"Hello I'm Unaccountable" - welcome to the guidance state

This happens in the UK too - administrative agencies and government departments from planning through the police to the NHS use 'guidance' to create rules without reference to democratic accountability:

Federal agencies issue memoranda, notices, letters, bulletins, circulars, directives, and blog posts (among other things) to evade the rulemaking process established by Congress in the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Agencies euphemistically refer to these documents as "guidance." Guidance has been responsible for revoking permits to conduct business, barring Americans from working in their chosen occupations, prohibiting taxpayers from taking deductions, levying post-conviction penalties for crimes, and seizing property, without statutory or constitutional authority and without due process. Think of guidance as an off-the-books way for the government to ignore commonly held understandings of fairness. It's a shameless, unconstitutional scheme designed to skirt judicial review, avoid public scrutiny, and evade accountability.

Almost all planning processes rely on guidance with (often tenuous) links to the National Planning Policy Framework. ASBOs and PSPOs are framed in such a way as to make almost any action subject to arbitrary police intervention. My favourite in recent times was the police officer defending 'playing music' in a car as antisocial behaviour. I asked whether perhaps the choice of music might influence the decisions of officers to which he replied that "we would act according to guidance". Which could mean that playing The Grand March from Aida is OK but blasting out drill music isn't, we don't know because we (in this instance a Regulatory and Appeals Committee) don't have the guidance because it isn't yet written.

Among the most egregious examples of 'guidance' are in the field of human resources management and, in particular, what might be termed 'equalities'. Much of the growing denial of female spaces isn't based on regulation but rather on guidance vaguely linked to the Equalities Act and vigorously policed by campaign groups. Similarly we see gender- or race-based selection (of dubious legality) widely applied along with the active closing down of critical voices and challenges to this 'guidance'. Furthermore 'guidance' forms the basis for appeals, accusations and, too often, references to tribunal processes. And once the tribunal has decided to back the guidance (or more commonly the organisation caves in and settles) it takes on the de facto authority of a law despite never having been anywhere near the scrutiny to which laws are supposed to be subject.

The proliferation of executive agencies, public sector 'corporations' and assorted quasi-governmental partnerships has resulted in the collapse of accountability. And, with the lack of any challenge to administrative orthodoxies, the result is a system open to corruption, external pressure and a focus on 'lowest common denominator', super-safe management. The systems of scrutiny - local and national - are dominated by anything other than effective, focused scrutiny. These systems combine grandstanding politicians, policy-making by anecdote, sob stories and appeals to authority rather than a measured and analytical examination of the services supposedly being 'delivered' to the public.

....

It seems it's now policy not to make arrests (or a clip round the ear)

Dear kindly Sergeant Krupke,
You gotta understand,
It's just our bringin' up-ke
That gets us out of hand.
Our mothers all are junkies,
Our fathers all are drunks.
Golly Moses, natcherly we're punks!

Arrests have fallen in the UK by nearly a half. The police, unsurprisingly, blame this on reduced "resources" but it is worth noting that there are not 50% fewer coppers - not even the more deranged parts of the Labour Party are making that claim - so you can't lay fewer arrests at the door of so-called "austerity".

I guess this is a better reason:

“Officers are also encouraged to deal with offending behaviour proportionately and effectively, maximising public involvement, keeping people out of the criminal justice system and supporting reduced re-offending behaviour through positive intervention.”

It is now policy not to arrest people and for the police to behave a bit like a cross between a social worker and Judge Dredd - dealing with "offending behaviour" rather than catching criminals as used to be the case. This might be seen as a welcome return to the old-fashioned "clip round the ear" approach to policing where the coppers visited low level summary justice on badly behaved youth rather than arresting them. I've a fear, however, that the process of arrest, charge and the criminal justice process is such a nightmare of paperwork and mind-numbing bureaucracy that not arresting bad 'uns just makes the coppers' lives easier. What I do know is that, for all the "gee, Officer Krupke" banter, there's precious little evidence of this sort of policing "reducing reoffending behaviour".

