Bet you didn't know about this.
Researchers Reveal Details Of Printer Tracking Dots
Showing posts with label police. Show all posts
Showing posts with label police. Show all posts
Losing the right to smear
The singer Cliff Richard has won a case against the BBC for their coverage of a police raid on his house over a claim that he was a paedophile. He was never charged with any offence and both the police and the BBC have to pay him damages and his court costs.
The British media is moaning because the judgement in the case seems to rule that in future a persons name cannot be published until they have been charged with an offence.
They claim that "the case marked a "significant shift" against press freedom and an "important principle" around the public's right to know was at stake.
I don't agree.
Neither did the judge. "In his judgement, Mr Justice Mann said a suspect in a police investigation "has a reasonable expectation of privacy" and while Sir Cliff being investigated "might be of interest to the gossip-monger", there was not a "genuine public interest" case."
A former chief constable for British Transport Police said: "Generally speaking, I see no reason for the public to know people have been arrested. The person arrested carry the stigma of that arrest for a long time."
I think it is right that the media should not be able to damage a persons reputation by reporting they are being investigated and will now have to wait until they are charged. If they are not charged their anonymity will be protected.
The media have lost the right to smear a person just to get a scoop.
Fran Unsworth, the BBC's director of news, said that the ruling is a "significant shift against press freedom". No its not. Though it is a blow to the unethical who think their desire to get a scoop justifies invading someone's privacy and destroying their reputation.
The Wikipedia article on Ms Unsworth observes 'In August 2014, Unsworth ordered helicopter filming of a police raid on a mansion belonging to Cliff Richard. The coverage led to the singer suing the BBC for breach of privacy. '
I have been following this story on the BBC web site and I cannot recall them ever mentioning who at the BBC was responsible for sending helicopters to spy on Richards home when it was being raided by the police. Could Wikipedia be right? Was it The Franster?
I would now like to know who at the BBC decided not to settle Richard's claim out of court but instead take it to trial. The result of that brilliant decision has been legal costs and damages in the millions that will have to be met by the TV licence fee payers. Plus a court judgement that The Franster claims infringes 'press freedom'.
You might also have noticed how the BBC news department [headed by The Franster] has managed to spin the story so that it is about press freedom and not about two very expensive and very bad decisions by the BBC.
The BBC defends
I listened to David Jordan, the BBC's director of editorial policy and standards being interviewed by a BBC journalist [senior BBC manager interviewed by more junior member of same organisation. That's the way to get at the truth. I assume Mr Jordan's mum was not available to do the interview.]
His answer to almost every slightly tricky question was to say that the BBC would have to consider that issue. The police raid was four years ago. Haven't the BBC found time to think about the case and their actions during the past four years? No meetings? No time to put the old thinking caps on?
David Jordan said resignations were "not necessarily the right response to every mistake that every journalist makes in a news organisation". Oh, I don't know. I think applying a blowlamp to some BBC tootsies would do the organisation a world of good. If they have trouble drawing up a list of sackable people I can think of a few names.
The British media is moaning because the judgement in the case seems to rule that in future a persons name cannot be published until they have been charged with an offence.
They claim that "the case marked a "significant shift" against press freedom and an "important principle" around the public's right to know was at stake.
I don't agree.
Neither did the judge. "In his judgement, Mr Justice Mann said a suspect in a police investigation "has a reasonable expectation of privacy" and while Sir Cliff being investigated "might be of interest to the gossip-monger", there was not a "genuine public interest" case."
A former chief constable for British Transport Police said: "Generally speaking, I see no reason for the public to know people have been arrested. The person arrested carry the stigma of that arrest for a long time."
I think it is right that the media should not be able to damage a persons reputation by reporting they are being investigated and will now have to wait until they are charged. If they are not charged their anonymity will be protected.
The media have lost the right to smear a person just to get a scoop.
Fran Unsworth, the BBC's director of news, said that the ruling is a "significant shift against press freedom". No its not. Though it is a blow to the unethical who think their desire to get a scoop justifies invading someone's privacy and destroying their reputation.
 |
| Fran Unsworth |
I have been following this story on the BBC web site and I cannot recall them ever mentioning who at the BBC was responsible for sending helicopters to spy on Richards home when it was being raided by the police. Could Wikipedia be right? Was it The Franster?
I would now like to know who at the BBC decided not to settle Richard's claim out of court but instead take it to trial. The result of that brilliant decision has been legal costs and damages in the millions that will have to be met by the TV licence fee payers. Plus a court judgement that The Franster claims infringes 'press freedom'.
You might also have noticed how the BBC news department [headed by The Franster] has managed to spin the story so that it is about press freedom and not about two very expensive and very bad decisions by the BBC.
The BBC defends
I listened to David Jordan, the BBC's director of editorial policy and standards being interviewed by a BBC journalist [senior BBC manager interviewed by more junior member of same organisation. That's the way to get at the truth. I assume Mr Jordan's mum was not available to do the interview.]
