I wasn’t very impressed to have the City Council Newsletter - “Cambridge Matters” delivered by hand though my door on the morning of election day.

It’s full of charts and articles trying to show how great the current council is.

It has a “Liberal yellow” banner across the top.

I don’t think it was appropriate for the Council to be delivering this newsletter on Election Day, and can’t imagine it was co-incidence.

Richard Taylor
Cambridge.

The interview broadly followed the published questions for the interview, (http://www.imb.gov.uk/docs/DC_10_04__Annex_C_.pdf ) to which I had prepared responses.

I was impressed by the fact that those interviewing me, the vice-chair of the IMB, another IMB member, and an independent panel member, who in my case was a member of the IMB at Nottingham prison had read my application form, covering letter and correspondence with Oakington’s IMB chair in detail. As with many job interviews, one individual (the other IMB member, the board’s training officer) appeared to ask the kind questions you would expect from someone from a human resources department, the other two focusing on the more substantive questions.

The tone of the interview was, as my emails with the Chair of the IMB have been quite confrontational. The Chair of the IMB, in response to my application had written to me stating:

Do you realise that we have no say whatsoever in Immigration Status or how long people are detained for. Will this affect your interest in the IMB work

I replied:

I cannot see where I may have given any indication that I do not understand the role of the IMB, or believe that an IMB has any direct say in Immigration Status or how long people are detained for. In my application form I stated:

“I am aware that in the UK the wheels of the state can turn very slowly, I would like to find out what is delaying decisions on whether to offer asylum or not. I don’t think that holding people for extended periods in these centres is good for Britain or for the people being held. I think the IMB has a role in lobbying, from its informed position, for improvements to the system which would benefit all involved.”

I believe that is a clear and considered statement and does not betray any misunderstanding of the role of the IMB.

Following an initial friendly question, asking about my first impressions of the centre, the vice-chair of the Oakington board quickly weighed into the same point disagreeing (perhaps just for the purposes of the interview?) with my suggestions that the IMB should or could have a role in lobbying democratically elected representatives and informing the UK electorate about what is done in their name in detention centers. My interviewer said that she felt that legal representation was the most important form of representation with respect to those being detained in Oakington, and those detained already had access to that. I don’t think anyone would disagree with that, but she went on to suggest that it such access to legal representation negated any role for the wider public and their democratic representatives in determining what goes on in immigration removal centers.

I had noted that recent Oakington IMB reports had not been made available to the public in a timely manner, this meant that at times when the reports’ contents was getting media coverage the raw report was not available, this was something I said I would want to correct as an IMB member. The interview panel put forward the argument that their role was essentially only to feedback to ministers and that communicating more effectively with the press and public could be detrimental to that. I noted the reports were public documents, but my interviewers appeared not to want to encourage their reports reaching a wider audience.

The final contentious issue was that of “Human Rights”, I had stated in my application:

I am prepared to defend the basic rights and freedoms to which everyone is entitled, though I am cautious that “human rights” is a term which can encompass too much and assuring some rights for individuals can be detrimental to wider society.
If appointed I would attempt, despite any training, to maintain a viewpoint of an interested, educated and caring member of the public.

When I had visited the centre previously one thing I was told by the IMB member showing me around was that was pressure to take human rights to an extreme, the example given was that someone should have the “human right” to kill themselves should they choose to do so. I, and those interviewing me appeared to agree that the prevention of suicide in places like Oakington and other places where people are incarcerated should be a high priority. There is also a lot of excessively politically correct “human rights” in materials produced by the IMB secretariat, and some implication that they want to recruit those who will defend “human rights” at all costs, I stood by my statement that I would not be swayed on such issues during any “training”. I illustrated examples of where I feel “human rights” can go too far by asking the questions - are our human rights infringed because we can’t democratically elect the head of state? and should people in the UK be allowed to have as many children they like? I was assured that the aims of IMB training are primarily not about such brainwashing.

I then asked about recruitment:

In a covering letter with my application on the 2nd December 2007 I wrote:

I believe I have integrity, I am concerned this application damages my integrity as I am not convinced the positions on the IMB are openly advertised and the application process is accessible to all, I have asked what the “local recruitment” process involves and have made some efforts to publicise the positions available but do not have capability to do this as effectively as you or the IMB secretariat.

My concerns over the way in which you were recruiting were heightened when I found out the two members of your board who I have met were neighbors, though I can see this could have been co-incidence.

I specifically asked the independent panel member to note on his declaration (http://www.imb.gov.uk/docs/DC_10_04__Annex_D_.pdf) that the process had been properly run that in my opinion that there had not been a recruitment campaign. I had not applied as the result of any campaign. He agreed to do this. One member of the IMB on the panel stated she had applied having seen a poster in a gym, indicating that at some point there has been advertising - I let them know I felt this was a good sign. However no-one could tell me where I could currently find a poster or other advertisement for the position, the vice-chair used the excuse that Cambridge central library is closed, I pointed out there are at least three community libraries near-by (Milton Road, Histon, and Arbury Coury) none of which have a poster despite the IMB chair telling me posters were circulated to local libraries .

The independent panel member stated that be believed the IMB application form was available to download from the IMB website. I disagreed at the time, and still disagree having searched the site again this evening. My suggestions for improvement of the recruitment process were largely dismissed, with the whole panel resigned to the fact they were working with a highly inefficient and bureaucratic organisations - both in the institutions and the secretariat. I hope I made clear I would be happy with that and would not take on the role - as particularly the vice-chair did during the interview as an apologist for areas where the IMB secretariat is lacking (such as not putting reports up in a timely manner, or forwarding applications to the relevant IMB chair). The board’s training officer was particularly dismissive of my suggestions for improvement to the recruitment process stating that other people weren’t raising the same points, she suggested other people don’t have a problem with a recruitment system which doesn’t openly advertise positions. I have been told that the Oakington board has essentially always been undermanned, and they are not being overwhelmed with applications. The board has only 1 male member currently and nationally only 1% (one or two individuals) of IMB members are under 30. I believe this shows there are clear problems with recruitment, and while I might be the only person who has had the tenacity to get to an interview and make suggestions directly I don’t think that is a reason to dismiss them.

I did not have a chance to note that I was surprised to learn that sometimes IMB members plan to attend the centre alone, for example during an incident, and didn’t put across my point of view that I don’t think that is a good idea on the basis there would be no-one to corroborate what has been seen or heard. If appointed I can’t imagine any serious opposition to this, particularly as the IMB ought be closer to or at full strength and so have more individuals to share the responsibilities between.

I feel I was given the opportunity to put across to the panel who I am, what I believe in, and what I believe I could bring to the IMB, and following the experience I am even more sure I have a set of beliefs, skills and experience, quite different to those of the existing IMB members to offer.

