Rotten Boroughs : Royston, Hertfordshire

For once it's the police and not the council that is the subject of this blog's vented spleen...

In an action that can only be regarded as the thin end of an extremely dangerous wedge, the Hertfordshire Constabulary are installing a 'ring of steel' around the Hertfordshire town of Royston. Nine Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras are to be set up on all the access roads to the town to record the movements of every car that enters or leaves, twenty four hours a day, seven days a week.

Privacy International, No CCTV and Big Brother Watch are all concerned about the severe invasion of pubic privacy. Several civil liberties groups have already contacted the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), concerned about the legality of the operation.

Charles Farrier, of No CCTV, said: “The national ANPR network is the biggest surveillance network that the public has never heard of. The use of ANPR as a mass surveillance tool constitutes a major assault on our common law foundations and the Rule of Law. It is a system of automated checkpoints that ought to have no place in a democratic society. We believe the public have a right to go about their daily business without central government essentially logging every single journey they make. This kind of system isn’t about preventing crime, it’s about building up a database which can be used at a later stage.” I am inclined to agree.

On the other side of the fence, Hertfordshire Constabulary has dismissed the complaint and said the cameras, funded by North Herts District Council and local businesses, “are entirely lawful”.

ANPR manager inspector Andy Piper said: “As I’m sure the majority of Royston residents are already aware, the cameras are entirely lawful, have been funded by local businesses and the town council and are welcomed locally. " Apparently, there is a claim that 91% of residents in Royston support the scheme - which is surprising as they have set up a web site as a focus for protest and are calling for a local referendum on the issue.

Inspector Piper goes on "We use ANPR to target criminals and unsafe drivers, not law-abiding motorists, and have caught hundreds of burglars, robbers, uninsured drivers, drug dealers and other serious criminals. For law-abiding drivers, the numberplate details are kept, under strict guidelines, for two years before being deleted. We won’t access this information unless the registration is linked to crime, disorder or an unsafe vehicle.”

How long before we have these cameras tracking every major road in the country? And who will be footing the bill?

The big issue for me is where will this stop. The Police are already calling for a change in the law to allow wider use of these data. You have to ask why?

Rotten Boroughs : Royston, Hertfordshire

For once it's the police and not the council that is the subject of this blog's vented spleen...

In an action that can only be regarded as the thin end of an extremely dangerous wedge, the Hertfordshire Constabulary are installing a 'ring of steel' around the Hertfordshire town of Royston. Nine Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras are to be set up on all the access roads to the town to record the movements of every car that enters or leaves, twenty four hours a day, seven days a week.

Privacy International, No CCTV and Big Brother Watch are all concerned about the severe invasion of pubic privacy. Several civil liberties groups have already contacted the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), concerned about the legality of the operation.

Charles Farrier, of No CCTV, said: “The national ANPR network is the biggest surveillance network that the public has never heard of. The use of ANPR as a mass surveillance tool constitutes a major assault on our common law foundations and the Rule of Law. It is a system of automated checkpoints that ought to have no place in a democratic society. We believe the public have a right to go about their daily business without central government essentially logging every single journey they make. This kind of system isn’t about preventing crime, it’s about building up a database which can be used at a later stage.” I am inclined to agree.

On the other side of the fence, Hertfordshire Constabulary has dismissed the complaint and said the cameras, funded by North Herts District Council and local businesses, “are entirely lawful”.

ANPR manager inspector Andy Piper said: “As I’m sure the majority of Royston residents are already aware, the cameras are entirely lawful, have been funded by local businesses and the town council and are welcomed locally. " Apparently, there is a claim that 91% of residents in Royston support the scheme - which is surprising as they have set up a web site as a focus for protest and are calling for a local referendum on the issue.

Inspector Piper goes on "We use ANPR to target criminals and unsafe drivers, not law-abiding motorists, and have caught hundreds of burglars, robbers, uninsured drivers, drug dealers and other serious criminals. For law-abiding drivers, the numberplate details are kept, under strict guidelines, for two years before being deleted. We won’t access this information unless the registration is linked to crime, disorder or an unsafe vehicle.”