His answer to almost every slightly tricky question was to say that the BBC would have to consider that issue. The police raid was four years ago. Haven't the BBC found time to think about the case and their actions during the past four years? No meetings? No time to put the old thinking caps on?
David Jordan said resignations were "not necessarily the right response to every mistake that every journalist makes in a news organisation". Oh, I don't know. I think applying a blowlamp to some BBC tootsies would do the organisation a world of good. If they have trouble drawing up a list of sackable people I can think of a few names.
Eddie Mair and 'fishy' data retention
On today's edition of the BBC five o'clock news Eddie Mair gave a pathetic Liberal Democrat Home Office Minister a good kicking over the new Data Retention laws which are to be rushed through Parliament.
At one point he asked the poor sod if the public should find it fishy that all the three main political parties were supporting this nonsense.
Of course it is not fishy, Eddie. It just means that our secret police have gathered enough blackmail information on the parties from past data retention that they can force them to do whatever they want. An situation that was entirely foreseeable once that fool Blair was talked into forcing data retention through the EU Parliament and then through the UK Parliament.
Politicians and journalists must be truly stupid if they do not realise they are going to be the main targets of data retention. We might catch a few criminals and terrorists but political power for our UK versions of J Edgar Hoover is the main pay-off from data retention.
They are the masters now and are so confident of their powers that they don't even bother to think up plausible excuses or reasons for their actions.
As Craig Murray says in his latest post, "It is not that they expect us to believe them – they just don’t care. They have the power, and we don’t.
At one point he asked the poor sod if the public should find it fishy that all the three main political parties were supporting this nonsense.
Of course it is not fishy, Eddie. It just means that our secret police have gathered enough blackmail information on the parties from past data retention that they can force them to do whatever they want. An situation that was entirely foreseeable once that fool Blair was talked into forcing data retention through the EU Parliament and then through the UK Parliament.
Politicians and journalists must be truly stupid if they do not realise they are going to be the main targets of data retention. We might catch a few criminals and terrorists but political power for our UK versions of J Edgar Hoover is the main pay-off from data retention.
They are the masters now and are so confident of their powers that they don't even bother to think up plausible excuses or reasons for their actions.
As Craig Murray says in his latest post, "It is not that they expect us to believe them – they just don’t care. They have the power, and we don’t.
Police pay £660,952 in music licence fees
A Freedom of Information request by Robert Foulds, the clerk of Bramley Parish Council in South Yorkshire revealed that in the past year police forces in England and Wales paid £660,952
for licences so staff could listen to music in their offices.
The Performing Right Society (PRS) collects the fees and pays royalties to artists.
Four forces paid nothing, while 17 spent more than £10,000.
Something to remember when you hear these clowns whining about being short of money.
Link
Turkish riots
A brave Turkish policeman defends himself against a violent rioter.
This fascist country should never be admitted to the European Union.
This fascist country should never be admitted to the European Union.
Liberals kill Snoopers Charter.
The so called Snoopers Charter was an attempt by the UK police and secret police to set up a system spy on everything that we do online.
Kudos to Clegg and the Liberals for killing the proposal [Link]. I thought they had forgotten why some of us vote for them. Maybe they are getting back their identity.
The scheme was supposed to make us safer but was wildly disproportionate to any risk we face.
Not only would it have been a gross invasion of our privacy but it would have given far too much power to the UK's security apparatus. Knowledge is power and the Snoopers Charter would have given enormous power to the secret squirrels. From our mobile phone they would have known where we had been, who we had been with and who we had contacted. From our browsing they would have known what we read online and what we wrote. They would have spied on journalists and politicians and would soon have been able to issue them instructions. They would have acquired enormous political power.
The career of Edgar Hoover of the FBI is a lesson to all politicians of the risks of allowing the squirrels to know too much. Hoover used his files to blackmail politicians and defy Presidents. We don't want to create an Edgar Hoover in the UK.
If this paranoid just consider what Putin did before his present job. Consider that George Bush used to run the CIA.
BTW - In all the reporting on the Snoopers Charter I have not noticed any naming of the people behind the scheme. It was a shadowy body called the Joint Intelligence Committee. I am not sure why journalists have been so reluctant to identify this very dodgy group. They are the same people who want to set up secret courts so the public does not find out about the secret squirrel's misdeeds.
Kudos to Clegg and the Liberals for killing the proposal [Link]. I thought they had forgotten why some of us vote for them. Maybe they are getting back their identity.
The scheme was supposed to make us safer but was wildly disproportionate to any risk we face.
Not only would it have been a gross invasion of our privacy but it would have given far too much power to the UK's security apparatus. Knowledge is power and the Snoopers Charter would have given enormous power to the secret squirrels. From our mobile phone they would have known where we had been, who we had been with and who we had contacted. From our browsing they would have known what we read online and what we wrote. They would have spied on journalists and politicians and would soon have been able to issue them instructions. They would have acquired enormous political power.