Example Questions and Answers (Based on my prepared notes, updated following the interview to reflect what was actually said).

1. You’ve had an informal tour of the prison – to what extent did it match your expectation of what a prison is like?

It was more dilapidated than I expected, the poor fabric of the place such as the fire door leading outside the secure compound was surprising. If people and their effects were removed and I was given a tour I might assume the place had been out of use for a decade. The state of the canteen serverey counter– dirty with cracked tiles is a specific example of that.

2. It’s not unusual to feel nervous when you go into a prison for the first time. What aspects of the visit surprise or alarmed you? What did you find most interesting?
I am aware that taking cameras into the immigration centres is something people work to avoid, yet I was able to walk in with a camera phone, without being asked to surrender it. I have visited secure establishments and thought the general attitude at Oakington was lax. I took my camera phone out at this point of the interview. We discussed, as I had when I visited previously the potential reasons for this and the same explanation was put forward namely that those visiting as “guests of the IMB” were trusted. The members of the IMB tried to reassure me that generally the standards of security were higher, and a visitor to a detainee would not get in with a camera.

I was surprised by the “jobsworth” nature of the IMB members – a detainee’s complaint regarding access to the Home Office monitor was not recorded in the book of complaints in the IMB office or otherwise acted upon because “we’re not on a formal rota visit”.

The fact the two IMB members who showed me around were next door neighbours raised alarm bells given what I have experienced of the recruitment process, it increased by suspicion that the process was not open.

I was surprised to learn that sometimes IMB members plan to attend the centre alone, for example during an incident, I don’t think that is a good idea on the basis there would be no-one to corroborate what has been seen or heard.

I was surprised that tourists and students sometimes end up in Oakington – highlighting a problem as these people ought to have been sent straight home, people being in Oakington for extended periods simply awaiting a flight home was a problem those showing me around told me existed.

I was asked to specifically address the question of if I felt intimidated / scared coming into an institution like Oakington. I answered saying that while clearly a place where people are locked up against their will has a rather morbid and unpleasant atmosphere I didn’t feel unsafe walking around the site.

3. How did you first become interested in joining an Independent Monitoring Board?

Following the media coverage of mistreatment of detainees in Oakington, I first expressed an interest in applying for the IMB here.

I first enquired about joining the IMB in June 2005, shortly after the BBC “Real Story” documentary and the associated media coverage on Oakington, as I wondered then why it took an undercover documentary to uncover problems, it suggested to me the IMB and other oversight mechanisms weren’t working. More recently I have felt the IMB wasn’t working when the IMB’s 2005 report was not made available online by the IMB secretariat until January 2007.

The vice chair thought she had spotted an inconsistency here, raising the fact that in my application as well as writing the above, I had in a section apparently asking about the effectiveness of recruitment that I could not recall when I first became aware of IMBs. I stated that I thought I was aware that there were organisations such as these for about as long as I had had an awareness that there were prisons, though I had thought particularly about Oakington’s IMB having not been able to read its reports when they were being discussed in the press. I thought this question was aimed at determining which recruitment channels (posters, word of mouth, adverts etc. ) were working and wanted to make clear that my application was not as the result of any recruitment, and in fact I have not been able to find any evidence of any recruitment campaign.

Lastly one question which was not on the list, but was asked by the vice-chair and as stuck in my mind was “Have you looked at the board’s website?”. I replied the board does not have a website (it doesn’t even have dedicated pages on the IMB secretariat’s site) I think IMBs should have such dedicated pages on which they control content. She then asked if I had read the IMB secretariat’s website, I was surprised, and to a degree insulted by this question, as it would be incredible if I had not, and it was very clear from my application and interview so far that I had. I had refered to past reports and their publication dates, had referred to correspondence with the IMB secretariat and to letters sent to chairs and IMB members made available on the site, as well as showing I had considered guidance and information related to the application process.

David,

I support the overall idea you have presented here to connect people with their local police force and to reinforce democratic accountability influence and control within British policing, but I think your proposals need to go further to have the desired effect.

Mapping crime is one way to improve how well informed people are about what is going on where they live. However I live in Cambridge where already every three months a local “Neighborhood Profile” (1) is produced, which describes local problems and trends and on occasion it is illustrated with maps. There is also an online database of crime(2). What you are proposing is not a significant improvement from this existing position. Despite the information we have available about our local police there are very few people using it to hold the police to account and improve service we get from our police. I think there are three main reasons for this:

1. The information available on crime and policing is not sufficient.
2. The mechanisms for influencing the police are not clear, publicised and effective.
3. People don’t feel the police are working for them and are “on their side”.

What would represent a step-change over the current state of affairs would be ensuring the information presented is comprehensive, though no-doubt the police would cite privacy problems with that. The information currently published in my area appears limited to those crimes which come under the heading “Community Crime” which is tackled by “Neighborhood Police”, more serious crime is omitted. For example the police helicopter is burning up my tax money over my house most days (twice today), but I don’t find out why; assaults and drug dealing are examples of crimes which don’t make the public database. The map isn’t the key thing, it’s the data, as you point out in your detailed document if the data was made available the web 2.0 mashups would be made.

In addition to the information about crimes, if people are to become involved in holding their local police forces more effectively to account we need to know more about the choices the police are making, there are limited resources so we need to know the consequences of asking for a particular local problem to be dealt with. There is a lot of unnecessary secrecy surrounding the way the police operate which needs to be broken down to enable informed local input into the way they work. The vast majority of questions I ask of my local police are met by evasive answers.

An aspect missing from your speech is the mechanism by which better informed people are going to be able to influence their local police force. You have previously suggested local directly elected police authorities (3). I believe that at the moment we have enough elected representatives, and the level of participation in democracy is not high enough to support yet more elections to directly elect a police authority and an elected police authority without a significant mandate would be worse than the current position. An alternative you have proposed of electing an individual “commissioner”, or “sheriff” presumably from the ranks of the police (your policy is unclear) will I believe remove the element accountability, oversight and element democratic influence provided by the existing police authority.

I live in an area where my local City and County councillors do have mechanisms for directly influencing local police priorities, I believe they and other elected representatives such as a local MP, or Mayor are the best conduits for exercising democratic influence over the police. Putting the power directly in the hands of people at “beat meetings” as you propose opens the possibility of “mob rule” rather than democracy ie. those who turn up and shout loudest or argue persuasively will get the action they want, which may not be in line with the wishes of the majority. At the moment our councillors are reluctant to try and use the power they do have to set local police priorities, and the police are unwilling to promote public engagement in the process or otherwise support it. There is a culture where a local Liberal County Councillor Julian Huppert, who sits on a Council which appoints members to and receives reports from the police authority, and is a member of the group who set local police priorities can hold up his hands at a public “anti-social behavior” meeting and say : “We have no democratic control over the police in the UK”. I don’t believe things are that bad, but it illustrates the culture which needs to be changed.