I've always taken a care to listen to the explanations I get from the police and I also appreciate that the burglars aren't things of their creation but this mealy-mouthed, bureaucrat speak about how the police work seems to cover up an almost abject failure to do what the public wants - robust, hard, policing that targets the vicious, greedy young men who commit the crimes and upset the lives of decent, law-abiding people. It certainly doesn't appear to the majority of folk that the police are either present in their community or responsive to the needs of that place. Today's police seem to be stuck in cars, draped with ever more bits of kit and, when you get to speak with them, talking in an almost impenetrable language quite unlike how regular folk speak about criminals and crime.

The police have the time and resource to get filmed dancing at pride marches but not to respond promptly to a burglary at a frightened elderly couple's house, put more publicity behind getting people to report bad language on social media, and police "senior leaders" hide behind bureaucracy to excuse their failures. Blaming a 50% drop in arrests on resourcing is, quite simply, a lie but nobody is looking chief constables and crime commissioners in the eye and saying "pull the other one, mate". Yes more money for policing might be a good idea but only if that money gets spent on actual policing not a bureaucratic, politically correct pastiche of policing.

.....

You too can join the Twitter Stasi - sign up as a volunteer 'trollhunter'!

It was only yesterday I commented on James Higham's post about die inoffizielle Mitarbeiter - the 'volunteers' who acted as eyes and ear for East German state. As James reports:

Almost every apartment building in the DDR maintained a kind of superintendent (known as a “Hausbuchbeauftragter”) who kept notes on who visited whom and when. In total, this group included around 2.1 million people, and many of them were willing to share their information. The Volkspolizei also had around 173,000 “voluntary helpers.” In addition, school directors, heads of youth organizations belonging to the “Free German Youth” (FDJ), election helpers and factory heads were also part of the army of potential informants.

My observation was that we should guard against any moves to empowering people to act as voluntary behaviour police.

This morning I awake to the news that the Metropolitan Police and Home Office have launched what the papers are calling a "trollhunter squad" with the intention of responding to 'hate speech' in social media - all part of an 'Online Hate Crime Hub'. Now this is, in one respect, just more of government wanting to control speech but this time there's another chilling aspect - die inoffizielle Mitarbeiter has arrived in England:

A team of volunteers will search out material they deem inappropriate on social networks and report it to the unit. The allegations will then be investigated and the culprits prosecuted, if caught.

That's right folks. A collection of self-appointed guardians of the web will act as informers, snitches, grasses. And any person with any sort of profile - political, business, artistic - will face constant scrutiny from these collaborators with those who want to suppress free speech. Here's a bit more:

...Twitter and Facebook will be asked to help fund a "community" element to the unit, in which volunteers "skilled in the use of social media" will "identify, report and challenge online hate material", it reports. The detectives' role will be "identifying the location of the crime" when online abuse is reported, and refer it to "the appropriate force area and social media providers".

The slow death of free speech in England continues. Just listen and you'll hear: "if you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear" and "hate speech isn't free speech". We will see a step change in online fussbucketry as, with each passing day a new form of 'offensive speech' is discovered, reported to the authorities and punished. It's not just that £1.7m is a lot of money just to protect the sensibilities of some Twitter users but that we're licensing the worst sort of judgemental puritan as agents to enforce an attack on free speech. As I said in a Tweet - welcome to the Twitter Stasi.




....

Crime down, drinking down but more licenced premises. Hogan Howe is talking authoritarian rubbish.

****

The Hillsborough enquiry reveals how police called for dogs rather than ambulances and every new day reveals another example of the police failing to respond to cases of child sexual abuse - given this it would be a good idea if the leaders of the police showed a little humility and addressed themselves to the enormous lump of timber in their eye rather than mounting yet another illiberal assault on private businesses.

“We need to make sure there is good control of the supply of alcohol. This means licence numbers, density and licensee-regulation being a priority for local authorities, however much they would like to develop their local economies.

“We know that many injuries occur inside or outside licensed premises, and if we can close down repeat offenders, we will.

“But do we really need as many licensed premised chasing limited business. The system needs reform and we need to police it better.”

This from the same jumped up little fascist who called for CCTV in every home, wants water cannon to deal with disorder and who leads an unaccountable, dysfunctional paramilitary force.

The failings an inadequacies of police leadership and management are legion. It's not just the high profile cases - Hillsborough, the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes or child abuse in Rotherham - it's an every day in every community problem.

In answer to "Britain's Top Cop" as the tabloids would call him - no we don't need more control over the supply of alcohol. You already have all the powers you need to deal with drunks, to respond to badly managed pubs and to manage the effects of alcohol in our communities.