The career of Edgar Hoover of the FBI is a lesson to all politicians of the risks of allowing the squirrels to know too much. Hoover used his files to blackmail politicians and defy Presidents. We don't want to create an Edgar Hoover in the UK.
If this paranoid just consider what Putin did before his present job. Consider that George Bush used to run the CIA.
BTW - In all the reporting on the Snoopers Charter I have not noticed any naming of the people behind the scheme. It was a shadowy body called the Joint Intelligence Committee. I am not sure why journalists have been so reluctant to identify this very dodgy group. They are the same people who want to set up secret courts so the public does not find out about the secret squirrel's misdeeds.
Are the UK police and media trying to bring down a minister?
In September 2012 Andrew Mitchell, the UK Government Chief Whip, had an altercation with policemen on guard at the gate of Downing Street. There is some dispute at what was said but Mitchell has apologised to the policemen and his apology has been accepted.
Since then the UK media has pursued the story ad nauseam. The public has long since lost interest, in what is by any rational standards, a very trivial story, but still the media struggle desperately to keep the story alive, aided by the police and the Labour Party.
It is all clearly a fuss about nothing, so what is really happening?
I suspect that the incident is being used to try and bring down a government minister and each of the three parties, police, press and Labour, have their own agenda.
Police agenda
When Labour were in power the police had power and privilege. The government gave them whatever they wanted and made no attempt to disturb the UK's last bastion of Spanish Practices [Spanish Practices is a UK expression that refers to irregular or restrictive working practices].
Times have changed and they are finding life harder under the Coalition. They are grumpy and sullen. I suspect they want to bring down Mitchell to show the Government they are still a power to fear.
I think they have made a big mistake in picking this fight with the Conservatives. Even if the police succeeded in forcing Mitchell out that will not save them and the Conservatives will take a terrible revenge. The police should remember what happened to the miners after they humiliated Ted Heath's Government in 1974. As Walpole remarked "they are ringing their bells, soon they will be wringing their hands".
The Conservatives bear grudges. If they are unhappy they do something about it. They will exact their revenge on the police at some later date in a compelling and thorough fashion.
Press agenda
Why are the press pursuing the story? Partly for the same reasons as the police. The internet has greatly diminished their influence and they would like to show they are still a power in the land. Also, they fear that they are due for a giant ass whipping for past misdeeds [phone hacking, corrupting public servants etc.]. What is puzzling is why they think annoying the government is the best way to mitigate the ass whipping. It isn't.
Also, like the scorpion in The Scorpion and the Frog story, they cannot help themselves.
The BBC has foolishly joined in the press campaign and will also have their panties taken down in the future, probably via the Jimmy Savile affair.
Incidentally, the press have claimed that Mitchell called the police plebs. I do not believe that for a moment. That sounds like an invention by a tabloid journalist [or the police]. The BBC has repeated the pleb claim over and over again without once, to my knowledge, questioning whether it is true.
Labour agenda
These losers think they can score some political points off the Conservatives. That might have worked at first but now they just seem like weak and tiresome political opportunists. They need to give it a rest and stop flogging a dead horse.
Hypocrisy
Meanwhile, a 61 year old blind man who has suffered two strokes was tased by Lancashire Police who claim they mistook his white cane for a samurai sword. Apart from reinforcing my belief that it is a mistake to arm the stupid, it will be interesting to see how the police, media and Labour Party respond to the incident. It is clearly much more serious than the Mitchell affair. Will the Police Federation call for PC Taser to be sacked? I doubt it. Did the media give this appalling incident the same attention as the Mitchell affair. No, they did not. Will Miliband mention it in Parliament. Don't hold your breath.
Since then the UK media has pursued the story ad nauseam. The public has long since lost interest, in what is by any rational standards, a very trivial story, but still the media struggle desperately to keep the story alive, aided by the police and the Labour Party.
It is all clearly a fuss about nothing, so what is really happening?
I suspect that the incident is being used to try and bring down a government minister and each of the three parties, police, press and Labour, have their own agenda.
Police agenda
When Labour were in power the police had power and privilege. The government gave them whatever they wanted and made no attempt to disturb the UK's last bastion of Spanish Practices [Spanish Practices is a UK expression that refers to irregular or restrictive working practices].
Times have changed and they are finding life harder under the Coalition. They are grumpy and sullen. I suspect they want to bring down Mitchell to show the Government they are still a power to fear.
I think they have made a big mistake in picking this fight with the Conservatives. Even if the police succeeded in forcing Mitchell out that will not save them and the Conservatives will take a terrible revenge. The police should remember what happened to the miners after they humiliated Ted Heath's Government in 1974. As Walpole remarked "they are ringing their bells, soon they will be wringing their hands".
The Conservatives bear grudges. If they are unhappy they do something about it. They will exact their revenge on the police at some later date in a compelling and thorough fashion.
