the coalface of a few crime-fighting strategies. From burglary and robbery, all the way to police corruption, organised crime and counterterrorism. I’ve even been a copper at an airport, working with customs and immigration. 1996, before the Human Rights Act, back when we still had a semblance of border control.

I’ll begin by examining law enforcement strategy from a technical perspective. Then, inevitably, we’ll consider the politics. People-smuggling and immigration are deeply political issues. You can’t not discuss it. It’s like trying to discuss the salary at a job interview without mentioning money. Political imperatives invariably impact on operational outcomes.

You probably already know there’s an emperor wandering around. And he’s stark bollock naked when it comes to gang-smashing. I’m sure Keir Starmer’s acutely aware of how the issue of illegal migration (not irregular) is of potentially election-losing importance - even though legal migration is much, much worse from a numbers perspective. Focus groups report how voters are tearing their hair out over small boats. Especially in the ‘Red Wall’, where Starmer’s consigliere, Morgan McSweeney, is firefighting the Reform menace.

So why do otherwise intelligent, well-meaning and credible people go along with the notion of the new Border Security Command smashing the gangs?

I’m intrigued. I really am.

Pondering this conundrum, I was reminded of the Russian term ‘Vranyo’. Vranyo means;

You know I’m lying, and I know that you know, and you know that I know that you know, but I go ahead with a straight face, and you nod seriously and take notes.

Vranyo’s a concept borne of authoritarian regimes, where adherence to dogma is essential to not dropping yourself in the shit. Yes, this plan won’t work but it’s the plan, right? And we’re getting paid, right? So go along with the plan, comrade, and add pronouns to your email block. Except we live in Britain in 2025. Not the Soviet Union circa 1975. Someone needs to tell Keir.

Yes, I am here to smash the gangs. Don’t giggle, it can be dangerous. Especially on Facebook.

---

What, then do honest-to-God, non-Vranyo crime-fighting strategies tend to have in common? This is one of those occasions where that dismal, management handbook phrase ‘holistic approach’ applies. First of all, you scope your law enforcement problem using the finest brains available (which is in and of itself occasionally an issue). The problem can be anything, really, from residential burglaries to gang crime, to people planting bombs or importing heroin.

An example - here’s a genuinely transformative strategy, one with a carrot, a stick and a plan - the Scottish Violence Reduction Unit. I will mention, however, commentators are usually more comfortable pointing out the bean-baggy, preventative element of the plan. As opposed to the equally salient ‘lock ‘em up’, zero tolerance aspect.

Terrorism’s another good example. The CONTEST strategy was deeply ambitious, even if elements have dated badly. The Government identified four key elements of combating terrorism and extremism. Have a think about how these ‘P’s might apply to people-trafficking:

Prevent: to stop people becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism.

Pursue: to stop terrorist attacks happening.

Protect: to strengthen our protection against a terrorist attack

Prepare: work to minimise the impact of an attack and to recover as quickly as possible.

Now, having formulated our basic strategy, we consider key partners. The other people invested in solving the problem. For law enforcement this means working, variously, with government departments, NGOs, charities and community groups. However, in the case of international people-smuggling, the strategy’s critically dependant on liaison with foreign countries (another reason why We Won’t Smash The Gangs, more of which later).

Next, you’ll consider the legal terrain and relevant legislation. Law is a tool for investigators and prosecutors. A tactical option. It usually requires creativity and, occasionally, audacity. You’ll identify stated cases and gaps in a defence lawyer’s armour. It might even involve senior officers and partners lobbying Government for changes to legislation, or introducing new laws.

You immediately see the problem in this instance, don’t you? Asking Keir Starmer if we can challenge the infallibility of human rights law? It would be like asking the Archbishop of Canterbury if it’d be okay to sacrifice a virgin to Beelzebub at Lambeth Palace.

ECHR says ‘no.’

Anyhow, so the theory goes, once you’ve identified the problem, your partners and the legal challenges, you assemble a team. In this case, we have the all-star line-up of the National Crime Agency (known colloquially as the ‘National Chaos Agency’, not known for its sense of urgency), the Security Service MI5 (all over success like a rash, completely absent at failures), Border Force and no doubt all sort of liaison officers, advisors, consultants and hangers-on. This is all very civil service, by the way. Read my take on their mindset here to see how that augurs for a spot of gang-smashing. Suffice to say, there will be PowerPoint.

