Why are the police so obsessed with seizing motor bikes?

****

It's true that motor bikes - regardless of the number of wheels - can be really annoying and, handled badly, dangerous. It's also true that the quad bike has become popular with a certain sort in and around Bradford. You see them charge by with a sort of 21st century version of Mr Toad perched atop the quad bike - all toot-tooting and laughing at the sheer fun of a loud, open and unsafe motor vehicle.

We also see young traveller lads helmetless on trials bikes - flouting the rules (and probably unlicensed and uninsured) as they go from whatever dirty spot they've been riding to the lock-up on the council estate. And we tut and shake our heads as we watch them go by - can't be right we mutter to ourselves. Something should be done!

And something was done. West Yorkshire Police decided (given that there was no real crime to deal with out there in the county) to set up a Nuisance Bike Team to deal with the problem - complete with their own bikes and the powers under the Police Reform Act 2002 to seize and destroy said 'nuisance bikes'. The result of this initiative looks something like this:

Officers called to Farlea Drive over complaints of an off-road motorbike being used on the road and causing a nuisance had to leave the bike because they could not disprove the owner's story that he had used it only in his garden.

But a Section 59 warning was issued, allowing officers to seize the machine when they were called back the following day over similar complaints about the use of the bike. 

So you've got a neighbour who doesn't like your bike. That neighbour calls the cops to complain and the cops call round and give you an order not to use the bike in an 'anti-social' manner. Next day the neighbour complains and the police steal - sorry seize - your bike. You've not committed any crime but the public authorities have taken your vehicle.

Yesterday in Bradford's local paper's online newsfeed there were three separate reports of the police showing off about them intervening to deal with 'nuisance bikes'. The typical action - showing just how busy these teams are - is along these lines:

They saw a man riding the bike on the grass land area, which had been churned up. They approached the man who was there with his three children and his female partner.

He was told the land was a public area used by dog walkers and residents, and the man claimed he thought it was a safe place to use the vehicles.

They were children's bikes but the man had been seen riding them around.

He was given a section 59 warning which allows officers to seize a vehicle if it, or the driver, are involved in anti-social behaviour during the following 12 months, and told to push the machines back to his address which was a short distance away. 

It's not just that this happened but that West Yorkshire Police deemed it to be an incident of such significance that they issued a press release. There is no suggestion that the man they've warned was acting unsafely or irresponsibly nor are we told there were clear signs saying motor bikes aren't allowed. Just that unspecified 'residents' had raised concerns.

The real problem here is summed up in another piece - another West Yorkshire Police press release - where it's clear why the problem has got worse:

New housing and increased protection for green spaces has caused nuisance quad bikers to take to roads and pavements in Bradford’s suburbs, say police.

Rather than using scrubland and unused fields, many now developed or secured with better fencing in recent years, anti-social motorbike and quad bike riders have been taking to the highways. 

We stopped the bikes going on rough land (under threat of their vehicles being taken) with the result that those bikes are now right in an amongst us - causing more nuisance that they ever did when they went to places like The Flappit at Cullingworth:

Mrs Bower began a petition to re-open the land for bikers in 2012, arguing that this would help cut the number of illegal riders on the district's roads and said it now has 500 signatures.

She added: "It is an online petition as well as a paper one so signatures are always welcome. This is not a forgotten campaign.

"Motorbiking is a sport and it's healthy for our youngsters to be occupied by things other than drinking copious amounts of alcohol, smoking cannabis and tobacco.

"As an off-road motorbike track The Flappit would be a great asset. It is historically a motorbike track, it has been used for almost fifty years. 

The land in question was closed a few years ago something that made Cullingworth a little quieter on summer evenings but which meant that there was no provision for off-road biking in Bradford. This suited the police and some pettifogging council officers (plus one or two vociferous residents) but merely shifted the proble - worse it was dispersed. Instead of one place where most bikers went, we have a multitude of places randomly chosen by the bikers. With the result that there's more nuisance, more annoyance and the need for an officious team of fussbucket coppers with the powers to take your bike.