Press agenda
Why are the press pursuing the story? Partly for the same reasons as the police. The internet has greatly diminished their influence and they would like to show they are still a power in the land. Also, they fear that they are due for a giant ass whipping for past misdeeds [phone hacking, corrupting public servants etc.]. What is puzzling is why they think annoying the government is the best way to mitigate the ass whipping. It isn't.
Also, like the scorpion in The Scorpion and the Frog story, they cannot help themselves.
The BBC has foolishly joined in the press campaign and will also have their panties taken down in the future, probably via the Jimmy Savile affair.
Incidentally, the press have claimed that Mitchell called the police plebs. I do not believe that for a moment. That sounds like an invention by a tabloid journalist [or the police]. The BBC has repeated the pleb claim over and over again without once, to my knowledge, questioning whether it is true.
Labour agenda
These losers think they can score some political points off the Conservatives. That might have worked at first but now they just seem like weak and tiresome political opportunists. They need to give it a rest and stop flogging a dead horse.
Hypocrisy
Meanwhile, a 61 year old blind man who has suffered two strokes was tased by Lancashire Police who claim they mistook his white cane for a samurai sword. Apart from reinforcing my belief that it is a mistake to arm the stupid, it will be interesting to see how the police, media and Labour Party respond to the incident. It is clearly much more serious than the Mitchell affair. Will the Police Federation call for PC Taser to be sacked? I doubt it. Did the media give this appalling incident the same attention as the Mitchell affair. No, they did not. Will Miliband mention it in Parliament. Don't hold your breath.
I'm offended
Apparently giving offence is now a criminal offence and giving offence to someone's religion justifies them acting violently.
Dim witted Chief Constables appear to believe that they can arrest anybody whose Facebook posting offends their delicate sensibilities.
Religious bigots appear to believe that if media in another country 'insults' their religion it is OK to kill, break and burn.
That all seems perfectly reasonable to me.
I am offended by -
1. Jackass policemen who abuse their office and ignore our rights of free speech.
2. Anybody who gets carried away by their favourite superstition.
3. A really long list of people, particularly the officious, stupid and intolerant.
I want them all punished because they are making me cry. Fencing off Sussex as a giant prison camp should be enough to hold all the people who have come between the wind and my nobility. I demand immediate action.
Or, I could just get a sense of proportion, shrug and get on with my life.
Maybe I will do that. Any day that brings nothing worse than offence is a good day.
Dim witted Chief Constables appear to believe that they can arrest anybody whose Facebook posting offends their delicate sensibilities.
Religious bigots appear to believe that if media in another country 'insults' their religion it is OK to kill, break and burn.
That all seems perfectly reasonable to me.
I am offended by -
1. Jackass policemen who abuse their office and ignore our rights of free speech.
2. Anybody who gets carried away by their favourite superstition.
3. A really long list of people, particularly the officious, stupid and intolerant.
I want them all punished because they are making me cry. Fencing off Sussex as a giant prison camp should be enough to hold all the people who have come between the wind and my nobility. I demand immediate action.
Or, I could just get a sense of proportion, shrug and get on with my life.
Maybe I will do that. Any day that brings nothing worse than offence is a good day.
Slimming down the police and creating an officer class
After a 18-month review of police pay and conditions Tom Winsor has suggested some radical changes to policing.
The media, in full pursuit of the trivial, has concentrated on the suggestion that police should have fitness tests. Apparently 75% of London policemen are overweight or obese.
That seems sensible. So are his suggestions that -
The pension age be increased to 60 for all officers. Officers currently retire after 30 years of service from the age of 50. I would have picked 65. Policing is no more strenuous than other occupations.
Compulsory redundancy. Academics lost tenure [jobs for life] years ago. Now the police are to loose theirs. It is about time.
A requirement for all recruits to have three A-levels for new recruits. Current entry levels are very low but there are up to 100 applications for every job.
Performance-related pay. Amazing that they did not have this.
Cutting the starting salary for a constable from £23,500 to £19,000. Police are overpaid and that needs to be corrected.
The police had a very soft life under Labour and a succession of weak Home Secretaries. That has to change and it will be interesting to see if Teresa May has the guts to implement the report's recommendations. The Police Federation will squeal, but they would squeal about anything other than a large pay rise. They should be ignored.
Winsor's most important recomendation was ignored by the media. He suggests that the police have an office class.
At the moment every police officer has to start as a constable and rise through the ranks. The police have no direct entry to senior levels [inspector and above]. In the army a recruit can start as a lieutenant without any requirement to have served in the ranks. This was designed to ensure that control of the army was always in the hands of the right people from the right class.
Winsor proposes that there should be direct entry for recruits to inspector rank and above and at least 80 places a year reserved for graduates from the best universities. Also people from military, security services and business would have direct entry to the rank of superintendent.
This idea needs to be very carefully examined because it represents a far more radical change than his reports other proposals.