The general state of police-public relations has to be in a reasonable state to allow people to consider the possibility of getting involved in setting police priorities. As we find ourselves living in a country which is in danger of becoming a “police state”, with stop and account, non-firearms police armed with TASERs, the threat of ID Cards and a national ID database, is it any surprise that even our elected representatives think that the police have gone beyond the point of democratic control and have stopped working for “us”, and have started to work for “the state”. Just look at the advice introducing the UK to the Masai who ran the London Marathon: “If someone was to see a thief and chase after him and, when they catch him they hurt him, then the person who hurt the thief would go to prison as well as the thief” , or the harassment of photographers due to “misplaced fears about terror, privacy and child protection”(5) for examples of how it often doesn’t feel as if the police are on our side.

Perhaps your new proposed crime maps could incorporate the outcome of any court case, or other penalties arising from each crime? Policing cannot be separated from the courts, I think there could usefully be more openness and accountability there too. A very small proportion of cases get reported in the press. Why can’t courts have websites where the results of cases, and statistics on the punishments given for crimes in particular areas available for all to read. To make that of use we would need to exercise effective democratic influence and control over magistrates and the judiciary, not just the police.

Richard Taylor

1. http://www.cambs.police.uk/myneighbourhood/priorities.asp?teamcode=201
2. http://www.cambs.police.uk/myneighbourhood/crimedata.asp
3. http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=news.story.page&obj_id=130821&speeches=1
4. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=553756&in_page_id=1770
   
5. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7351252.stm

See also the Conservative’s PDF on the Crime Mapping Proposal (The references to “Police Commissioners” suggest they’re either London centric or havn’t fully translated their proposals from those they’re mimicking in the USA).

I did try and post 500 words of this as a comment to the video above on webcameron.org.uk but it appeared to disappear into the ether.

Later Mike Todd-Jones the labour candidate knocked the door and appeared much more coherent. I explained that I opposed ID cards and their associated database, and many other national labour policies I wouldn’t want to vote Labour. He said he agreed with me didn’t support the Labour government wholeheartedly either. I showed him the Conservative’s leaflet and he suggested the bit about scrapping area committees had come from a Labour suggestion to take planning decisions away from them and generally improve them. I gave him my suggestions for identifying the council officers present, not delegating spending improvements such as penny ferry to officers guided by limited consultation, and setting a fixed time for the policing element of the meeting which would mean the police would advertise the meetings. He agreed all those were good ideas. When I asked about planning, and the fact that Labour Cllr Downham had refused to participate in planning decisions saying simply: “I don’t do planing”, he said he would do the same if elected. I told him I wasn’t happy with that, and he explained it was a protest against the fact that councillors can’t get involved in campaigning for or against, or responding to consultations on planning applications they are then asked to vote on. I agree that’s a crazy state of affairs. I suggested that if he was to abstain to make a point he should make sure he explains why he is abstaining, and he gave me a commitment to do just that. He also said that he will judge each case as it arises and might well vote on a particular application if he judges that’s the best way to serve the community.

I’m still waiting to see if Cllr James comes to the door (he said last time when he came on behalf of Cllr Levy the Liberals thought it was impossible for the candidate to canvas the whole ward), but as I expect others do I have a good idea of what Cllr James offers in any case - he sees himself as a specialised councillor dealing with council housing and occasionally forays into a few street repairs. He doesn’t appear to think anything more substantive is possible, his views on policing, congestion, and the growth of the city aren’t really consistent.

Update - Results

• Mike Todd-Jones (Labour and Co-operative) 941 (Elected)
• Tim Hawke (English Democrats) 161
• Rhodri James (Liberal Democrat) 908
• Shapour Meftah (Conservative) 468
• Catherine Terry (Green) 187

Source.

“If you are stopped and the Police Officer or Police Community Support Officer asks where you’re going or what you’ve been doing you should receive a form outlining why you have been stopped.”

The Home Secretary’s 9th of April 2008 response to Sir Ronnie Flanagan’s Review of Policing Final Report states in relation to abolishing the stop and account form that there will be pilot schemes first, and national action by the end of the year. A three force pilot for removing the form has been mentioned: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/feb/07/politics.ukcrime which states: “Jacqui Smith, today announced plans to abolish police “stop and account” forms in three pilot areas “.

Was Inspector Hutchinson correct to say the stop and account form is no longer used in Cambridge? Is Cambridge one of these pilot forces? Has Cambridge abandoned the stop and account form without waiting for the results of these pilots? Would you support the deletion/destruction of data collected, and if not how can keeping it be justified?

Many thanks for giving this your consideration,

Richard Taylor
Cambridge.

“If you are stopped and the Police Officer or Police Community Support Officer asks where you’re going or what you’ve been doing you should receive a form outlining why you have been stopped.”

If Inspector Hutchinson was correct to say what he did, the webpage needs correcting.

Initial Updates:

Kevin Wilkins has said he will look into this.

Cambridgeshire police have responded to me to state:

We will ensure that the Web Page is updated to reflect the current legislation.

They have updated their website, removing the sentence I quoted but leaving a link to a leaflet which contains content with exactly the same meaning, so not exactly clearing this up.

Update 2

PCSO Streeter confirmed to a meeting at the Meadows community centre, Arbury, Cambridge on the 22nd of April that the stop and account form had been discontinued in Cambridge, except if the person being stopped requests a form. Unless the full form is requested all that the person being asked to account for their actions will receive is the number of the officer who stopped them.

This is all that PACE code A section 4.11 actually requires:

4.12 When an officer requests a person in a public place to account for themselves, i.e. their actions, behaviour, presence in an area or possession of anything, a record of the encounter must be completed at the time and a copy given to the person who has been questioned. The record must identify the name of the officer who has made the stop and conducted the encounter.

There was no statutory need for the long form in the first place, the officer handing out his business card with his name and number on is sufficient to comply with the law. All the officer will be allowed to record in this instance is the fact a stop has been made and that he made it, nothing more (otherwise the record of anything else being recorded would have to be shared with the person being stopped). Previously in Cambridge I had expressed my concern that while the police appeared to be recording a person’s explanation for their actions this did not appear on the encounter receipt so based on that I am not entirely confident the police will operate this new system correctly. I do think that as it avoids over formalising essentially trivial encounters with the police the abolition of this form is an excellent step, and one which will remove a barrier between the police and those they are policing as people won’t avoid the police to avoid picking up encounter forms and the database entries which go with them, and the police won’t be made to look silly when they write trivial things (such as “wearing gloves”) on encounter forms as the reason for stopping someone.

Update 3.

Jeff Hill, a Detective Superintendent from Cambridgeshire Police wrote to me apparantly having been passed my request by Kevin Wilkins of the Police Authority.