Britain has about 204,000 licensed premises a figure that has risen by some 3% over the last five years. And during that period our consumption of alcohol has continued to fall - it has dropped nearly 20% over the last decade. So it's no surprise that violent crime is now at its lowest level for over 30 years:

The CSEW covers a broad range of victim based crimes and includes crimes which do not come to the attention of the police. Decreases were evident for all major crime types compared with the previous year; violence saw a 23% fall, criminal damage fell by 20%, and theft offences decreased by 12%.

This represents a 16% decrease compared with the previous year’s survey, and is the lowest estimate since the survey began in 1981.

I for one am completely fed up with top police officers making out that there's a problem where there isn't while at the same time making excuses for the complete failure of the police to deal with a real problem such as child sexual exploitation.

....

Corsham is, of course, a hotbed of militancy and extremism...

****

Corsham is a quiet, unspoilt town where peacocks wander freely around the streets! It owes its prosperity to the wool trade and quarrying of golden Bath stone, brought to life in the town's heritage centre.

Discover the wealth of beautiful and historic buildings including Corsham Court, 17th Century Flemish buildings, Lady Margaret Hungerford Almshouses, weavers cottages, old inns and the elegant Town Hall. 

OK this comes from 'Visit Wiltshire' who are obviously going to put a positive spin on the town. The truth could be that the town is riven with community tensions and a hotbed of violent extremists seeking out people who might have bought the wrong kind of magazine or displayed the wrong sort of cartoon:

“A police officer visited a local shop and post office in Corsham to make an assessment of community tensions and, if appropriate, encourage the newsagent’s owner to be vigilant. During this conversation the officer requested information about subscribers to the Charlie Hebdo magazine."

Now (and we know the newsagent retails that source of evil, The Guardian) it's clear that Wiltshire Police were on the look out for the subversive sort - like 77-year old Anne Keat - who, by buying the 'commemorative' issue of Charlie Hebdo, threaten the peace and stability of the nation.

Part of me takes the view that, once again, we're reminded that the police really don't have enough to do. But worse a police officer felt it OK to ask for the names of people who had bought a perfectly legal product as part of an "assessment of community tensions". And - even worse - that the newsagent didn't simply tell the police officer that he could sod off.

Finally, what sort of tipple does the Wiltshire chief constable inbibe to make him think tasking "officers across the county to assess community tensions" makes any sense in a place like Corsham where community tensions are almost entirely absent? Unless it's about the peacocks, of course.

...

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.

....

Can we have a feminist outcry about this please?

****

From the report - a flawed report, for sure, but valuable nonetheless - by Labour MP Anne Coffey and commissioned by Greater Manchester Police. If we want to know one of the biggest reasons why we're failing to protect girls and young women from rape and abuse try this:

In a normally confidential file, prosecutors spell out how a young abuse victim dressing in provocative clothes was enough for them not to take the case to court.

It states: ‘The victim is known (as highlighted by social workers) to tend to wear sexualised clothes when she is out of school, such as cropped tops.’

‘While her age at the time and the date of the decision are not given, it gives two similarly disturbing examples for prosecutors not proceeding with abuse allegations. One said how a girl’s “unsettled background” made her “far from an ideal victim”’, while another pointed out, “I note her father has referred to her to a social worker as being a slag, saying she is responsible for what has happened”.

Can we be clear about this once and for all - how a girl dresses, how she speaks and how much vodka she's consumed are not invitations for men to rape her. Yet that is precisely what the police, social services and the prosecutors are saying. And, as a result, rapists are getting away with it. These are girls - children - and we've a duty to protect them. We aren't.

....

Can we still trust the police?

****

This report worries me:

Police investigated the political beliefs of a grieving woman – including her views on human rights and the war in Afghanistan – after she complained about the police’s handling of the death of her mother.

The police also claimed that the woman appeared to be mentally ill and placed her on an official register for vulnerable adults without consulting any medical professionals. They later conceded that she was not mentally ill.

Internal police documents reveal how Sussex police compiled a 14-page secret report on Eccy de Jonge, a philosophy academic, shortly after her 83-year-old mother died in a road accident.