I hope anything that May does will include the provision of better oversight of the police by an independent body with the power to fine and fire. Recent events have shown that The Filth [aka the London Metropolitan Police] are very filthy indeed. I suspect that some other police forces are no better.
The media, in full pursuit of the trivial, has concentrated on the suggestion that police should have fitness tests. Apparently 75% of London policemen are overweight or obese.
That seems sensible. So are his suggestions that -
The pension age be increased to 60 for all officers. Officers currently retire after 30 years of service from the age of 50. I would have picked 65. Policing is no more strenuous than other occupations.
Compulsory redundancy. Academics lost tenure [jobs for life] years ago. Now the police are to loose theirs. It is about time.
A requirement for all recruits to have three A-levels for new recruits. Current entry levels are very low but there are up to 100 applications for every job.
Performance-related pay. Amazing that they did not have this.
Cutting the starting salary for a constable from £23,500 to £19,000. Police are overpaid and that needs to be corrected.
The police had a very soft life under Labour and a succession of weak Home Secretaries. That has to change and it will be interesting to see if Teresa May has the guts to implement the report's recommendations. The Police Federation will squeal, but they would squeal about anything other than a large pay rise. They should be ignored.
Winsor's most important recomendation was ignored by the media. He suggests that the police have an office class.
At the moment every police officer has to start as a constable and rise through the ranks. The police have no direct entry to senior levels [inspector and above]. In the army a recruit can start as a lieutenant without any requirement to have served in the ranks. This was designed to ensure that control of the army was always in the hands of the right people from the right class.
Winsor proposes that there should be direct entry for recruits to inspector rank and above and at least 80 places a year reserved for graduates from the best universities. Also people from military, security services and business would have direct entry to the rank of superintendent.
This idea needs to be very carefully examined because it represents a far more radical change than his reports other proposals.
I hope anything that May does will include the provision of better oversight of the police by an independent body with the power to fine and fire. Recent events have shown that The Filth [aka the London Metropolitan Police] are very filthy indeed. I suspect that some other police forces are no better.
Define 'robust policing"
Several political idiots have been advocating what they call 'robust policing' to deal with rioters.
I would like to know what they mean by that.
Would it include any of the following -
rushing at people and hitting them with truncheons. Didn't somebody try that at a demonstration and it did not work out well?
beating them up in the back of police vans or in cells [always a favourite].
making up evidence to get convictions.
assaulting or even shooting them under the guise of a search or arrest. Wasn't that tactic the cause of the demonstration that lead to the riots?
doing other unlawful things that might land police in court [whilst the politicians gently fade into the background].
Come on, don't be shy. What do you mean by robust policing (and will you indemnify policemen against civil and criminal action if they get too robust)?
Why do you think arresting people and bringing them to court is no longer enough?
I would like to know what they mean by that.
Would it include any of the following -
rushing at people and hitting them with truncheons. Didn't somebody try that at a demonstration and it did not work out well?
beating them up in the back of police vans or in cells [always a favourite].
making up evidence to get convictions.
assaulting or even shooting them under the guise of a search or arrest. Wasn't that tactic the cause of the demonstration that lead to the riots?
doing other unlawful things that might land police in court [whilst the politicians gently fade into the background].
Come on, don't be shy. What do you mean by robust policing (and will you indemnify policemen against civil and criminal action if they get too robust)?
Why do you think arresting people and bringing them to court is no longer enough?
'The Filth' fail the Mark test
Almost 40 years ago Sir Robert Mark was brought in as Commissioner to clean up corruption in London’s Metropolitan Police. He defined a good police force as “one that catches more crooks than it employs”.
It looks like the Met could not pass that test.
It looks like the Met could not pass that test.
Will Theresa May become ACPO's bitch?
During the Labour years ACPO got to do pretty much what it wanted and, as a consequence it got far too big for its boots. Labour Home Secretaries were all too willing to kneel and kiss the ACPO ring. Very often it seemed that the ACPO tail was wagging the government dog.
If the police wanted more powers then all they had to do was send a list around to the Home Office. The deal seems to have been that the police could have whatever they wanted [and what greedy little piggies they were] and in return they promised not to leak information to the press and produce outraged headlines in the Daily Mail.
In the past the Conservative Party has taken a more robust line with the police. They have liked to keep them in their place. That is as it should be. The government is elected. ACPO is not.
The question now is; will Theresa May stand up to the woodentops, or is she going to become their bitch. I see they are trying her out already with requests for a replacement for Section 44 powers.. If she shows any signs of resistance to their demands the full scaremongering tactics will be employed. Terrorists will be everywhere. If they actually do anything it will be Therasa's fault for not giving the police the power to shoot suspects on sight.
If she wants to show that she is not going to be kneeling before ACPO she might start by cutting them back a bit. A review of Home Office grants is long overdue.
Curiously enough, ACPO is a private limited company. It is funded by Home Office grants, profits from commercial activities and contributions from the 44 UK police authorities.