Cambridgeshire Constabulary is not one of the three pilot sites identified to formally trial the abolition of Stop and Account forms. We have nevertheless, identified it as a bureaucratic and time consuming process that isn’t necessarily in line with our drive to provide a citizen focussed service. As a consequence of this and ‘Flanagan’s’ recommendations around the need to reduce bureaucracy, we have embarked on a three month trail programme of our own. During this period the existing forms will not be completed but a record of the stop, with limited details, will be otherwise recorded in officer’s notebooks. This will reduce the time that individuals are delayed and the level of paperwork that is generated. No centralised record of the stop will be recorded during this period.

I support this and think that as well as delaying the public and wasting officer’s time it will improve the police’s relations with members of the public as they will not be filling out forms and creating database entries based on trivial interactions. It will prevent people avoiding the police so as to avoid picking up more of these forms. The Detective Superintendent’s view of the new policy differs from the PCSO’s in two areas:

• The PCSO stated the person being stopped would receive the officer’s number, the Detective Superintendent’s version has the person who has been stopped not receiving anything at all.
• The PCSO’s version is potentially compliant with section 4.11 of PACE code A whereas the Detective Superintendent’s leaves open the possibility for more information to be recorded by the officer than is shared with the person being stopped making it in my view non-compliant. (But then their old system was non-compliant in this way too as a person’s explanation of their actions was not recorded on the encounter receipt)
• The PCSO said the old form would be produced if anyone asked for it

Detective Superintendent Hill also stated:

Analysis of the trial will be conducted to assess whether the benefits of not using the form were justified in terms of the reduction in delays caused to the public and time saved by officers. This will then be balanced against the loss of stop data and a decision made as to what our process will be for the future. As far as the retention of historical stop data is concerned, this is kept in line with the prevailing MOPI (Management of Police Information) principles and subject of tight control.

Quite why they can’t just tell me how long my and everyone else’s stop and account records will be kept for is baffling. To me it is clearly totally disproportionate for the police to keep computerised records of trivial encounters indefinitely.

The Management of Police Information Guidance states:

The type and amount of information held on an individual must not be excessive and must be proportionate to the risk they pose to the community;

What risk do those who’ve been stopped in North Cambridge for looking over fences, wearing gloves or wearing hoods pose to the community, how is keeping paper records of such stop and account events for 10 years (as stated by Sgt. Wragg to the Cambridge City Council’s North Area Committee), and keeping the electronic record for an unspecified period of time not excessive?

CC: Independent Punter’s Campaign

I have recently had my attention drawn to the cameras in the bowling pavilion on Jesus Green. I am aware there are signs on the building, but believe that the way the cameras are mounted in holes in the wooden wall of the building, behind wire grills make them in my opinion essentially hidden cameras. As usual the area covered is not signed, and if the purpose of the cameras is to monitor the actions of independent punt operators I think that comes very close to, if not overstepping, the point of using the cameras to monitor individuals.

Using hidden cameras, and monitoring individuals in this way are contrary to the council’s code of practice on CCTV usage.

Richard Taylor
Cambridge

Update:

I am sorry Mr Taylor these are not my cameras and I do not know who owns them. We DO NOT deploy covert cameras.
Martin

Alastair Roberts (City Council Safer Communities Manager, and Green Spaces Manager),
Ian Nimmo-Smith (Executive Councillor responsible for CCTV*)

I have recently had my attention drawn to the CCTV cameras in the bowling pavilion on Jesus Green.

I am aware there are signs on the building, but believe that the way the cameras are mounted in holes in the wooden wall of the building, behind wire grills make them in my opinion essentially hidden cameras. As usual in Cambridge, the area covered by the cameras is not signed, and if the purpose of the cameras is to monitor the actions of independent punt operators I think that comes very close to, if not overstepping, the point of using the cameras to monitor individuals.

Using hidden cameras, monitoring individuals in this way and not signing the area covered are all contrary to the council’s code of practice on CCTV usage.

The City Council’s CCTV manager Martin Beaumont has told me they are not “his” cameras he does not know who owns them, stating “We DO NOT deploy covert cameras.”

If these are “your cameras” why is one section of the City Council deploying CCTV cameras in contravention of the City Council’s code of practice on CCTV usage, and why are all such cameras covering public spaces owned and operated by the City Council not under the control of the council’s CCTV manager.

Richard Taylor
Cambridge

*According to http://www.cambridge.gov.uk/ccm/cms-service/download/asset/?asset_id=5685007

Highlights

• Sector Inspector Jon Hutchinson assured me after the meeting that he would ask if stop and account records collected in Cambridge could be deleted/destroyed now records of stops and accounts are no-longer made.
• Councillors removed burglary as a priority for the police in North Cambridge, despite the level of burglary in the area remaining higher than elsewhere in Cambridge. I thought this was a shocking decision, instead they decided the police’s efforts are to be spent educating school children about drugs, and educating international students arriving in the area about crime. (Cllr Blair objected to the proposed police priority of: “Preventing attacks on foreign students” on the grounds of it not being a politically correct thing to say, other councillors including Councillor James agreed it should be amended as they wanted the police to make north Cambridge safe for everyone, the result was agreement on an “education” based priority the wording of which was to be decided later.)
• Inspector Hutchinson stated: “We want people to know CCTV cameras are there”. I support better signage for CCTV cameras in Cambridge, and more support for this is fantastic.

Setting Police Priorities

At the previous meeting I had received an assurance from Cllr Nimmo Smith that the mechanism for setting police priorities in the north area would be explained at this meeting, and he would pursue making the membership and minutes of the non-public “Neighborhood Panel meeting” public.
Disappointingly Cllr Nimmo Smith had not been able to get a response from the appropriate council officer - the Director of Community Services, suggesting that she wasn’t able to respond as she was recovering from the London Marathon.

Guided Bus

There was a presentation by Bob Menzies (Head of Delivery: Cambridgeshire County Council) on the construction of the Guided Busway and the possible impacts for the North of Cambridge.

I asked about the co-ordination of the building of Northstowe with completing the Cambridge end of the guided busway, and the potential traffic chaos on Milton/Histon roads once the busses are added to the current traffic. I asked if such traffic chaos is part of the plan; and will be used to justify the chopping down of trees to allow the widening of Milton road?

The county council officer spoke about how the Northstowe developers had worked closely with council on the guided bus and had funded much of the initial preparation work. He did not make any comment on if the development of Northstowe could be paused if there was traffic chaos in North Cambridge. He stated that there was currently no funding for a guided bus link to the proposed Chesterton station, and his presentation completely ignored Chesterton station - which I view as an essential prerequisite to fully developing Northstowe.

The county council officer denied there would be any traffic chaos on Milton or Histon Roads, suggesting the added bus traffic was negligible.