The police carried out “full intelligence checks” on de Jonge and gathered comments she had posted on media sites.

It seems to me that this is an abuse of power plain and simple. Perhaps the police here were over-zealous and the woman in question was persistent in her complaints. But the defence put up is equally disturbing:

“There are objectively no credible grounds on which to base an allegation of police officers being engaged in secret operations against the complainant or seeking to protect any officer involved in the tragic road traffic collision.

“In fact, we have done everything to seek to resolve allegations in a fair and proportionate way and attempt to act in the complainant’s best interests.

“Officers are entitled or expected to have discussions as to how to address complaints, make decisions, or how to attempt to make progress with fatal road traffic collision victim’s relatives – this is not evidence of nefarious dossiers, collusion, or protectionism.”

Now there may be more to all this than meets the eye but I fail to see how trawling through someone's life to see if they're 'anti-police' is not why we employ police officers. And more to the point the spokesman is wrong - we know this because the police did compile a 14-page document that did not relate in any manner at all to the matter under investigation (a complaint about the handling of a road traffic fatality).

This story reminds me that the police probably haven't got enough to do, are not subject to sufficient scrutiny and have more than sufficient powers. We are told that "if we've done nothing wrong, we've nothing to fear" - the woman in this case did nothing wrong yet the police used their powers to set about compiling a hatchet job - we do have something to fear after all.

...

In West Yorkshire, eight out of nine crimes reported to police safeguarding units aren't recorded as crimes

****

From the report of Her Majestry's Inspector of Constabulary's report into West Yorkshire Police's data recording and management:

We examined 108 reports that were referred from other agencies directly to the force’s safeguarding units (public protection). Of the 27 crimes that should have been recorded, 3 had been. Of the 3, all were correctly classified and one was recorded outside the 72-hour limit allowed under the HOCR. As some of these records related to sexual offences and assaults on vulnerable adults and children, this is a serious cause for concern and is a matter of material and urgent importance.

The emphasis is mine and shows this report isn't routine but topical. I cannot make more comment - will be seeking further clarification. However, when eight out of nine crimes deriving from other agencies are not recorded there is perhaps a bit of a problem?

...

A fully independent and impartial investigation...

South Yorkshire Police's desired finish?

We're told this is planned by South Yorkshire police:

In announcing an investigation of the police's handling of the abuse of at least 1,400 children in Rotherham between between 1997 to 2013, Ch Con David Crompton said: "A fully independent and impartial investigation is required to ensure that people have confidence that organisations or any individuals will be investigated fairly, rigorously and with complete impartiality."

I guess the Chief Constable could have squeezed a few more 'impartials' into that sentence but not many. And it's welcome that this enquiry is happening surely? Or is it just another coat of whitewash painted over over a police force already remembered for the enthusiastic use of such an approach? Read the Chief Constable's wording very carefully - he's no saying what you think he's saying. And such people don't say these things by accident.

Here's what the Chief Constable actually means:

Crompton has begun discussions to identify an appropriate force to carry out the inquiry.

So that's clear then - it's independent in so far as those investigating how South Yorkshire Police responded (or rather didn't respond) to child sexual abuse in Rotherham are police officers from a different force. No indication that any of the enquiry will be conducted in public merely that, at some point, a report will emerge saying that some police officers who are conveniently no longer with the force did some terrible things and failed big time. But that this doesn't reflect at all on the current crop of 'leaders' who, of course, are brilliant, effective and robust.

How much whitewash will be needed I wonder?

....

Quote of the day: on race and crime

****

Anyone who thinks that race does not still, even if inadvertently, skew the application of criminal justice in this country is just not paying close enough attention. Our prisons are full of black and brown men and women who are serving inappropriately long and harsh sentences for non-violent mistakes in their youth.

This is about the USA and comes from a superb article about the militarisation of the police. Don't think for a second this doesn't apply over here.

And the article? It's written by Rand Paul, a Republican Senator. Which rather kicks out at our stereotypes.

...

Why do authorities fear public gatherings so much?

****

We were in Dent. It's lovely place and you should visit - winding cobbled streets, at least three drinking places and it's own brewery in a farm a mile or so up the road. Dent also has an annual beer and music festival, which (as chance would have it) was on this weekend.