Some of its ways in which it spends government money seem rather questionable. In 2010 it emerged that ACPO was spending £1.6M per year from government anti-terrorist funding grants on renting up to 80 apartments in the centre of London. These were reported as being empty most of the time.
Let us see if Theresa can stand up to the ACPO test.
It is time to cut police budgets
The police are whining about budget cuts. They protest that any cuts will reduce their ability to combat terrorism.
Really?
I doubt it. So does the Coalition. They have described it as "shroud waving". It is also a clear example of the police openly interfering with government policy making.
In 2008 the London Metropolitan police carried out 170,000 searches under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000. This Labour law allows the police to search someone without any suspicion that they are engaged in any wrong doing. A law that led to innocent people being publicly humiliated and alienated by unnecessary police searches.
The 170,000 searches led to just 65 arrests for terrorism offences. A success rate of 0.04%.
If the police have the resources to waste on Section 44 searches they are clearly over funded.
In fact, we have spent far too much on anti terrorism policing and need to cut back to levels which are justified by the level of risk.
The Blair government threw money and legislation at anti terrorism because they were afraid that the tabloids would criticise them for not doing enough.
The result was wasted money, oppressive legislation and a long list of unnecessary raids, unjustified arrests and failed trials.
It was another fiasco, by a government more concerned with spin than evidence based policy making.
All actions on risk should be proportionate to the level of risk, not to a fear of bad publicity. We need to focus our attention and resources on the most serious risks.
Air pollution might be one to start with. The Guardian reports that
"The City of London has been found to be one of the most polluted places in Europe after monitoring equipment recorded dangerous levels of minute particles for the 36th time this year.
"Air pollution is bad for our health. It reduces human life expectancy by more than eight months on average and by more than two years in the most polluted cities and regions," he said.
Poor air quality is now considered one of the biggest public health issues now facing the UK. A recent report by the House of Commons environmental audit committee included evidence that air pollution could be contributing to 50,000 deaths in the UK a year. A study commissioned by Boris Johnson, mayor of London, calculated that more than 4,300 deaths are caused by poor air quality in the city every year, costing around £2bn a year."
Deaths in London from terrorism = about 50. Deaths in London from air pollution = 4300.
Really?
I doubt it. So does the Coalition. They have described it as "shroud waving". It is also a clear example of the police openly interfering with government policy making.
In 2008 the London Metropolitan police carried out 170,000 searches under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000. This Labour law allows the police to search someone without any suspicion that they are engaged in any wrong doing. A law that led to innocent people being publicly humiliated and alienated by unnecessary police searches.
The 170,000 searches led to just 65 arrests for terrorism offences. A success rate of 0.04%.
If the police have the resources to waste on Section 44 searches they are clearly over funded.
In fact, we have spent far too much on anti terrorism policing and need to cut back to levels which are justified by the level of risk.
The Blair government threw money and legislation at anti terrorism because they were afraid that the tabloids would criticise them for not doing enough.
The result was wasted money, oppressive legislation and a long list of unnecessary raids, unjustified arrests and failed trials.
It was another fiasco, by a government more concerned with spin than evidence based policy making.
All actions on risk should be proportionate to the level of risk, not to a fear of bad publicity. We need to focus our attention and resources on the most serious risks.
Air pollution might be one to start with. The Guardian reports that
"The City of London has been found to be one of the most polluted places in Europe after monitoring equipment recorded dangerous levels of minute particles for the 36th time this year.
"Air pollution is bad for our health. It reduces human life expectancy by more than eight months on average and by more than two years in the most polluted cities and regions," he said.
Poor air quality is now considered one of the biggest public health issues now facing the UK. A recent report by the House of Commons environmental audit committee included evidence that air pollution could be contributing to 50,000 deaths in the UK a year. A study commissioned by Boris Johnson, mayor of London, calculated that more than 4,300 deaths are caused by poor air quality in the city every year, costing around £2bn a year."
Deaths in London from terrorism = about 50. Deaths in London from air pollution = 4300.
Attending a political meeting in Labour's Surveillance State
Those poor people in Iran and China. It must be terrible to live in a police state and be spied on all the time.
Spy Blog's Tips for attending a political meeting in the UK
Spy Blog's Tips for attending a political meeting in the UK
- Tell all your friends and family about the meeting, at least have someone worry about you if you are late home.
- Switch off your mobile phone(s) when you are within, a couple of blocks, or Tube or train or Bus stops from the meeting. Even if you do not make or receive a voice call or send or receive an SMS text message or use your mobile phone internet connection, then your phone will register its location every 10 minutes or so with the nearby mobile phone Cell tower base stations.
This will generate Communications Traffic data including Location Based Services data, which will be trawled through, en masse, by various police and intelligence units with an interest in trying to identify and track some or all of the attendees of this meeting. - Take note and photographs if possible, of anybody seeming to record or photograph vehicle number plates of nearby parked cars or the people entering or leaving the meeting rooms / building etc.