Policing

I used my opportunity to comment on North Area Policing to:

• Welcome the fact the Inspector attended the meeting, and asked why he had not attended for a few meetings, instead sending his Sgt. I noted that many of the issues raised were in my opinion issues for the Inspector, such as staffing issues in East Chesterton. I also drew attention to the fact that as well as only sending the Sgt. To the North Area Committee, there was a trickle down effect as the Sgt. used to attend meetings at the Meadows community centre and now only a PCSO was sent there despite many people attending.
  [The Inspector indicated agreement]
• Report that at the Meadows community centre Arbury problem solving meeting on the 29th of January the primary topic of discussion was the operation of stop and account. People were reporting being stopped for spurious reasons such as “wearing gloves”, and “wearing a hat”, they were also reporting not receiving encounter receipts having been stopped and having their names and addresses demanded. Parents present also expressed concern that their children were being stopped and asked to account for their actions by plain clothes police on their way home from school. The negative effect of this use of stop and account on people’s attitude to the police was discussed. I am suggesting that the police give due consideration of their actions on the public’s impression of the police.
  [The Inspector noted that stop and account forms had been discontinued]
• Report that at an East Chesterton Anti-social behaviour meeting the main concern of those present was the fact that East-Chesterton used to have 2 PCs and 2 PCSOs yet at the time of the meeting it had only one PCSO.
  [Cllr Blair interjected and complained that I shouldn’t have raised this, as she had just tried to (without clarity, and without gaining a response) and suggested that the chair of the East Chesterton ASB meeting would be making this point, but when the chair did speak she did not raise this issue.]
• I have been asking about stop and account for over a year now, and at the last North Area committee meeting the police attended Sgt. Wragg stated the paper stop and account form was held for 10 years, and that all stop and account were entered on to a database. He did not tell me how long any electronic record was kept by the police, if it included the person who was stopped’s explanation for their actions and if it was just available to Cambridgeshire police or if it was shared more widely.
  [The Inspector assured me individually that the stop and account form information was not shared with other forces]
• The police report appears to omit mention of mini-motos and scooters (other than in East Chesterton). I would ask if as PCSO Streater reported to the Meadows Community centre meeting the Road Traffic Act and Police Act powers were now being used in preference to the Antisocial behaviour act when these bikes were being driven on the roads. I would suggest this should be Police priority in advance of the summer – even if it has not been considered a major a problem in the last few months.
  [Cllr James later said he hadn’t seen any Mini-motos recently and didn’t want to make them a priority; so I have sent him some photos of mini-moto misuse from this week]
• Note the police report omits the a problem on Martingale close which has resulted in two of the council’s RCCTV cameras being deployed there. What is so serious it merits this massively intrusive CCTV deployment but doesn’t warrant a bullet point in the neighbourhood profile?
  [The Inspector said this was due to burglaries, the council’s CCTV manager had told me it was due to anti-social behavior so I have informed the CCTV manager of the inconsistency]
• Comment on the fact the police report notes that burglary remains high when compared to other areas of the City, yet they are asking the committee approve them removing it as a priority.

I was, quite reasonably, stopped by the Chair following apparent prompting from the Vice Chair from speaking, had I been allowed more time I would have used it to:

• Note at both community meetings there appeared to be no clear route for action to be taken on the suggestions being made, with the PCSOs repeatedly suggesting “complaining to the police” or “writing to Sgt Wragg”, both of which I think are inappropriate responses from the police to suggestions made in public forums. The mechanism described in today’s area profile is excellent, but the PCSOs leading the public meetings need to be aware of it, and I would suggest need to take notes at the meetings. At neither meeting the PCSO have a notebook, and while a member of the public gave PCSO Streater at the meadows centre a pen and paper and got him to commit to send his notes from the meeting out via Ecops he did not do so. I do not think the police report is accurately reflecting what is being said at the public meetings.
  [The chair of the East Chesterton ASB meeting noted that I had raised points such as these at the East Chesterton ASB meeting, and she considered them “anti-police” therefore banned me from attending any future such meetings (I have attended two at her express invitation), though she went on to make the point about the PCSO not taking notes at this meeting and the Inspector agreed that this would be a good idea. I think that if the meeting ceases to be an open meeting, it should not receive the support of the police, council, local paper etc. I don’t think a meeting set up with the sole purpose of praising the police should receive such support ]
• The police report appears to omit mention of Histon Road Cemetery, despite Ecops emails suggesting it is a priority. My suggestion here has been to allow PCSOs to visit it more than once a shift if they feel that is necessary. (PCSO Streater reported to a friends of Histon Road Cemetery meeting that he, and other PCSOs was only allowed to visit it once a shift and had no personal discretion).
• Draw attention to a common thread I have spotted in both my own experience of the police and those of others at the public meetings I have attended - that the police tend to respond rapidly if something is currently happening – however minor. An example from East Chesterton was a report of “someone standing on a bin”, yet if someone returns home to find they have been burgled, because there is nothing happening at that time, they don’t necessarily respond. This is an area where I think priorities could usefully change in practice, they should take notice of the fact burglary was set as a priority at the North Area Committee.
• Note that Sgt. Wragg in North Cambridge refuses to raise incidents from Ecops messages, and that this is at odds with the practice of Sgt.Cross in East Cambridge. I think North Cambridge is getting a poor deal here and am concerned this (and deterring people from photographing and videoing lawlessness) is an attempt to reduce the number of reported incidents.
  [I raised this individually with the Inspector who assured me there was no substantive difference, I told him this was contrary to the advice given by his PCSOs who advise phoning. However I note the Ecops disclaimer stating:”Contacting us on E-Cops does not raise an incident …If you are wishing to raise and incident then we require you to phone in …” is still present as of the 16th of April.]
• Note deterring people from taking photographs of lawlessness is increasingly common officiousness across the country. Cambridge’s chief constable supports videoing and photographing crime and anti-social behaviour. The actions of the police are explained as inexperienced, low ranking police officers and PCSOs not knowing their powers.
• PC Steve Hinks has made the front pages of the local press for arresting someone for cycling though a red traffic light, was that appropriate?
• Comment on the fact the police have not advertised the North Area Committee meeting via Ecops and the council have not specifically advertised the police element of this meeting.

City Boundaries

There is progress on expanding the City boundaries in the North of the City. The review document includes a map showing taking in the areas of proposed development around the City boundaries into the City.

Update:

After the meeting I wrote to the council’s CCTV manager:

Mr Beaumont,

You wrote to me on the 13th of March to tell me that the CCTV cameras in Martingale Close were put up to deal with Anti-Social behaviour in the area. Inspector Hutchinson told the North Area Committee on the 17th of April that the cameras were put up due to burglaries, and that a suspected burglar had been caught in the area.

You may be interested to know that Inspector Hutchinson spoke at the meeting in favour of use of CCTV cameras as a deterrent - in respect to a different problem - that of littering outside Campkin Road Tesco.