So having wandered around the village, paid a brief visit to the festival and generally chilled after our exertions (we'd been for a pleasant walk along the valley), Kathryn and I call into one of the pubs for a drink and a sit. Up to the bar to order a couple of drinks. And to our surprise they're served to us in plastic 'glasses'.

Now I'm absolutely certain that Dent isn't part of some bizarre plastic loving cult. Indeed, I'm pretty certain that the use of plastic glasses is either a requirement of the festival's licence or else the result of many meetings and stern advice from Cumbria's constabulary. Because, as we know, folk festivals in the Cumbrian countryside are places of terror and violence - without these stipulations the festival-goers will resort to glassing eachother in the manner associated with the rougher parts of, say, Glasgow.

It seems to me that these controls - like many others prescribed in the interests of 'safety' - are rather indicative of authority's fear of public gatherings. To give another example, to hold the Cullingworth Gala now requires a licence costing £11 from the Council. It seems that authority cannot countenance any gathering of people taking place without their stamp of approval and the application of a set of pointless controls such as serving beer in plastic skiffs.

The idea that places and spaces in places like Dent and Cullingworth are for people's leisure and pleasure has been replaced with a desire from the police and local council to control, direct and, if not done properly, ban any activity. And especially any activity that might involve drinking, dancing, singing or the playing of musical instruments. Doubly so if the audience might include 'young people'. We are to be treated as infants given a set of instructions on good behaviour by the police and council jobsworths.

For sure, most of the time this isn't a problem - we can put up with booze in plastic glasses - but there is a point at which the costs imposed by officialdom start to put an end to gatherings. Dangerous gatherings like street parties and, but for a last minute intervention, Bradford's annual Boy Scout parade and service are ended because their organisers give up on jumping through hoops and paying out more money on the latest piece of over-the-top crowd management imposed by some bloke from the council.

The police and council fear that these events foment disorder, that all these people gathering together will encourage criminals and that, in some respects, gatherings are merely formalised anti-social behaviour. The authorities would much rather we sat quietly sipping something alcohol free from our plastic skiff - or better still that these inconvenient, even dangerous, events didn't happen in the first place. It's not a vain attempt to silence political dissent but rather an organised endeavour intended to limit and control our pleasure - most often in the supposed interests of 'safer communities' or 'public health'.

....

Water cannon. Policing by consent becomes policing for control.

****

As you drive up Wakefield Road out of Bradford towards the Motorways, you come to a large roundabout on the ring road. And besides this roundabout is an incredibly ugly, brick building with small windows. This is what passes in our city for a police station - the same style of architecture was used the the stations at Nelson Street, Toller Lane and Keighley. These are big buildings dominating the area, bristling with antennae and edged by steel gates and spikes - the Lubyankas of West Yorkshire.

I have felt for some while now that these buildings sum up the relationship between the police 'service' and the local community. Indeed, if you enter these huge buildings you will find yourself in a claustrophobic, camera-ridden entrance cupboard complete with dire warning notices and an unfriendly glass screen behind which is a police officer. Everything about the place - and the police - tells you that you are either unwelcome or to be feared. The idea of an approachable, neighbourhood force is destroyed by these ugly anonymous blocks.

Time was when there was a police house in your village - there was in Cullingworth and I recall visiting a university friend who was village bobbie in a place called Wickham Bishops. But it has gone now - sold off by the force and replaced (if you're lucky) by the occasional drive by of some coppers and perhaps a PCSO patrolling. If you were in a town or a suburban centre, you'll have had a bigger cop shop. It was a reassuring sight with its blue light and open door behind which was a desk and a slightly overweight sergeant with a big smile. These have gone, sacrificed on the altar of efficiency and the preference of police management for control rather than engagement or co-operation.

There was a time when you didn't - except from ne'er-do-wells - hear stories of police intolerance. But now you can read a story like the one Mary Wakefield reported in The Spectator - where one good citizen was cold shouldered by the cops for seeking their help with some first aid for a stricken woman. It is a sorry state when a conservative-inclined magazine tells these sort of tales.

And this isn't a one off - I recall a Cullingworth resident who seeing a couple of officers parked by the roadside popped across to tell them about some drug dealing that had been going off behind the primary school. Rather than thanking this woman, the police officer's response was to ask "have you been drinking" and then to say "ring the number on the side of the car". The woman in question is a middle-aged tee-totaller (yes Cullingworth has one or two) who was out with her friend walking the dogs.