Instead of spending huge sums of chasing anti-social bikes, it might have been a better to have worked with the bikers and other interested folk to develop a good, well-marshalled and accessible place where those bikers can go and ride. The opportunity at The Flappit has perhaps gone now but it would be a better use of council and police resources if they directed their efforts to making safe provision for off-road biking rather than threatening to take people's bikes away.

....

Bossiness with bite - the truth of anti-social behaviour legislation

****

Isabel Hardman sums up a big problem with modern politics. Put simply:

There are plenty of irritations of everyday life that government could, if satisfying the call of ‘Something Must Be Done’ always led to good policy, deal with. For instance, legislation to force people to move all the way down a packed Tube carriage. Or a judge-led inquiry into why Topshop at Oxford Circus feels a bit like an Hieronymus Bosch painting come to life. Or an Act of Parliament banning January and all its horrid cold wet weather.

I could continue - adding perhaps something to enforce good escalator etiquette (entirely unknown outside London) or maybe the wearing of baseball caps back-to-front and trousers at half-mast. You, I sure, will have your own gripes and grumbles about modern life and might welcome action to deal with whatever it is that gets your goat.

But while you're thinking about this remember that successive governments have built up an idea called "anti-social behaviour", and have created the means for police and local councils to take action to "clamp down" on such behaviour. The most recent iteration of this campaign is set out here - it essentially defines almost any behaviour cops and councillors decide they don't like as anti-social behaviour. And, as you already know the purpose of anti-social behaviour (or ASB, as those in the know refer to it) legislation is to create a means whereby the police can make something that isn't a crime into a crime.

The problem with modern politics - and we caught a ghastly glimpse of this with Boris's healthy city ideas (although I note the blonde one backpedalled on banning smoking in parks) - is that we do exactly what Ms Hardman illustrates, we respond when someone (usually from a charity or a think tank but sometimes someone who has suffered one of modern life's misfortunes) cries 'something must be done'. The result is laws we don't need but that act to provide the ability for public authorities to boss us about a little more. And, it goes without saying, give those police, border guards, PCSOs, council wardens and so forth the powers to force us on pain of arrest or punishment to comply precisely with that bossiness.

...

The causes of bad policing...

****

Since I'm going to write about rioting I shall start with an important caveat - when everything has been said and done riots are the fault of the rioter. There may be mitigation, perhaps a little explanation but there is never excuse. I remember Bradford's riots - thirteen years ago now but still a pretty vivid memory for many who recall what it was like:

Ilyas was captured on police cameras wearing an Afro-style wig and throwing burning cardboard through a broken window of Manningham Labour Club while 23 people were inside.  The club was burned to the ground after petrol bombs were thrown by a group of Asian youths.

That is the reality of riot as much as is the grievance that set light to the trouble. We should not forget this regardless of how we view the events that follow the riot. And we should remember that not everyone participating in the riot is doing so for reasons of protest - as we know from London's riots there are some who see the opportunity disturbance presents for a little light looting.

However all this doesn't explain or excuse another factor in the cause of protest and in escalating that protest to riot - bad policing. Here's a bit of an illustration in the words of NFL player, David Bass a native of Ferguson, Missouri:

“I was 15 and one of my best friends had just got a car from his mom, a white Lincoln, and he picked up my brother and I to go to The Loop. When we parked there were police behind us, and next thing you know, there are about 10 police cars surrounding us. They’re screaming, ‘Stay in the car! Keep your hands up! Hand over your IDs.’ People are starting to gather to watch. They took 45 minutes searching the car while we sat on the sidewalk."

 

I don't know whether Bass's memories exaggerate but, even if the incident was half as big it is still an unnecessary over-reaction from the police. An over-reaction that presages what has happened in Ferguson over recent days. A response that is all about bad policing and maybe a little bit of racism too.

But why is this? Why do police - whether in Bradford, in London or in a suburb of St Louis - get their actions so wrong? I've observed before that the police act too often as some sort of occupying army rather than the agents of a community protecting that community. Here in Bradford we have huge barracks with small windows looming over poor communities. Not just the buildings but the police vehicles and even the police are bristling with antennae and, when there's a disturbance it almost seems as if there's an excitement in the quasi-military response to riot.