I heard on your show that you’ll be interviewing the leaders of the main political parties this week so I am writing to you with some of my thoughts on the upcoming election:

During these local elections the important issues to me are the proposed expansion of the city and the associated effect on transport especially the A14 and congestion in the city centre. Another key issue is policing.

One problem I have in deciding who - if anyone - to vote for is that in Cambridge we have people standing as representatives of political parties who don’t support their party’s central policies. I think this matters as although this is a local election the results will be interpreted in relation to national politics; for example my local labour candidate doesn’t support ID Cards but I feel a vote for him would be a vote for the current government and compulsory ID Cards neither of which I support. Of greater local relevance is the fact it is a Labour central government who are making transport funding for Cambridge conditional on a congestion charge but locally Labour appear to offer the strongest opposition to the charge. The other parties are also sending out confusing signals, the Liberal Leader Nick Clegg has stated he doesn’t want Cambridge to be used for a congestion charge experiment, yet in Cambridge City the Liberals are the party most supportive of the charge and are in a position to say no to it. The local Liberal policy of offering discounts to residents is tinkering at the edges and would, by all accounts including their own, make the scheme ineffective. The Conservatives centrally have said “local road pricing schemes are fine but only if they are originated locally and agreed locally” but a Conservative County Council is pushing congestion charging on the people of Cambridge.

As what our local candidates believe often appears so at odds to their party’s polices wouldn’t it be better for them to stand as independents? What value does party politics add to the running of Cambridge?

What do the party leaders see as the role of the councillors and the council with respect to policing? For example whoever becomes leader will be asked to approve the creation, renewal and expansion of dispersal zones in the city centre. We know Ian Nimmo-Smith, the current council leader signs off on these things on a regular basis - does he think they work - would the others continue to use them? More generally on policing - what do the party leaders see as the role of the city council with respect to policing? Is there an effective partnership where there needs to be? Is the experimental exercise in democratic ratification of neighbourhood policing priorities in North Cambridge working?

There are some big decisions to be made which could result in completely changing the character of Cambridge: Do we want to double the number of people living in city? If we are going to massively expand the city do we do it by building tall blocks of flats around the edge of the city and in the fields beyond? Are we going to respond to the increase in traffic with a congestion charge? Are those decisions being effectively being put to the electorate at this election?

Of the defendants I saw there were two eastern Europeans, one person from 222 Victoria Road, one from Jimmy’s night shelter, an elderly British man, and four young apparently local men in their teens/early twenties. I saw eight defendants, all were male. I saw only sentencing, no trials, though I did see many people technically plead guilty, but do so in such a way as to make clear they were doing to under duress: “I have been advised to plead guilty” or “not guilty” … then the solicitor turns to his client and says … “I thought we’d agreed…”) and the client concedes: “OK guilty” having made his point to the court. They then proceeded to try and persuade the court of their innocence while benefiting from the reduced sentence coming from an early guilty plea. This suggests to me that there is too much emphasis placed on getting an early guilty plea, there is too much difference in punishment between admitting guilt and being found guilty after a trial. I think if a defendant is innocent, they should have the opportunity to defend themselves without fear of a greatly increased sentence if they fail to persuade the magistrates they are innocent. I believe, both from my experience today, and my experience as a juror at the Crown Court the current system encourages people who believe they are innocent to say they are guilty, choosing to take the quick certainty of a small punishment rather than take the longer drawn out route of a trial and risk a harsher penalty often appears the sensible rational route. In one case I heard today the clerk even commented that it was “unfortunate” the defendant had been advised to plead guilty. If I am innocent, even if I don’t have a good case for my own defence and feel I might loose, I should still be able to put my defence to the court without risk of worse punishment just for seeking justice.

Currently there are many situations where the rational thing for an innocent person to do is plead guilty and that’s a serious flaw in the system in my view.

Stealing cakes from the Police?

A young Lithuanian was charged with theft of three cakes and a can of Fanta (Value £3.90) from the Police Station in Ely, as well as “resisting a police officer” and the theft of a purse which was found on him when he was arrested. The stealing cakes from the police charge unsurprisingly raised smiles from the Magistrates, Ushers and Probation Officer in court. The defendant pleaded guilty to all charges.

When the prosecuting solicitor started reading out excerpts from her file to we learnt that the drinks and cake were in fact stolen from a stall on Ely railway station (not the police station) however the cock-up was ignored and the sentencing ploughed on. While it had provided some amusement this incident revealed that the defendant’s translator wasn’t enabling the defendant to properly communicate with the court - surely he would have piped up and said he didn’t nick the cakes from the police as that was put to him if he’d understood; it also suggested to me that neither the prosecution or defence solicitors had read up on the case - both appeared to be dealing with many cases that day.

We learnt he had run off from a policeman on Ely station and had been when he was caught he was CS gassed. The individual already had suspended sentences for other crimes, and despite being sentenced for relatively minor crimes today ended up being sent to jail for a couple of weeks as his suspended sentence was activated.

Punching a police officer in Cambridge - just £50!

Another individual’s most serious charge was for assaulting a special constable on duty in uniform (He’d thrown a punch at the officer but no injuries to the officer were reported), he pleaded guilty, and in respect of that charge was only asked to pay £50 compensation to the Special Constable, a decision by the magistrates which was met with incredulity by the clerk and prosecutor - who both politely and formally asked the chairwomen if she was sure, implicitly pointing out that it would sending out a pretty appalling signal and was a shocking decision. The prosecution had already stressed that courts usually for good reason take assaults on uniformed police officers seriously, and the fact this officer was a special, a volunteer, did not lessen the offence, in fact it could be seen to make it worse. The prosecutor noted that the police would want to know why there was no specific penalty/punishment for the offence and asked the bench how their decision could be explained to the police. The reasons given by the bench made some sense: this individual was also on a suspended sentence which was activated by the court as the sentence for another charge so he was going to prison anyway - they were looking at the totality and didn’t see the assault on the police officer as requiring a specific punishment. The prosecutor and clerk pointed out that the Magistrates could have sentenced the individual to a prison sentence to be run concurrently with his existing sentences which might have been a better way of dealing with the police officer assault charge rather than leaving the suggestion that the only punishment for attacking a police officer in Cambridge is £50 compensation.