This isn't to say that all police officers are rude and intolerant - at the local level I find them pretty responsive and helpful most of the time. But the obsession of senior officers with 'anti-social behaviour', the willingness to hassle legitimate businesses and the seeming preference for arresting people who've been rude on twitter rather than real criminals all reinforce the sense of a service that has lost its way, forgotten that it is a service not an instrument of social control.

Hardly a day goes by without some grand policeman popping up to call for more powers, more resources or more equipment. Faster cars, helicopters, boats, planes, fancy radio systems, super computers, explosive tools for breaking down doors and sprays or tasers in case the public get too close. And now the police - I'm sure they're so excited about this - are going to get water cannon courtesy of oh-so-liberal jolly boy, Boris Johnson. Second-hand water cannon from the Germans who are getting rid of then because of safety fears.

Forgive me if I am not dancing with joy at this decision. And don't wave opinion polling in my face either - since when did we make decisions on policing or criminal justice on the basis of opinion polls? This decision - ghastly and illiberal as it is - represents another backwards step, a further withdrawal from the idea of a police force that is part of the community. Another illustration that the police now see their purpose as to control the population, to keep us in order rather than to serve us. The consequence of this change - made worse by the police not really having enough to do - is that the idea of 'policing by consent' has finished and is replaced with policing for control. We are not a better society for this change.

...

Advice on free speech for UKIP

****

If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat; And if he is thirsty, give him water to drink; For you will heap burning coals on his head, And the LORD will reward you. (Proverbs 25:21/22)

One of the UKIP candidates for the 'South East of England' (easily the least coherent of the EU 'constituencies') has been moaning about the antics of Unite Against Fascism and Hope not Hate:

Janice Atkinson, as Ukip SE chairman, and MEP candidate, has raised concerns about the way the police may deal with the protestors at the Ukip Margate public meeting, on Sunday,18th May. She has formally asked the chief constable to arrest any protestors who call Ukip's supporters 'fascists', hurl other abuse or any physical assault, for 'hate crime' or under the public order act. 

Now I understand why Janice has gone off like this (presumably under instructions from her fellow SE UKIP candidate one Nigel Farage). After all it's exactly the behaviour we would expect from left-wing political parties, student unions and the like when faced with robust debate from the likes of UKIP. So the naturual response is to fight fire with fire, to take Boromir's advice and use the weapons of the enemy 'for good'.

And the response is wrong-headed - just as reporting a green activist in Cambridge for fact-checking Labour's attempt to damn UKIP's policies was stupid. Indeed if UKIP actually believe in free speech (and Nigel keeps telling us they do) then the party should be welcoming UAF and Hope not Hate into their meetings. OK there's a risk but UKIP would be better served treating UAF and its ilk with the contumely they deserve rather than playing the same anti-free speech card that these left-wing groups so love.

....

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?

....

Racists and left-wing thugs can march but the Scouts can't! The world is mad.

****

When the EDL came to Bradford there were 1700 police manning the barricades so to speak. Not to mention the endless hours of meetings, planning and general fussing over the occasion. Indeed, the professional leadership of the Council can't shut up telling us what a brilliant job they did!

But it seems that an entirely violence free and peaceful march through the City has maybe seen its last steps:

Scouts have held a parade in the city to celebrate St George, the patron saint of Scouting, for decades. But the police has told them it can no longer oversee the march for free, as its national guidelines had changed. 

Now let's be clear about this shall we? The decision is entirely a local decision, the scouts march along the public highway on a Sunday once a year. This is just a daft - pointless, purposeless, bureaucratic and soul-less - decision made wholly in West Yorkshire.

And it is wrong. Wrong that decent folk - men, women, boys and girls - have to pay for a couple of coppers when the protester, the union activist, the racist and the anarchist get their policing for free,

....

A week's worth of government guidance for nannying fussbuckets everywhere!

****

I get a little e-mail from GOV.UK. It's a useful little thing that helps me with the trials of being a councillor. It also reminds me of the sheer fussbucketry of government. Here's a selection of today's government guidance, information and advice:

Late Night levy - Amended supporting guidance for licensing authorities on the late night levy.

Ah yes, that's a secondary tax on us enjoying a night out.