And from what we've seen, the USA has even more of a problem - a police force now armed to the teeth on the back of false fears about terrorism. This militarising of the police - in terms of equipment and operations is what, in part, creates the tension between a poor community and the police whose job is to protect that community. Plus the fact that, regardless of the additional tension that stems from racial difference, those police officers are no from that community. Here in Bradford there are probably no police officers living in West Bowling or on the Allerton estate - like the social workers and community developers the police live elsewhere and visit just to ply their trade.

 

The second cause of bad policing is the tendency to see everything out of the ordinary as a threat to order - whether it's people saying unpleasant things on Twitter, folk gathering to protest some perceived injustice or simply the reaction to a crime or spate of crimes. And since "something must be done" us politicians respond with regulations that give the police more powers - we criminalise harmless possession, define disorder is such a way as to make almost any public action arrestable and we make the definition of 'anti-social behaviour' so wide as to provide the police with the power to make criminal things that even the politicians haven't defined as criminal.

 

As a result of these powers coupled with an aggressive quasi-military approach, we have replaced the idea of policing by consent with a different approach - policing as social control. With each additional power the business of law enforcement becomes less PC Dixon and more Judge Dredd with the police exercising almost arbitrary power underwritten by compliant magistrates and legislation so broadly defined as to remove any ability for peaceful resistance to the orders of a police officer.

In the end society has to respond to riot, looting and violence because decent people expect us to do just that. But we also need to ask whether tear gas, water cannon and armoured vehicles are the best way to respond. For my part I'm not sure they are the right approach since they reflect a macho, testosterone-fuelled response to disorder and merely act to build up resentment, grievance and the seeds of future disorder.

 

We need to return to the idea of policing by consent and rediscover real community policing - not merely as an operational strategy but as the entire purpose of policing. We do not need huge barracks where the brass hats dish out the orders for the day in some sort of war room. Rather we need what we lost - local police based in local police stations, the sort of places with a welcoming blue light over the door and police officers with familiar faces seen every day - more akin to Officer Krupke than to today's flak-jacketed cop with his face hidden in a helmet.

....

In which I agree with George Monbiot

****

I promise this won't become a common occurrence but George is absolutely right about the Antisocial Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill:

The bill would permit injunctions against anyone of 10 or older who "has engaged or threatens to engage in conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to any person". It would replace asbos with ipnas (injunctions to prevent nuisance and annoyance), which would not only forbid certain forms of behaviour, but also force the recipient to discharge positive obligations. In other words, they can impose a kind of community service order on people who have committed no crime, which could, the law proposes, remain in force for the rest of their lives.

I've written before about how the concept of "anti-social behaviour" makes criminals of people who have committed no crime:

I'm finding the term "anti-social behaviour" - or ASB - increasingly worrying. While the authorities deny that the purpose of the term (one of those mealy-mouthed, third way Blairite catch-all ideas) is to criminalise behaviour that is not actually criminal this is precisely what seems to happen.

This new Bill extends the arbitrary power of the police and councils to include "dispersal orders",  a "community trigger" essentially allowing people to gang up on a neighbour and get the police to support them, and the use of these new orders to speed up evictions. The result will be a further collection of bans, restrictions and controls all imposed to give the police powers to criminalise normal, peaceful behaviour such as you and I having a quiet drink and a chat sat on a wall in the park. The only criteria the authorities need is "nuisance or annoyance" - how subjective can that be?

....

Nothing is that straightforward, Johann - the case of speed cameras

As ever with reporting on research we can be easily lulled into accepting the headline figures and the results that appear always to substantiate the view of authority. So it is with speed cameras. Here’s the oft wrong, Johann Hari on the subject:

We have the independent academic studies. We have reams of them. They all say the same. To cite the most detailed: a four year on-the-ground scientific study by University College London* found that when you set up a speed camera, the number of people killed in that place falls by 17 percent, over and above the general decline in road accidents that is happening everywhere because of improving technologies like airbags. That’s 100 people saved from death every year nationwide, the equivalent of stopping two 7/7s, or six Dunblaine (sic) massacres. Oh, and over 4000 people saved from serious injury.