Drunk drivers have nothing to loose by not giving a breath sample in Cambridge

A young, apparently British teenager was in court having the night before driven his parents Mercedes into Cambridge and came to the attention of the CCTV operator when he tried to go the wrong way down a one way street. The police became involved and by this morning he found himself in court facing a long list of charges, including driving without due care and attention, failing to give a breath specimen, making off from the police and possession of 0.8g of Cannabis (which was found in the car). As was typical for the day he pleaded guilty to all charges, but evidently did so reluctantly, as his solicitor explained - he wasn’t pleading guilty because he was guilty, but because he and his solicitor had decided between them he didn’t have much of a defence. He claimed that he had tried to give a breath specimen but the machine was broken, that the cannabis wasn’t his (someone else could have left it in the car), he also claimed it wasn’t clear that he had been asked to stop by the Police, he claimed he thought the police were trying to get him to move out of the way to let a taxi through - which he did, he moved on, parked and walked off, after which he was surprised to be arrested. As he had pleaded guilty there was no trial, and no opportunity to find out if he was as appeared to be claiming (in all but his guilty plea) innocent. We had no evidence from the CCTV or from the police who had stopped him - who might have been able to tell the court if there were any indications he was drunk for example. Surely if he had been very drunk / drugged the prosecution would have been able to make this point to the court irrespective of the functioning of the breathalyser/intoximeter for example by reading a statement from the police officer who stopped him?

With respect to the cannabis he was given a conditional discharge (which was explained as a warning that if he comes back to court for a similar offence he might be sentenced for today’s offence then in conjunction with the future offence). He was disqualified from driving for a year, which he was told would be reduced to nine months if he went on an alcohol awareness course.

The prosecution were surprised by this, when the court had risen they noted the punishment for failing to give a specimen of breath needs to be higher than the punishment for driving and giving a high alcohol breath specimen. As it is the message the court appeared to be giving out that morning was that if you get stopped for drink-driving in Cambridge and have been drinking excessively - refuse to give a sample and you’ll be given a punishment towards the more lenient end of the spectrum, whereas if you had been shown to have a high amount of alcohol the magistrates’ guidelines would have pointed them towards the harsher punishments.
Sentencing guidelines for failure to provide a sample:

Mandatory disqualification for at least 12 months, a minimum period of 24 months is suggested in the Magistrates’ Sentencing Guidelines and a possibility of 6 months imprisonment*

Expensive Experts

A case was adjourned as a defendant was looking for an expert to give evidence saying that he was medically unable to blow a specimen of breath. This was to be paid for by public money so three quotes from experts had been obtained. The cheapest expert was going to charge £1200 for writing a report, the state were only willing to pay £800 for this report and the expert had stopped replying to the defense solicitor’s correspondence. The magistrates allowed the case to be adjourned for many weeks to allow the report to be obtained.

Adjournment

One case was put-off to another day when it was found that the prosecution had been given charges numbered 1,2,3,6,7 from the police and were wondering if 4,5 were missing. The prosecution solicitor and magistrates openly blamed the police for this (I don’t know where the blame lay), the magistrates asked the prosecution to pass on the fact that they were unimpressed to the police. I feel that if the magistrates feel they need to make a point to the police they’d have more influence doing it directly.

Wasting PCSO’s Time

At one point a PCSO, PCSO 7222 Streater sat in the court for a few minutes (with his radio on until the usher glared at him) until between cases the prosecution solicitor came up and told him he wasn’t needed. I realise police/PCSOs wasting their time sitting in courts is hardly news or surprising, but this instance could have easily been avoided by letting the person know they were not required as soon as the court knew.

Locked up and punished with no “day in court”?

I also saw a request for someone to be released from the cells - the complainant was no-longer cooperating with the prosecution, stating that she was happy that having been in police custody for three days this person had received their punishment. I am concerned that the police and courts were allowing themselves to be used/manipulated by people - they were persuaded to lock thus guy up for the weekend and he never even got to see the magistrates. I think the clerk should not be making such decisions alone, at the very least the clerk could do it in the court in the presence of the Magistrates, having the clerk sitting alone deciding on someone’s freedom seamed wrong to me.

Diva Magistrates

The chairwomen magistrates appeared to be acting like “Divas”, for example one was wearing a piece of jewellery like a large golden “medallion” and sat in her seat it looked as if she was wearing something like a mayoral chain. Another fussed over the temperature of the court room, asking that “something be done about the heat” - the fact there was nothing wrong was made clear by the usher who had to ask which way to adjust it: “do you want it hotter or colder ma’am?”. Another court made a big fuss about a prosecutor appearing infront of them not wearing a jacket; he had to ask for special permission to prosecute in his shirt beforehand and was (seriously as far as I could tell) admonished and warned to bring his jacket next time as his case concluded. The worst big-headedness came with the lunch break, the court rose at 13.15, and the chairwomen said the magistrates would be returning at 14.00. The solicitors and court staff therefore took slightly more rushed lunch break than they would have liked and returned to the court just before 14.00, the Magistrates took more than a full hour and turned up at 14.20 with no apology. Despite this all, including the member of the public, had to stand up as they returned. I didn’t feel the court ought to stand when it had been kept waiting for 20 minutes, I could have stayed sitting down as the court stood as the Magistrates walked in, but I’d probably have been sent to the cells for the rest of the day, and I felt I should watch anonymously and not draw attention to myself as other people’s lives and futures were being decided infront of me.

A Benefit Fraudster?

An elderly man was being sentenced for council tax benefit fraud. At some point he had had £35 000 in an account in his name, and therefore was not entitled to council tax benefit. This money wasn’t his though he claims, and it is agreed it was only in is account for a short period - he says it was en-route from his wife to his children. His case had been found proven in his absence, he was ill and found getting to court difficult, he had attended court previously but missed the session where he was found guilty. At the time of sentencing he had a few small pensions which were topped up by benefits and less than £2000 in savings. He had paid the council back the money (about £6000) he was found to have wrongly received. The man maintained his innocence and was quite infirm and old and appeared to have lost the will to really fight and appeared resigned to his fate - his fine and costs together came to £1990 - that on top of the £6000 he (or perhaps his family who were supporting him) had paid the council. He got a right telling off from the magistrates telling him how his was a serious crime, how the amount involved almost reached the custody threshold, how he had benefited from the £6000 for a number of years.

Begging

Someone charged with begging in Cambridge city centre appeared, without representation (as there was no state aid for representation available for such a minor crime we heard from the clerk), he had received some free advice from a solicitor in the court building though -that advice was to plead guilty - even though, as usual, after pleading guilty he still maintained his innocence claiming that he was asking people for a light, or for change and not begging. He was due in court later in the week on an identical charge, relating to an offence committed before this one, so sentencing was deferred to then.

Clerks

The clerks were excellent at reigning the magistrates in and stopping them doing silly things - for example one bench of magistrates thought someone should be jailed rather than receive a community or supervision order on the basis that they had no address and a punishment other than jail would be hard to administer. The clerk had to diplomatically persuade the bench that they had not meant to say that and come up with better reasons for their decision. The bench had to be reminded that in the absence of information on a defendant’s “means” to pay they should assume an average income, where as they were making their decisions on motoring fines based on what the fixed penalty tickets would have cost (cases were in court because people had not succeeded in paying fixed penalty tickets).