- If you are "stopped and searched" under the Terrorism Act 2000 section 44, you do not have to give your name and address (although this can be demanded if you are actually arrested under the vast swathe of other legislation ).
- Remember that Police Community Support officers have no powers under the the Terrorism Act 2000 section 44, unless they are being physically supervised by a real , sworn, Police Constable in Uniform (plain clothes or undercover police also have no section 44 powers)
- Neither Police Constables nor PCSOs can demand that you delete any photographs or video you have taken on your camera or mobile phone (that is potentially "destruction of evidence") .
- This is a peaceful meeting, but just in case you are arrested, or stopped and searched etc. do have the contact details of a firm of solicitors who deal with criminal law and human rights etc. Say nothing until you have access to proper, independent legal advice.
- Do not rely on keeping these solicitors details in your mobile phone - that is one of the first things that will be taken away from you by the police - memorise them and / or keep them on paper as well.
- Set a security PIN code on your Mobile Phone. This will not prevent the police from examining it forensically if you are actually arrested, but it may be enough to prevent casual, illegal, snooping by Police Constables or by ill trained Police Community Support Officers.
- Delete all your stored SMS text messages (sent, received and draft). These can be forensically recovered or reconstructed from central records, but again, there is no need to give anything private away to nosey snoopers who might have your phone in their possession.
- Ideally, do not take your normal mobile phone to such a meeting - use a cheap / disposable, prepaid, unregistered mobile phone, with little or no history or stored contacts or SMS messages.
British police are lame and lazy
Former Home Secretary Jack Straw has been reported as saying "I'm afraid I'm rather sceptical about the excuse that ... the police, is overworked and therefore can't change. With a given level of resources, some police forces, or some parts of police forces do very much better than others.
Some police officers, whatever they say, actually quite enjoy being in the police station in the warm. We are dealing with human beings, but we are also dealing with the kind of discipline and culture in the police service."
Usually, I do not have much time for Straw but in this case I think he is absolutely right. The UK police force is the last home of 'Spanish Practices' and successive governments have failed to make them competent and accountable. Many forces are badly managed and provide a home for the lame and lazy.
For as long as I can remember the police have had two alibis for their poor performance.
The first is that they do not have enough powers. If they just had this new law, or that new law, they could solve so many crimes. Weak politicians often given them the new laws, but somehow police performance never improves.
Willie Whitelaw was Home Secretary from 1979 to 1983.
"He boasted how after any security lapse, the police would come to beg for new and draconian powers. He laughed and sent them packing, saying only a bunch of softies would erode British liberty to give themselves an easier job. He said they laughed in return and remarked that 'it was worth a try'. Now the try always works." Link
Of course, Whitelaw was a more formidable figure than some recent Home Secretaries. Wikipedia describes his war record "He commanded Churchill tanks during the heavy fighting in Normandy during the Second World War..his was the first Allied unit to encounter German Jagdpanther tank destroyers. The battalion second-in-command was killed when his tank was hit in front of Whitelaw's eyes, and Whitelaw succeeded to this position. He was awarded the Military Cross for his actions."
Such a man probably felt contempt for a group of men who had spent the war safe in the UK in a reserved occupation.
By comparison Labour Home Secretaries, such as David Blunkett [former clerk] and the pathetic Jacqui Smith [former teacher], have been like rabbits facing stoats, and have failed to confront the police to bring about the reforms that are needed.
Standards are woefully low, accountability is minimal and much spending is wasted.
For example, a high percentage of the police budget is spent on pensions because of the force's absurdly generous pension arrangements.
The other alibi for police incompetence is that they are over burdened by unnecessary paperwork. For example, the number of forms they have to complete when they stop and search someone.
Straw addresses this argument by pointing out that all police forces have to complete the same paperwork, but some are much better at doing it. "And it is the ones who are the less efficient and who have the wrong approach to the public who fall back on this 'Oh, I'm overworked' [argument]. He said while some officers would claim it took four hours to fill in forms, good police officers will take an hour to fill in the same forms because they want to get out and catch criminals."
He could also have mentioned that the London Metropolitan Police used Section 44 powers to stop and search over 57,000 people, and all this effort produced an arrest rate of 0.6%.
Hampshire Police conducted 3,481 stop and searches under Section 44, but arrested no one in connection with terror.
Evidence of overwork? I don't think so. Evidence of incompetence? That's more like it.
Finally, it was disappointing to see the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats rushing to the defence of the police. In this case Labour got it right and they got it wrong.
Some police officers, whatever they say, actually quite enjoy being in the police station in the warm. We are dealing with human beings, but we are also dealing with the kind of discipline and culture in the police service."
Usually, I do not have much time for Straw but in this case I think he is absolutely right. The UK police force is the last home of 'Spanish Practices' and successive governments have failed to make them competent and accountable. Many forces are badly managed and provide a home for the lame and lazy.