Case closed says our friendly left-wing journalist. You lot – you speeding, middle-class drivers, you budding Clarksons – you are in the wrong. Speed cameras are saving the lives of countless kiddies and grannies across the length and breadth of England. Or is this actually the case?

Well maybe not.

There are many possible reasons which may contribute to the recent large reductions in fatalities. The economic downturn and falling traffic levels for the last two years have played a part. Similar large falls in fatalities were seen in the recession in the early 1990s.

We should also note that there has been no observable change in the long-term trend of reducing pedestrian casualties. If speed cameras were so effective then we would expect to have seen an accelerating rate of decline. Especially given that many cameras are installed with the express intention of reducing pedestrian casualty risk.

The big contribution to the decline in casualty rates is in the numbers of 16-25 year olds killed:

The number of fatalities in accidents involving young car drivers fell by 11 per cent from 635 in 2008 to 564 in 2009 – a reduction of 71 deaths, out of a total fall of 316 road deaths between 2008 and 2009. This follows a 22 per cent fall between 2007 and 2008 – a reduction of 182 deaths.

All this comes from Department of Transport figures and studies – the same studies that report every year how the main contributor to road casualties is sloppy behaviour:

The contributory factor category driver/rider error or reaction was the most frequently reported category, involved in 69 per cent of all accidents reported to the police. It was the most frequently reported category for each severity of accident

And for pedestrians:

Pedestrian failed to look properly was reported in 58 per cent of accidents in which a pedestrian was injured or killed, and pedestrian careless, reckless or in a hurry was reported in 23 per cent. Eighteen per cent of pedestrian casualties had both of these factors reported.

It may be that speed cameras save lives. But the UCL research – for all its significance (and we’ll ignore that it was paid for by the advocates of speed cameras shall we?) focuses on point studies. And even at the most dangerous point in the country the numbers of injury accidents is too small for any trend not to be meaningless.

If we’re looking for causal factors in all this – for the thing that is causing the most accidents – then we must look at the numbers or men under 30 driving on our roads. For it is these young men who are most likely to cause and to be involved in serious accidents. If Johann Hari really cares so deeply about road safety that he thinks freedoms can be infringed – then he should be advocating banning young men from driving.


*See Mr Hari, it’s not hard to find the link to the research you reference and put it in your blog post. And save us folk half an hour or so trying to find it.

....

Finding the secret places...

We built a den once. It was on the bank of a stream hidden in dense foliage. A sheet of rusty corrugated iron, some old fence posts and bits of old tow rope. It was great - we could watch the stream replete with minnows and sticklebacks, nip through the fence behind to scrump in the allotments and discuss the great matters that concerned us as 10 year old children. It was away from the boring world of grown ups - a secret place.

Except today we're not allowed secret places. Such things frighten those who know better - its not just the idea of "young children" playing out on their own next to a stream but the whole idea of the secret. That place we think is just ours - our den, our magic dell, our place of safety.

Today we just assume the worst. If it isn't that the children are indulging in "anti-social behaviour" (which is an unspecified and general allegation describing any noisy, slightly risky activity undertaken by people younger than us) or else that the riverbank is riddled with funny men just waiting to snaffle the passing 10 year old.

But those secret places are still there. We still seek them out - either in the real world or in that fairyland our minds create. And in those places we are free and calm - content to while away time unbothered by the angry, the interfering and the officious. Those secret places are where we dream our dreams. Where we make the armour that protects us from the horrid real world. Where we can experience the magic that makes living tolerable.

In those secret places dwell the things of our imagination - mythic creatures of our choice. And these things are as real as the dusty, dark, dreariness of the world we head out into from the secret place. The world of money, of toil, of anger and of duty. That world of the busybody.

I plan on spending more time in my secret place - when I find it again.

....

If Gordon were a councillor....

****

One of Labour’s more egregious pieces of legislation was the 2000 Local Government Act. You know, the one that got rid of the “out-of-date” committee system and replaced it with sleek, streamlined, single-party executive committees and useless scrutiny. This is legislation that Gordon Brown supported and continues to support.