False ID Guidance - Guide to the legislation relevant to false ID, to the types of valid ID, and to what action should be taken when presented with false ID. 

Fighting crime you think? See that bit "...the types of valid ID" - you even need two forms of ID to sign on at the doctors when you move!

Section 19 Closure Factsheet - Explains the circumstances for serving a closure notice under section 19 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001.

You mean you don't know about Section 19? This is the law that's used by police and council enforcement fussbuckets to close down pubs for whatever arbitrary reason they chose. And at whatever time.

Designated Public Place Orders Guidance - explains the powers given to local authorities in England and Wales to introduce designated public place orders (DPPOs).

DPPOs are those 'bans on public drinking' your local paper gets all excited about and your local council loves.

 

"It's not to say people can't be trusted to drink responsibly but it is about setting the right sort of tone. It's about tackling a minority of people who drink to excess and drink in a way which brings all of us difficulties."

Rubbish, it's about stopping people enjoying themselves because you disapprove.

And this is just one week's worth of government fussbucketry!

Now please don't tell me I live in a 'free' country. I'd like to but there are too many nannying fussbuckets who think it's just fine to stamp on, tax, arrest and generally get in the face of anyone who doesn't share their judgemental new puritan, disapproving, po-faced bigotry.

.....

Guns, goths and the welfare state

****

It is always depressing when an individual case is used to justify changes to laws, rules or policies. We know from bitter experience that those extreme cases are never a good basis for change even when our instant reaction is "something must be done".

So the presumption in the Daily Mail that the killing of six children in the deliberate burning of a house is somehow the consequence of "the welfare state" suffers from precisely this problem. It is a matter of undeniable fact that most people who benefit from the welfare state do not set fire to their children so as to protect all or part of that benefice.

So on this basis I'm prepared to accept the argument that blaming welfare for Mick Philpott is like blaming the NHS for Harold Shipman - rather overstating the point. Which isn't to say we should debate whether a family as dangerously dysfunctional as Philpott's isn't made more possible by welfare but to say that welfare didn't make Philpott a callous sociopath.

But those who share this view might like to consider a little consistency. Next time there is a murder involving guns perhaps such folk might like to consider that perhaps it's the person rather than the gun who is responsible for the murder. And that without the motive of the murderer that gun would lie there benign and unused.

And perhaps those people might also care to stop trying to parcel up 'hate' into convenient little categories - the latest being Greater Manchester Police's nonsensical categorisation of "sub-cultures" as subject to the thing called "hate crime". Are goths and emos more subject to attack than supporters of one or other football team? Or tramps? Or, indeed, any number of 'groups' that are targeted for their difference by the sad and inadequate. Again we let one tragic case guide policy-making - it won't benefit the putative victims one jot to know, as the boot slams into their head, that this crime will be categorised differently.

By looking for simple answers - for the single culprit for a terrible crime - we fall into to the trap of seeking something other than human failing. For sure other factors are there too, but most often it's not guns or goths or the welfare state. It's an evil man.

....

So how much do you trust the police now?

****

Especially when they did this:

The officers' statements, presented as official police accounts to the subsequent inquiry by Lord Justice Taylor, were changed to delete criticism of the police themselves on the day, and, largely, emphasise misbehaviour by supporters. The panel found that the operation went as deep and extensive as 116 of 164 statements being amended "to remove or alter comments unfavourable to South Yorkshire police".

The next time you hear the police saying they are accountable remind them of this appalling action. And that it took 23 years for the truth to be revealed. For those police officers responsible to face any form of accountability.

If having elected police commissioners takes us closer to an accountable police force that is welcome. I hope it will be so and we won't simply get the same old friendly placemen. For me, having been brought up to like and respect the police, I'll struggle to take future police statements on trust. And I know I'm not the only one.

.....

It's for the kids...

****

“This is not about curbing the freedoms of existing adult smokers; it’s about giving kids one less reason to start smoking in the first place.” 

...the ones whose Dad's are going to lose their jobs no doubt:


...or the ones shot and killed in the turf wars of smugglers and counterfeiters

If you get a chance before Friday tell the government that the police, business and the unions oppose plain packs, that there's no evidence at all to support their introduction and that the idea won't stop one single "kid" from taking up smoking.

The consultation is here.

...