How long before we have these cameras tracking every major road in the country? And who will be footing the bill?

The big issue for me is where will this stop. The Police are already calling for a change in the law to allow wider use of these data. You have to ask why?

Fast track policemen

Police minister Nick Herbert has come up with the most hairbrained idea of the year so far - and I reckon it will take some beating...

Apparently, the idea of making all new recruits join at the lowest rank of constable is no longer "fit for purpose". The daft bugger told a national conference: "The service needs to be open, more representative and diverse. It needs to attract the brightest and the best."

At the moment, all coppers undergo the same basic training and spend a year as a probationer or beat copper. In other words, they learn the realities of the job by starting on the lowest rung of the ladder. The Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) opposes a change and says there is already an accelerated promotion scheme which can fast-track graduates and others with experience outside the police.

Many years ago - more than I care to remember in fact - I was interested in joining the fraud squad. I was told that I would have to undergo basic training and enter as a constable, but it was made clear to me that I would soon gain promotion in view of my professional qualifications. There was no question of avoiding the basics. It was made very clear to me that I would have to start at the bottom - and I felt this was as it should be!

Commerce in this country started to go down the toilet when managers were brought into the organisation with theoretical qualifications but no experience of either management or the basics of the business. If we do this to the police, then the quality of this organisation will also suffer accordingly.

A review of police pay and conditions is due to present it's preliminary findings next month. In the interests of maximising relevent experience, the government appointed not a former senior police office, but Tom Windsor the former rail regulator.

'Nuff said...

Fast track policemen

Police minister Nick Herbert has come up with the most hairbrained idea of the year so far - and I reckon it will take some beating...

Apparently, the idea of making all new recruits join at the lowest rank of constable is no longer "fit for purpose". The daft bugger told a national conference: "The service needs to be open, more representative and diverse. It needs to attract the brightest and the best."

At the moment, all coppers undergo the same basic training and spend a year as a probationer or beat copper. In other words, they learn the realities of the job by starting on the lowest rung of the ladder. The Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) opposes a change and says there is already an accelerated promotion scheme which can fast-track graduates and others with experience outside the police.

Many years ago - more than I care to remember in fact - I was interested in joining the fraud squad. I was told that I would have to undergo basic training and enter as a constable, but it was made clear to me that I would soon gain promotion in view of my professional qualifications. There was no question of avoiding the basics. It was made very clear to me that I would have to start at the bottom - and I felt this was as it should be!

Commerce in this country started to go down the toilet when managers were brought into the organisation with theoretical qualifications but no experience of either management or the basics of the business. If we do this to the police, then the quality of this organisation will also suffer accordingly.

A review of police pay and conditions is due to present it's preliminary findings next month. In the interests of maximising relevent experience, the government appointed not a former senior police office, but Tom Windsor the former rail regulator.

'Nuff said...

Bring back the Traffic Wardens

I don't know about where you live, but the parking situation in my town is beyond a joke!

We have two types of traffic enforcement here. Firstly, we have the Parking Attendants who are employed by the Borough Council. They look after the Council operated car parks and the street area designated for residents' parking only.

Secondly, we have the Police. They are responsible for parking on the public highway in restricted waiting areas, on yellow lines and the like.

So what's the problem? Well, the Parking Attendants walk between their designated areas totally unconcerned by all the cars they walk past on the way that are illegally parked. Not their responsibility. Nothing to do with them...

Meanwhile, the police are busy out doing Policey type things - you know, like patrolling their beats or doing community stuff or even, God forbid, catching crooks. So they don't have time to spend issuing parking tickets. Indeed, in my view, nor should they have!

So the result is that people here don't waste money on things like car parks when they know they can park anywhere on a yellow line and have a 99% chance of getting away with it. And if they do get the odd ticket, then it's still cheaper than paying for all those days using the car park.