Well under that legislation we also got the Standards Board for England and an enforceable ‘code of conduct’ for Councillors. This defines when a member is subject to the provisions of the Code:

“1) A member must observe the authority's code of conduct whenever he -

(a) conducts the business of the authority;
(b) conducts the business of the office to which he has been elected or appointed;or
(c) acts as a representative of the authority,

and references to a member's official capacity shall be construed accordingly”

So actions within a Local Council Cabinet Member’s office would unquestionably be in a place where the ‘Code’ applies. And under the general obligations of the ‘Code’ a member must:

“treat others with respect”; (2(b))

…and must not:

“…conduct himself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing his office or authority into disrepute.” (3)

…and must:

“…if he becomes aware of any conduct by another member which he reasonably believes involves a failure to comply with the authority's code of conduct, make a written allegation to that effect to the Standards Board for England as soon as it is practicable for him to do so.”

It seems to me that, on the assumption that Gordon Brown’s behaviour is as described in reports, had he been a Councillor rather than an MP, there would have been a case brought before the Adjudication Panel of the Standards Board. And, assuming the behaviour was shown to have happened, its nature (throwing things, shouting at junior staff, etc.) would warrant a suspension.

Now, as people know I think the Standards Board, Code of Conduct and associated kangaroo courts should be scrapped. But Gordon doesn’t.

Good thing he’s not a Councillor then?

...

"Shameless" or shameful - dealing with anti-social families

There have always been problem families – you know the ones that have anti-social children looked after by anti-social parents. These families provide a headache for public services out of all proportion to their numbers – and, as any local politician will know, “something must be done”!

The latest “something must be done” initiative from the increasingly authoritarian Ed Balls is the ‘sin bin’ – an extension of intensive family intervention to include 24-hour surveillance of the family’s activities and described by Balls as '…pretty tough and non-negotiable support for families to get to the root of the problem.' And using CCTV inside the home is a good way to achieve this?

My concern with this isn’t that the worst families are identified and targeted with “intensive support” – this approach has been around for a while having started with NCH projects in Scotland and the North West. No, the problem is the manner in which the aggressive, final option has been brought forward – it is presented by Balls as the primary option not as a last resort. Instead of an intensive ‘carrot & stick’ we just get stick – and lots of it!

If we are to begin reducing the number and impact of problem families – we’ll never get rid of them entirely – we need both a long-term and a short-term policy approach. And developing the right policies must start with understanding what goes on “between the ears” of adults in the target families. These families are:

Poorly educated with low skill levels
Lacking in self-esteem, confidence and personal capacity
Often both victims and perpetrators of anti-social behaviour
Dominated by addictive individuals – drink, drugs, violence

I don’t see how sticking a camera in the faces of these families addresses any of these problems – yes, we get a short term fix by stopping them offending. But at the end of any programme they still have the personal problems and challenges that created the problem in the first place.

A policy platform might look a bit like this:

Short-term:

Intensive support including where needed fostering, respite and high quality childcare

Audit of problems such as drink, drugs and violence and provision of appropriate interventions
Provision of personal development coaching – individually, in groups and as whole families

Remedial skills and education for adults and older children plus early support for pre-school children

Use of jobs and training programmes linked to in-work support for those able to secure employment

Application of ASBOs and other available orders as a control mechanism for the programme by allowing enforcement of attendance

Long-term:

Development of small education units in target areas – breaking away from the vast, intimidating schools that dominate education provision in deprived communities

Re-establishing a permanent, physical, estate-based presence for police, probation, social services and other support services

Creating wrap-around family and youth support with a strong presence within the community

Addressing the barriers to work, stable families and behaviour within the benefits system

None of this requires that we treat these families as unruly zoo animals or ignore the need for tough action to prevent bad behaviour. It does require us to deal with the complicated set of problems – drugs, drink, sexual violence, illiteracy, ignorance and ill-humour – that typify these families. And we should remember that most of the families we’re dealing with aren’t bright enough to be “Shameless”!