For as long as I can remember the police have had two alibis for their poor performance.
Willie Whitelaw was Home Secretary from 1979 to 1983.
"He boasted how after any security lapse, the police would come to beg for new and draconian powers. He laughed and sent them packing, saying only a bunch of softies would erode British liberty to give themselves an easier job. He said they laughed in return and remarked that 'it was worth a try'. Now the try always works." Link
Of course, Whitelaw was a more formidable figure than some recent Home Secretaries. Wikipedia describes his war record "He commanded Churchill tanks during the heavy fighting in Normandy during the Second World War..his was the first Allied unit to encounter German Jagdpanther tank destroyers. The battalion second-in-command was killed when his tank was hit in front of Whitelaw's eyes, and Whitelaw succeeded to this position. He was awarded the Military Cross for his actions."
Such a man probably felt contempt for a group of men who had spent the war safe in the UK in a reserved occupation.
By comparison Labour Home Secretaries, such as David Blunkett [former clerk] and the pathetic Jacqui Smith [former teacher], have been like rabbits facing stoats, and have failed to confront the police to bring about the reforms that are needed.
Standards are woefully low, accountability is minimal and much spending is wasted.
For example, a high percentage of the police budget is spent on pensions because of the force's absurdly generous pension arrangements.
The other alibi for police incompetence is that they are over burdened by unnecessary paperwork. For example, the number of forms they have to complete when they stop and search someone.
Straw addresses this argument by pointing out that all police forces have to complete the same paperwork, but some are much better at doing it. "And it is the ones who are the less efficient and who have the wrong approach to the public who fall back on this 'Oh, I'm overworked' [argument]. He said while some officers would claim it took four hours to fill in forms, good police officers will take an hour to fill in the same forms because they want to get out and catch criminals."
He could also have mentioned that the London Metropolitan Police used Section 44 powers to stop and search over 57,000 people, and all this effort produced an arrest rate of 0.6%.
Hampshire Police conducted 3,481 stop and searches under Section 44, but arrested no one in connection with terror.
Evidence of overwork? I don't think so. Evidence of incompetence? That's more like it.
Finally, it was disappointing to see the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats rushing to the defence of the police. In this case Labour got it right and they got it wrong.
A nice little earner - UK police pay
"SOME police officers are earning up to £100,000 a year, triple their basic salary, by putting in thousands of hours in overtime.
The figures, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, will alarm London police regulators and reformers within Scotland Yard who are examining wideranging changes in the Met’s operations.
In 2004-05, one constable received £55,960 in overtime, making his final earnings £99,317. The average overtime payment for a uniformed constable is £4,000 a year, for 200 extra hours. Dectective constables can earn double that.
The top-earning sergeant last year was paid £62,741 in overtime, bringing his total to £109,643, including allowances of £11,908 — almost as much as the Prime Minister, who earns £121,437, and more than the £104,000 paid to a deputy assistant commissioner. On average, sergeants earned £5,000 in overtime.
HOLMES hunts a murderer
During the 1970’s in England a serial killer called the Yorkshire Ripper killed at least thirteen women. The police launched a massive, but unsuccessful, hunt for the Ripper [he was eventually caught by chance]. At the time nobody could understand why the police could not catch the killer.Then the TV went inside the police HQ and it became immediately obvious why they were being unsuccessful. They were storing all their data on 5x7 file cards. They had mountains of them. Something as simple as a patrol stopping a suspicious car would generate seven separate cards. There would be one card showing the colour of the car, another card its make, another the date and time of the stop; and so on.
I thought at the time that the killer was probably somewhere in that pile of cards but they would never be able to dig him out. In fact, that was true. The killer had been tagged twice as a serious suspect, but the cards had been filed away and never followed up.
After this fiasco the UK Home Office bought a software system called HOLMES [Home Office Large Major Enquiry System] to handle the data in major enquires. That would include not only murders, but any major incident, such as a train or plane crash. HOLMES would have been used in the recent London Tube bombings.
The system is now in its second iteration. This PDF file contains a slide show put together by the systems developers and shows how HOLMES2 would be used in a murder investigation. You can see that the reality of a murder investigation is very different from the fictional portrayal. Instead of some brilliant but quirky investigators wondering around questioning suspects and collecting clues, before clapping the handcuffs on the killer, there is a methodical process of data collection and analysis.
If the police had had HOLMES earlier they would have caught the Yorkshire Ripper much sooner and several lives would have been saved. However, there are dangers in this approach. In a later case involving a serial rapist the police passed over a likely suspect because HOLMES showed him in as being in prison at the time of one of the rapes. In fact, somebody had entered the wrong release date.
There is one final point. You can see how much data is collected on anybody, no matter how innocent, that comes into contact with the investigation. We have very weak privacy protection laws in the UK and when the police have data they are not obliged to destroy it at the end of an investigation. Having seen how it works I think my inclination would be to avoid getting involved in an investigation no matter how innocently.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)