I know one guy who parked in a one hour restricted parking bay for three months, often without moving his car for a long as three days at a time. Honest. Eventually a Police purge on that area resulted in a ticket. But parking a car for three months for the price of a single ticket still looks to be a good deal...

All this mind numbing nonsense has come about in order to promote yet another of New LieBore's stealth taxes. By criminalising on street parking, they made it the responsibility of the police rather than the council - and by doing this the money raised in parking fines goes to the Exchequer rather than the Council. Nice one Gordon! Drop Joe Public in the crap - it's alright as long as you get the money to squander.

To sort this out, the new Government needs to decriminalise parking, reinstigate Traffic Wardens and let the Council use the parking fines to cover the cost of the wardens. This will also release Police to do what they are supposed to be doing, penalise persistent offenders who are clogging up our towns, and make a contribution to local government funding.

So go on, Cleggeron, add this to your bonfire of LieBore laws at the earliest opportunity.

Bring back the Traffic Wardens

I don't know about where you live, but the parking situation in my town is beyond a joke!

We have two types of traffic enforcement here. Firstly, we have the Parking Attendants who are employed by the Borough Council. They look after the Council operated car parks and the street area designated for residents' parking only.

Secondly, we have the Police. They are responsible for parking on the public highway in restricted waiting areas, on yellow lines and the like.

So what's the problem? Well, the Parking Attendants walk between their designated areas totally unconcerned by all the cars they walk past on the way that are illegally parked. Not their responsibility. Nothing to do with them...

Meanwhile, the police are busy out doing Policey type things - you know, like patrolling their beats or doing community stuff or even, God forbid, catching crooks. So they don't have time to spend issuing parking tickets. Indeed, in my view, nor should they have!

So the result is that people here don't waste money on things like car parks when they know they can park anywhere on a yellow line and have a 99% chance of getting away with it. And if they do get the odd ticket, then it's still cheaper than paying for all those days using the car park.

I know one guy who parked in a one hour restricted parking bay for three months, often without moving his car for a long as three days at a time. Honest. Eventually a Police purge on that area resulted in a ticket. But parking a car for three months for the price of a single ticket still looks to be a good deal...

All this mind numbing nonsense has come about in order to promote yet another of New LieBore's stealth taxes. By criminalising on street parking, they made it the responsibility of the police rather than the council - and by doing this the money raised in parking fines goes to the Exchequer rather than the Council. Nice one Gordon! Drop Joe Public in the crap - it's alright as long as you get the money to squander.

To sort this out, the new Government needs to decriminalise parking, reinstigate Traffic Wardens and let the Council use the parking fines to cover the cost of the wardens. This will also release Police to do what they are supposed to be doing, penalise persistent offenders who are clogging up our towns, and make a contribution to local government funding.

So go on, Cleggeron, add this to your bonfire of LieBore laws at the earliest opportunity.

Cutting the Police budget

Much has been said about budget cuts and how these will translate to cuts in front line services. It's an emotive subject - especially when it comes down to policing.

Which is why I was heartened the other day to listen to an interview on the BBC with a Yorkshire Chief Constable. He seems to think that cutting the budget by 12% would make no difference at all to the copper out there on the streets.

He went on to display admirable common sense by explain that we should be looking at rationalising thinks like HR services. Each service has it's own. Perhaps we could combine some or all of them?

He further explained that it is bad practice to used trained police officers in behind the scenes jobs that can be done by civilian staff. All good stuff...

But where will we get the rest of the savings from? Well, let's not forget the bonfire of stupid New Labour laws that the police and courts currenty have to deal with. By the time we have got rid of those, the load should be lightened a fair bit.

And then there's the paperwork. Simplifying that should even things out a bit too. Is 25% still looking unreasonable when you think about it?

No-one wants to see less coppers on the street - but I bet we'd all like to see less of them off the streets filling in forms?

Cutting the Police budget

Much has been said about budget cuts and how these will translate to cuts in front line services. It's an emotive subject - especially when it comes down to policing.

Which is why I was heartened the other day to listen to an interview on the BBC with a Yorkshire Chief Constable. He seems to think that cutting the budget by 12% would make no difference at all to the copper out there on the streets.