Finally there were also motoring offences dealt with in the absence of defendants, I found it odd that in Cambridge I was seeing offences being dealt with which were committed in and where defendants were from Peterborough which has its own magistrates’ court. I also learnt that when there’s a member of the public in court (me) the prosecuting solicitor has to stand up when they’re addressing the bench, whereas otherwise for the motoring offences they presumably wouldn’t.

The event was kicked off with an older couple raising concerns about inappropriate police priorities; they had had windows broken and had been burgled but not had a visit from a police officer; they contrasted this with the fact that the police appear to respond to other much less important calls - the example they gave was someone “standing on a bin”. Clearly this is a problem with police priorities; councillors at the North Area Committee have attempted to prioritise burglary - this does not appear to have got though to the police at the sharp end.

The PCSO present (who members of the public mistook for a Police Officer, and he allowed them to continue under the misapprehension) shrugged his shoulders and said he had not idea about the prioritising of police responses, saying he was new and only been doing the job for two months.

The PCSO did not take any notes at any point during the hour and a half meeting. I questioned the fact the PCSO wasn’t taking any notes. The PCSO claimed to be able to remember everything he was hearing, and even for it to be potentially used for making decisions on siting CCTV cameras - councillor Blair said that my question was inappropriate and anti-police. I have written an article suggesting police in Cambridgeshire should use their notebooks.

Local resident Tom Conway was present and read excerpts from a letter he wrote to the Cambridge Evening News:

At 5.30pm on March 25, on East Road, a plastic bottle thrown from a passing car missed my face by a couple of centimetres. As it was half-full and thrown cap-first, from a vehicle speeding in the opposite direction to me, it could quite easily have blinded or permanently disfigured me.

In the seven years that I have lived here, I have also had lit cigarettes and beer-cans thrown at me from passing vehicles. Cars have swerved at me. Another heavy object was once thrown at me from a bedroom window, while I was cycling.

When I dared to complain, the family physically threatened me. I was once struck on the head by three youths on the Mill Road rail bridge. Again, when I reacted angrily I was physically threatened. A girl on the Queen Elizabeth bridge once spat in my face as I cycled past. When I turned back to confront her she was gone, but not before pushing another girl off her bike and stamping on it.

I could go on, but the countless cases of verbal abuse, jostling, intimidation and vandalism to my belongings might give your readers the false impression that all of this is untrue. It is not.

Mr Conway complained that there had been no police response, and asked if the definition of “anti-social behavior” would cover what he has experienced. The PCSO asked if there were any witnesses, and said if there weren’t there was nothing the police could do, he said he was sorry but just being honest. Mr Conway noted that CCTV could have been looked at as part of an investigation and that he was able to identify the house from which he had something thrown at him and was threatened.

A discussion on CCTV followed. The PCSO said he had no idea which areas of Cambridge, or even his patch were covered by CCTV and which were not. I support better signing of cameras, in line with the Council’s CCTV policy. Councillor Blair said she thought the “text the CCTV operator” service had ceased, but this was denied by the PCSO who said this system was working well.

East Chesterton used, within the last year or so, to have two PCSOs and two police officers, currently it has one PCSO. The PCSO said there were problems with recruitment, but that a new member of staff was expected soon. I suggested the problem could be solved more quickly by redistributing personnel from elsewhere in the city and noted that on this and other areas North Cambridge appeared to be getting a poor deal from the police compared to other areas such as East Cambridge. The group discussed ways of lobbying for getting these police and PCSO vacancies filled. The north area committee was suggested and I pointed out that the Neighborhood Policing Inspector no longer attended and he was the person who needed to be made aware of resourcing issues like this; others suggested writing to the north area police sergeant.

A member of the public noted that he was regularly using Ecops to tell the police about youths drinking in the children’s play area on Stourbridge Common. I pointed out that in North Cambridge incidents are not raised, and statistics not collected on things reported via Ecops, but that they are in the East of Cambridge, I said the people of North Cambridge are getting a poor deal from the police. The PCSO confirmed this and said that it was necessary to call the police on their non-emergency number to make a difference. The status quo was supported by Councillor Blair who didn’t appear to grasp why statistics were important - I gave the example from earlier in the meeting of putting together a case for deployment of the re-deployable CCTV. I think most of the members of the public present supported raising incidents and thereby generating statistics on which action can be taken from Ecops reports is desirable.

Minor issues of littering and dog mess in various areas were mentioned, and the council officers appeared to take these on board and would pass them on to the appropriate council department - “Streetscene”.

Another shocking incident was recounted by a member of the public, a neighbour had gone out to challenge individuals throwing items at his house saying he would call the police - and allowing himself to be seen calling them on his mobile. Later his car was literally turned over on to its side by youths. It was noted that the police did not turn up for many hours whereas the person recounting the events felt a faster police response was called for and would have resulted in individuals being caught.

The lack of youth workers, and activities for youngsters was discussed, a member of the public noted he had been making efforts in this area but receiving no support.

The group’s chair person asked those attending if they wanted these meetings to continue; the majority of those present indicated their support for their continuation. I took this opportunity to outline my suggestion for how these types of meeting could work more effectively: that suggestions arising from the meeting could be taken by councillors to the area committees where councillors vote on police priorities. I proposed that councillors should take a greater role in these meetings; at the moment they sit in the audience with the public and don’t identify themselves. I suggested they should sit with the Chair, PCSO and Council Officers at the front and should tell the meeting what, if anything they were prepared to take forward to the area committee. City Councillor Clair Blair, and County Councillor Julian Huppert very strongly and passionately spoke against my suggestion. County Councillor Julian Huppert stated : “We have no democratic control over the police in the UK”, he used this the reason for opposing my suggestion, when I explained the role have seen the North Area committee fulfilling, he told me I had got it wrong. Other councillors including Clair Blair agreed, apparently trying to distance themselves from the setting of police priorities, despite being responsible for setting them with respect to “neighborhood policing” in Cambridge City. There is clearly great inconsistency in what councillors, the police and others including council officers believe is the role of councillors with respect to setting police priorities. I received an assurance from the Council Leader Ian Nimmo-Smith at the March 2008 North Area Committee Meeting that clarifying the manner in which Police priorities are set will be placed on the agenda of the next north area committee meeting as at that meeting at least three different versions were put forward by councillors and it was agreed confusion reigned.

The meeting had no agenda, and no effective chair. I believe a councillor could solve these problems. There appeared to be confusion about the other similar meetings which were being held - some of which cover the whole of North Cambridge, and others smaller areas. There was disagreement over what area this meeting should /did cover.

Update: Cambridgeshire police appear to be reading this page from IP: 194.34.150.253 they visited at 12:12, 12.21 & 15:19 on the 3rd of April and at 08:04 on 4th April. They were back on the 9th of April between 14:18 and 14:50.