There’ll be sexily-named intelligence fusion units. Strategy meetings. Operations groups. Liaison officers will be dispatched to faraway police headquarters, taking colonels of gendarmerie for lunch. The entire three-ring circus of a flash new squad. Its performance indicators, incidentally, will be calibrated towards nicking a bloke for smuggling dinghies, rather than on the overall societal and economic impact of illegal immigration and people-smuggling.

I’m not, incidentally, criticizing individual officers. I’ve been there, done that and got the tee-shirt (not to mention the scars on my back) while trying to make my tiny part of a bigger plan work. When all’s said and done, law enforcement professionals are a small cog in a big machine. You simply do your job and hope the bosses know what they’re doing (sometimes they do).

The boss in this case, incidentally, is Martin Hewitt. I encountered Martin during my time at the Met. He’s a credible operator. Realistic. Why he took the job is honestly beyond me. Good luck. You are Ethan Hunt, and I claim my ten quid.

Still, I suppose doing something is better than doing nothing. Right?

‘This mission, should you choose to accept it...’ the Impossible Mission Force is asked to smash the gangs. They politely decline.

---

Oh, I didn’t mention the most important thing, did I? Sorry, it’s just the Government seems to have forgotten to mention it too.

All crime-fighting strategies look at the causal factors behind offending patterns. Motive. Demand. The criminal commodity (is it drugs or guns or mobile phones, Rolex watches or human beings?). How can we divert, prevent or dissuade offenders and offending? The problem for the Government’s gang-busting / people-smuggling strategy is, therefore, twofold;

First of all, your primary enforcement activity, is by necessity, subcontracted to third parties (i.e. foreign police forces). You have no control over them. Don’t get me wrong, on a personal level, I’ve met brilliant foreign cops. I’ve had cocktails with the FBI and steak and chips with the Romanian security police. It’s simply foreign cooperation involves diplomacy and international law. Both of which move even slower than the British civil service. Incidentally, this included when we were in the EU.

Secondly, people-smuggling’s a moral quandary. Are people entering the UK illegally victims or offenders? Or both? How do we treat those desperate enough to risk their lives crossing the Channel in a leaky dinghy, even if they’re wilfully ignoring the law (making a mockery of the Dublin Convention on asylum)? This is where politics enters the equation; it’s abundantly clear the delicate balance between addressing humanitarian imperatives versus enforcement is trumped (excuse the pun, given the US President’s stance on illegal immigration) by the former.

Okay, Keir, that’s a valid political decision. Fair enough. It’s a vote-loser, but you’re the politician. So defend it. Be honest. What you don’t do is insist you’ll ‘smash the gangs’ when you know you can’t. This is a global problem. Poor old Martin Hewitt and his shiny new team are never, ever going to solve it. They can’t.

So why does Keir Starmer insist he can? I’ve seen him shake his tiny fist, promising his strategy is The Way Forward.

---

I’m not going to try to get inside the Prime Minister’s head. Well, not too much. If I were being charitable, I would say his experience as the Director of Public Prosecutions (upon which he relies too heavily) has led him to believe in the illusion of control I write about here. Starmer often talks about how ‘he’ put criminals in prison and how ‘he’ fought terrorism. No he didn’t. He signed pieces of paper.

If I were being less kind? I’d suggest Starmer is being economical with the truth. He’s simply too invested in the church of Human Rights law. He’s a fundie, speaking in tongues. All he can do is repeat the same thing over and over again (SMASH THE GANGS!) while he hopes the economy improves (oops) so no-one will notice.

It’s genuinely perplexing, when even the elderly cat near my house realises reducing the pull factors - primarily access to our welfare state - are the key to solving the problem. It’s like having an anti-burglary strategy where the public are forbidden from locking their doors at night.

But SMASH the gangs. Smash the GANGS. Smash THE gangs!

Which brings me back to Vranyo. You know it’s bullshit. I know it’s bullshit. We all know it’s bullshit.

And, come the next general election, I suspect Keir will finally see it’s bullshit too.

---