He went on to display admirable common sense by explain that we should be looking at rationalising thinks like HR services. Each service has it's own. Perhaps we could combine some or all of them?

He further explained that it is bad practice to used trained police officers in behind the scenes jobs that can be done by civilian staff. All good stuff...

But where will we get the rest of the savings from? Well, let's not forget the bonfire of stupid New Labour laws that the police and courts currenty have to deal with. By the time we have got rid of those, the load should be lightened a fair bit.

And then there's the paperwork. Simplifying that should even things out a bit too. Is 25% still looking unreasonable when you think about it?

No-one wants to see less coppers on the street - but I bet we'd all like to see less of them off the streets filling in forms?

Raoul Moat - the last word

If ever there was a cunt needed killing, it was Raoul Moat.

I have been sickened over the last forty eight hours by the positions some people have taken in defending this man and in attacking the police who hunted him down.

Let's cut through the bullshit. This nutter was let out of prison when he should have been sectioned. The prison services notified the police that he was a clear and present threat to his former girlfriend, yet they let him out and the police took no action to protect the people he subsequently shot. For this I blame the police - but not for anything else.

Moat went on to shoot a copper in what appears to be a random act before going to ground in Rothbury. He was cornered - eventually - and negotiations to get him to surrender went on for over 6 hours.

Now his brother is blaming the police for his death. He reckons that hitting Moat with a taser gun might actually have caused the shotgun blast that killed him. Apparently, he offered to go in and try to talk him out. Well perhaps you should have, Angus, and then you might just have been on the recieving end yourself.

But I'll tell you plainly, if I had had a bead on him then it wouldn't have been a taser I would have been shooting at him. It would be a 44 magnum.

Then his uncle jumps on the bandwagon. He reckons that "I know he's done a terrible, heinous thing... but I don't think he was a threat to the public." Well,the only reason he wasn't a threat to the public - that's the public he threatened to start gunning down next, if you remember - was because he was surrounded by armed coppers.

At the end of the day, he was a mad dog that needed to be put down. By killing himself, he saved us the bother of a trial and the expense of locking him up and keeping him in Broadmoor for the next fifty years.

Frankly, if I had had a gun I would have shot the bastard in cold blood - just like he shot that copper.

But I guess it is to the eternal credit of our police that they exercised just a little more restraint that I would have...

Raoul Moat - the last word

If ever there was a cunt needed killing, it was Raoul Moat.

I have been sickened over the last forty eight hours by the positions some people have taken in defending this man and in attacking the police who hunted him down.

Let's cut through the bullshit. This nutter was let out of prison when he should have been sectioned. The prison services notified the police that he was a clear and present threat to his former girlfriend, yet they let him out and the police took no action to protect the people he subsequently shot. For this I blame the police - but not for anything else.

Moat went on to shoot a copper in what appears to be a random act before going to ground in Rothbury. He was cornered - eventually - and negotiations to get him to surrender went on for over 6 hours.

Now his brother is blaming the police for his death. He reckons that hitting Moat with a taser gun might actually have caused the shotgun blast that killed him. Apparently, he offered to go in and try to talk him out. Well perhaps you should have, Angus, and then you might just have been on the recieving end yourself.

But I'll tell you plainly, if I had had a bead on him then it wouldn't have been a taser I would have been shooting at him. It would be a 44 magnum.

Then his uncle jumps on the bandwagon. He reckons that "I know he's done a terrible, heinous thing... but I don't think he was a threat to the public." Well,the only reason he wasn't a threat to the public - that's the public he threatened to start gunning down next, if you remember - was because he was surrounded by armed coppers.

At the end of the day, he was a mad dog that needed to be put down. By killing himself, he saved us the bother of a trial and the expense of locking him up and keeping him in Broadmoor for the next fifty years.

Frankly, if I had had a gun I would have shot the bastard in cold blood - just like he shot that copper.

But I guess it is to the eternal credit of our police that they exercised just a little more restraint that I would have...